Good morning. Good morning. Welcome to the March 2025 code enforcement board evidentiary hearing. During this hearing we will hear testimony from property owners and the city's codes 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 ask questions of the witnesses. 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 proceeding. 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 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 violation in a specific time period and a daily fine to accrue thereafter for failure to comply. Failure to correct 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 any uncorrected violation continues after the deadline. If after your case is heard, you wish to appeal the decision. You have 30 days to petition the Circuit Court of Pinellas County. Okay, could we stand for the pledge of allegiance and everyone who is going to give testimony today remain standing so you can be you have a cell phone with you, please turn it off or silence it. If you need to make or take a call, you can step out into the hallway. There are restrooms out in the hall as well as water fountains. The city will have testimony at this podium over here. Anybody that's testifying about your property come to this podium, please. If I may just quickly just for everybody in attendance, we have a large agenda today. Obviously the room is very full. If you've been here before normally we don't have this many cases. We want to make sure that everybody is able to be heard because that's the whole purpose of this. But we also want to make sure we can get through all of these cases and get out of here at a decent time. So please with your testimony, you know, the board is looking for, you know, your arguments if you do not believe you're in violation or the reasons that you need additional time, that way they can make it an informed decision. But I'll just ask you please stick to the facts, stick to the point that you're trying to make to try to get the time or find that you're not in violation. That way we can move through these diligently and get everybody out of here. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moell. All right, could we have our first case, please? Let's do roll call. Yeah, I forgot that, didn't I? Sorry. Let's do roll call. Yeah, I forgot that didn't I sorry all good Wilson here Schneider here, Hensler Bruning Pancha here wait here a cyclist here that completes roll call Our first case item number 58 property owner Prodigy group investments LLC, investigator Jose Rodriguez. Hey, good morning. I'm Jose Rodriguez, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reverence to item number 58, case number 24-14082, regarding property located at 1341, 19th Street South, and I was sworn in at this meeting. Property is a multifamily structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a tenant complaint case. Property was first inspected on August 8th of 2024. And the violation noted sent to the owner with the compliance date of September 12th of 2024. Property was last reinstated on March 17th of 2025. And the following violations still exist. Probably installed exterior, light of main entrance, light is not seated properly. Silling the kitchen area in this repair with signs of water intrusion, AC thermostat does not function properly. The downstairs unit controls the temperature in the upstairs unit. One out of four violations have been corrected since this case began. Notals of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail delivered a certified mail was posted at the violation address on March 11th 2025 which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records but 22458 in page 1796. I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. There are no additional relevant facts regarding this case. I would like to enter to evidence exhibit number one, photographs which were taken on March 17th of 25, document C E B O31725082J 082, JR, and photos 1 through 5. So this first photograph is regarding the light that's not seated properly on star properly outside the exterior main entrance. This is a photograph of the Sillin area. So you see some repairs happening, mave. If you see the areas here, it's evidence of water intrusion. And there's also another picture of the sill in the same area. It was just trying to get a closer picture. It's a photograph of the thermostat. It isn't working properly. And this is the photograph, the elevation exterior of the structure of the property itself. I would like to enter this fact sheet in the evidence of exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Yes. This is the downstairs of a duplex, is that right? It is. There are tenants upstairs and downstairs, so it is a multi-family and the tenant that filed a complaint and the picture just saw from the upstairs unit. It's the upstairs unit. The upstairs unit, yes ma'am. Thank you very much. Yes ma'am. Good morning, ma'am. Could you please give us your name and address for the record? Cheryl Carver, 68-30 Central Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33707. Okay, and how are you related to Prodigy Group? I'm prodigy, the property manager. Okay, so can you tell us why it's taken eight months to fix what looked to be relatively minor violations? I cannot. I'm sorry I did not receive the I mean I just got the notice I guess I for the premise agent for some reason I'm not on that and I wasn't getting them and I guess he got them and I just he called me yesterday to say we had code court today. I did have somebody out to fix the light and we have had the roof replaced in November it was replaced Reggie Reed roofing did it permanent and everything so I think that the interior stuff the light and have been corrected have you been back Jose Jose? I? have been so the first Punanitial complaint that was actually water in the light in the kitchen so that had been corrected So that's the one violation that was corrected, but the other one still remain. Okay, yes, ma'am So he went out and fixed the light I know and did stuff with the ceiling, you know in the inside All right All right. Well, I'll schedule a re-inspector and I'll get back out there. Okay. But I'll get it taken care of right away. Okay. So how much time do you need? I guess 30 days is enough. Does anybody have any questions? I do. The AC, when are you fixing that, the thermostat? I don't know how to fix that that's one unit other than having a lock the tenants knew we bought the property the tenants were already in place and In the initial lease it says that there's one control for the AC There's two controls. There's one upstairs and one downstairs and they kind of battle like I guess. But it's just one unit for it. I don't know what to do to correct that. Well, that's part of the violation. Are you going to get in touch with an AC company to? Yeah, I was going to talk to Jose about it afterward to see what it is we, you know, that he thinks we should do. Mr. Wise or somebody from the city is, because there's two tenants, is it a requirement, a code requirement that there be two separate units, air conditioning units? Yes, they have to have the bill of independent control of the climate with any other unit. Okay, that's all, let's check. So, there you go. So it's possible she might need more than 30 days. Yeah, I mean, it appears so you have to add a whole nothing unit. That's just what it appears. Okay. So yeah, I'll have to talk to somebody because I didn't know that you had to have to. Well, if you would speak to Mr. Rodriguez out in the hall. I will. You can you can then draw up some plans to what you want to do. Okay. I'll read something. Thank you. 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 violation of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Prodigy Group Investments LLC to correct the violations within 60 days or by a date of May 25th. 2025 if this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in that second. Any discussion? Okay, let's vote please. Awe cyclist? Yes. Nidah? Yes. Ancheau? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. All right, ma'am, you have 60 days to get this corrected. Stay in touch with Mr. Arjun. So we don't have to see you back here. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. To the next case, please. Item number 38, property owner Dale Nichols and Sarah Nichols, investigator Jean Medell. Yeah. Good morning. I am Jean Meduille, codes investigator with the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 38, case number 24 dash, 7341, regarding property located at 1021, 12,000 in your north. I was sworn in in this meeting. The property is a multifamily structure and one of the units is occupied by tenant. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on 5.9.2024. An evaluation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of August 1, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on March 21, 2025, and the following violations delexists. The property card interpretation completed for 23, 1986 shows three dwelling units and business tax is receiving for five units. Zoning has not approved additional units. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of herein was sent first class mail posted at City Hall and sent certified mail. The property was also posted at the violation address on 3, 11, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 06223 page 2394. My last contact with the owner prior to today was 324-2025. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day, thereafter for non-compliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit one, photographs which were taken on 5, 9, 2020-24 and 321-2025. Document CEP 032-6's a little bit difficult to see the four units with the four mailboxes. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. Does anybody have questions for staff? I do. Just quick, maybe I want to make sure I heard you correctly. You said it's zone for three units, but there's five. Is that? Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Good morning. Good morning. Could I get your names and addresses for the record? Name is Dale Nichols. Live at 4565, 13th-way, Northeast. St. Petersburg, Florida. I hear the owner. He told me. I own the property, yes. If you're going to testify, ma'am, we need your information as well. Sure. My name is Heidi Horak. I'm going to help Mr. Nichols. He's hearing impaired. And I am a witness and I'm aware of the situation. Go ahead, Brad. for your address please? Sure. 12388 Avenue, Treasurino and Florida. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I'm a witness and I'm aware of the situation. Go ahead Brad. Are you here address please? Sure. 1-2-3-8-8th Avenue Treasure Island Florida. Thank you. Thank you sir. My name is Brad Hussong. I'm a contractor. I've done a lot of work with Dell. Address 246-17th Avenue Northeast St. Pete. 3-3704. Thank you. So, um, stay right next to me. You're only allowed three units and there's five there. So, um, stay right next to. You're only allowed three units and there's five there. So, help yourself. Right. Well, he bought it in 1986 with five units. Um, we, um, have been, we're obviously, we know about the code violation. We've been working on compliance. I'm sure, um, the compliance code officer can attest. We've been, it's quite a bit undue a bit undo two units after that many years so we are in the process of doing that we need more time. We're trying to come in full compliance. How much time do you need? 120 days. I mean they were. Why? It's been since. Well we I'll let the contractor tell you what's been done. Okay thank you you. They pulled that. Yeah, the biggest part is the electrical, getting rid of the electric for the ovens, that kind of situation, and then a matter of common corridors and openings to the unit to try to get it back to just two units. So, and we're three-fourths the way through it, but we were. So. Okay, so you've secured the permits. Yes. There was a fire as well after, and we have closed out the fire permit, but there's a glitch in the system, and it shows it's still open, but it is in fact closed. The power has already been pulled. After the fire permit, we had to put everything back in. So we put everything back in for five units. And now we're having to go back and take out everything for those two units and turn it back into storage area. That's what we've decided to do at this point. It's a long, long time. It's been occupied by lower income and people who are otherwise be homeless up until the fire. So it was not, there was no, you know, neighborhood problems from it or anything like that. So it's kind of a surprise to us and we were working very hard to get the fire permit complied with and now we're dealing with this zoning issue. So how many of the units are rented in? You have five on site. I only believe one is occupied the main house right now and the four units in the back building are not occupied at all because we've been repairing from the fire Any further questions? Somebody make a motion 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 Coz investigator, have not been corrected. The board orders, Dale E. Nichols and Sarah Nichols to correct the violations within 120 days, or by the date of January 24th, 2025, if this order is not complied with, a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in the second. Just a session. Did you say January 4th? Can you revise that? Let me make a correction on that. I wasn't back dating everything. You're not done yet. So now make the correction July 24th, 2025, 120 days. Thank you. Second. Alrighty. Any discussion? Let's hope, please. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Han Chau? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. OK. You have your 120 days. Thank you very much. You try to get it done Thanks So you know they're all jade months. It's okay Next case, please item 109 property owner Tatiana Olga Rodrio Investigator train a miller oh Carl Gordon 9 property owner Tatiana Olga Rodrio, investigator, Patrine of Miller. Oh, Patrine of Miller is not here. Carl Gordon. Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. Interesting. Good. Good morning. I'm Carl Gordon. Good morning, I'm Cara Gordon I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Good. Good morning. I'm Carl Gordon. Coase investigated for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 109, case number 24-18861 regarding property located at 716-29th Avenue, South. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single- structure and an occupant by the owner. This is a tenant complaint case. The property was first inspected on October 29th, 2024, and a violation of the sent to the owner with a compliance state of November 25th, 2024. The property was last reinspected on March 13th, 2025, and the following violation still exists. Illegal dwelling unit, garage and or accessory structure converting into dwelling unit exists on the property. Property card allowance is for one legal dwelling unit on property. The illegal dwelling unit must be eliminated by removing all kitchen appliances and in disconnection of kitchen and plumbing connections. Permanent will be required for removal of gas, electrical and plumbing connections as well as after the fact permits for any improvement that were made to the unit including by not limited to installed of doors, windows and walls. Zero or the one violation that been correct this case this case began. Notice of hearing with St. First Class Mayor posted at City Hall to send certified mail and was posted at the violation address on March 13, 2025. Ownship was conferring the County Fisher Records book 22790 page 0917. Doing a course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Adulsion and relevant facts to this case is that an Ares permit 25-03001708 is currently in process and has been in process data since March 20th of 2025. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on October 29th and March 13th, 2025. Document 03-625-861-CEB and photos numbers 1-6. Here's a front view of the structure itself. By front interest to the illegal dwelling unit. door to the Illegal Dulla unit, another entrance door. Here's the kitchen, and the window unit. A shower, and that's the window unit. the and the and and and my presentation Thank you Got a couple of questions for the city One is how is this property zoned are they allowed a mother-in-law apartment or ADU by right I don't know the zoning district but it looks like the permit that they're pursuing is for converting it back to accessory living space. So that would either indicate to me that they don't want the dwelling unit or that the dwelling unit would not have been approved. I can dive deeper if you need to, but they do have a permanent process to return it to accessory living space instead of a dwelling unit. Okay. And what was the tenants complaint? Basically, the tenant was mainly complaining that it wasn't a legal unit. Oh, the tenant themselves knew it was illegal. Okay. So the home is not owner occupied. The front house, the tenant was in the rear and so the homeowners are in front of this main structure. Okay thanks. Any other questions for the city? Yeah. Good morning. May we have your names and addresses for the record please? I good morning. My name is Annette Redero. My address is 6202 Second Street South St. Pete and I'm representing my daughter Tatiana Redero who is not able to attend today. Okay. So I need to address authorization form to represent the property owner. If you would give that to the clerk please. Jonathan Lee owner of quality construction qualifying contractor CRC 132859. Redstone shall address 82117 Street, North. Okay, thank you. So you have a permit in process to convert this back to living space, but not rental unit. Yeah, and to answer the question, and Mr. Walk had confirmed in you too, but ADU's legal, ALS is legal. We're pushing for the ALS just because we've got a drop in f and provide parking to make the ATU. So we can barely hear you. Is that better? All right. All right. So we're going for an ALS. It's going to be a cleaner and easier permit. I got the sign and seal construction drawings from our architectonic studio licensed architect and engineer. Open the permit on the 20th. Got these yesterday. We'll be submitting them digitally. You guys can push the building department along with any speed and permits to be great, but right now they're currently taking about eight weeks for a primary review of a residential property. So we're going for ALS instead of ADU just because the parking requirements easier. She's got plenty of land to do the ADU later if she does want to go forward with a change of occupancy, but this is going to be the quick start to finish. So we'll be submitting some after the facts. We've already sent the camera down the sewer line. It's pretty good. It's just about right. Properly connected to the city ladder also, we're going to be pushing for after the fact on the plumbing. the RC PVC issue with the plumbing supply from the meter base, which will be corrected when the permits open. Energy calculations will be submitted to determine that the BTU heat and cold on the HVACs good to go. And minor changes to the electrical on the panel, which she inherited the issue, doesn't know the exterior panel. We got to change some breakers to get compliance there. We'll need at least eight weeks for the permit to get reviewed. And then I would request standard construction maybe four months to just get through permitting. It'd be great if the inspectors come out and tell us we're good. But I do have those three minor areas just mentioned that we're doing the correct to get the finals. Okay, so here's how this works. But once you get that permit approved and you pick it up, that puts this case on hold, which means that you have time to do the construction. Thank you. Okay. We unfortunately have no sway at all with the billing department. Not an asker from a small business owner. Okay. Zero. Thanks, Helene. So you will need eight weeks at a minimum, you think, for the permit? So I submitted a 80U in addition in the Old Northeast, like end of January. And so I only got approved last week. Building hasn't touched it yet. So. Okay. Doing our best. How many, I thought I heard you say there are multiple permits required. Did I get that wrong? Is just one permit? No, it's a, so same Pete runs a single main building permit that the contractor or homeowner can pull. Okay. So it's just one that you, it's one permit and then my subcontractors will file onto my permit through a subcontract job card submitted to the city. Okay. They attached themselves to the main building permit. All of inspections are called in under my watch, but I do need... will file onto my permit through a subcontract job card that's submitted to the city. Okay. It tasks themselves to the main building permit. All the inspections are called in under my watch, but I do need the licensing from mechanical electrical and plumbing to sign on. And then, you know, we meet the inspector. So in a perfect world, they'll come and we'll final everything out with the video evidence of the sewer line. So that's going to make it easier for the plumbing. My biggest concern is probably just, maybe just a couple of straps, you know, something if the building inspector wants to say it's not grand-fathered in for not having them, might have to add some twist straps top bottom, you know, bring it down to foundation, but everything's pretty good. It was a garage to just throw up some drywall and it's electrical. Is it still being run and or is it vacant? Thank you. Thanks. I'll turn it on since the order is. I can try. Go for it. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Coz investigator have not been corrected. the board orders Tatiana Olga Raderro to correct the violations within 90 days or by June 24th, 2025. If this order is not complied with the fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? It's vote. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Ancho? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. All right. The board's giving you 90 days. As I said before, as soon as you get that permit issued, this goes on hold. So you can get the construction or whatever, it is you need to do done. So to clarify, so the gives 90 days, we've got, we'll probably have the permit within 60 days. Once that's the permits approved, the next 30 days kind of doesn't matter because it's on hold or we'll be calling it in space. Oh, it's on hold, so it doesn't. So it doesn't matter, but it doesn't matter anything real. So thank you very much for. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. 425 Second Street North. And we are proposing 5. Second Street North. Okay, so move on to item five. Yes, item number 75, property owner Mont 1 6 7 6 regarding the property located at 209 Northeast Lincoln Circle North, it was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a commercial structure and is occupied by tenants and owners. This is an internal complaint case. Property was first inspected on December 31, 2024, and a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of January 7,, 2025. Property was last re-inspected on March 13th, 2025, and the following violations still exist. Perstructural engineer report conducted for a milestone inspection and confirmed by the city building official via field observation. Stairs have significant deterioration and section loss of steel support members of the exterior landing. The stairs current condition are dangerous and unsafe as defined in the Florida existing building code 8th edition and shall be posted unfit unsafe. Stereo's shall be limited to emergency egress only and is limited to five days per unfit unsafe notice. The current condition of the egress stairs need immediate action, failure to make necessary repairs or provide temporary shoring to stairs under the direction of a licensed engineer will, with all required approvals from the building and fire department, will require the evacuation of all dwelling units on the second third and fourth floor. Immediate action to provide shoring under the direction of an engineer will need to be implemented by the data indicated in the unfit unsafe notice. A temporary stair can be installed as an alternate alternative egress path at each stair location as the stairs are taken out of service and repaired or reconstructed under the direction of an engineer. And per city building official, South stair wall is unsafe for use and therefore the building does not have sufficient egress as required by the Florida Fire Prevention Code. They'll be able to make necessarily repairs to stairs under the direction of a licensed engineer that will lie the stairs to remain in service as an emergency exit or provide a temporary secondary means of egress with all required approvals from the building and fire department will require all units on the second, third and fourth floors to be vacated. Two means of egress as a minimum shall be provided in every building or structure section, an area where size, occupancy, and arrangement and danger occupants attempting to use a single means of egress that is blocked by fire or smoke. The two means of egress shall be arranged to minimize the possibility that both might be rendered impossible by the same emergency condition. In every occupied building or structure means of a gross from all parts of the building, shall we maintain free and unobstructed means of a gross show be accessible to the extent necessary to ensure reasonable safety for occupants having impaired mobility. Zero out of two violations have been corrected since this case began. The 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 March 13, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records book 0 4139 page 1060 during the course of my investigation my last contact with the kind of association rep prior to today was February 21st 2025 and the kind of associate rep did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The parkment recommends five days and $250 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant effects regarding this case are. Condominium association has installed shorting. For permits are in process, the ACOM 251002873, the mile 25100 1130, the MP2 25100-2873, the mile 25100-1130, the MP225100-1129, and the MP125100-1126. I would like to enter into evidence. It's a bit number one. Photographs which were taken on March 13, 2025, document 0-313-25676, JCB, and photos 1 to 3. There we have elevation shot of the front of the building. Here's one of the stairwells with the shoring installed. another another stair call. The showing installed. I'd like to answer the spec sheet into evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Can you? Those are metal stairs. Is that correct? Yep. Yeah, there's two. Sure. Can I just add some? Try to summarize a bit to help the board out. So basically, there was a milestone inspection that was completed as required for state law. They found the stairs both on this unit in the next case as well, so this kind of will wrap everything together to be in an unsafe condition. The building official agreed with that and then there were egress issues and that's why Mr. Bernoulli spoke about potentially vacating units fortunately and we appreciate the association's taking some prompt action to do all of that post-shoring because now they are in a condition to where they could be used in an emergency situation. So while the unsafe condition still exists because the stairs have not been repaired, this is a temporary measure to ensure that the units could stay occupied. So that immediate life safety issue is no longer present. The stairs could be used in an emergency situation, but they still have to now tackle, you know, removing those stairs and replacing them and figuring out a way to do that while maintaining egress for those units to remain occupied. So the immediate life safety issue is not there. Those stairs can be used in an emergency, but obviously we want to make sure that there's still this case still moves forward that way repairs are made permanently for all the residents that are there. Okay so are these metal stairs? Yes, steel with concrete. And what's the story with the permit? It's in process, is it the waiting or? No, so the permit's in process. It's been routed for review from January 31st. So it still requires that the building department take a look at it. Okay, thank you. I have a question. You said that the shoring allows emergency usage. So I'm assuming there's another set of stairs that is for everyday use? No, so the elevator should be used for everyday use. Okay. And the stairs would only be used in an emergency situation. Got it. Thank you. Good morning. If all of you are going to speak, I'll need names and addresses for each of you please. Thank you. Karen Mallor. I'm the attorney for the association. And my address is 360 Fifth Avenue, that's Central Avenue, excuse me, Fifth floor, Central Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33701. I'm on the board of the Association for 209 Virginia Champion 209, Northeast Lincoln Circle North, saying P33702. I don't know that I have much to add. Our engineer can bring you up to date on it, but I'm here to represent and answer any questions that could come up. Thank you, sir. Brian Kider, principal engineer, elevated engineering, 3306 West Knights, Tampa, Florida, 33611. And if the other lady is going to testify? She's actually on the second case that was referenced. There's another one that's very similar. Thank you. So your permits in process, how much time do you need to get that permit? Actually, that permit was for the shoring. And actually, I'm the milestone inspector, and I did, and I'm the one who reported the issue, self-reported. We had to, as per the requirements of both the fire and to the building department. That permit was for the emergency shoring because we needed to comply with the five day notice. So the one in progress was for the shoring which we did complete and we made completely safe within the five day, within the five day period. Since that time, we've worked on a pair of repair plans which we have out the contractors the bid. But I've also got, because I'm not confident that it's gonna, I think I'd prefer that they replace it. I think it's gonna be less expensive, but we have to see we're getting the bids back in two weeks, we're supposed to get the bids back. Once we get the bids back, then it'll be the process of applying for permits. And then it will take a little bit of time to do the repairs because we are going to be forced to put a second set of, we're taking, there's only two sets of stairs out there. So when we do the repairs and we pull one set of stairs now we have to build a temporary set and so we can only do one at a time. But they are moving very fast to come the full compliance and if the question is how long is it take are we asking to get the permit in or to get it through permitting. We need to have an approved permit to put this case on hold. An approved permit would likely be it probably take about four months to get an approved permit and that depends on whether we go with the repair plans already done. But if we go with if we go with a complete replacement then I have to get another engineer to do shop drawings. That's what would take a little longer. Okay. Anybody else have questions? I'll read 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 St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Monticello Association the correct the violations within 120 days or by July 24th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day she'll be imposed second you reducing the fine yeah Okay, we have a motion in a second any discussion We're ready to vote a cyclist yes, Schneider yes, Hancha.. Wait. Wilson? Yes. All right, sir. You have 120 days on this one. As I said, as soon as that permit is issued, the case goes on hold. If you should not have the permit issued in 120 days, you will receive a letter from the special magistrate asking you to come to another hearing. Come explain the situation and you will probably get some more time. If you don't attend, lean start. So it's important that you attend, okay? Next case. Item number 76, property owner, Mount, vernan, hermitage, association, investigator, Joseph Brinori. I am Joseph Brinori, co-desinvestigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 76, case 2421673, regarding the property located at 224, northeast Monroe Circle, North. It was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a commercial structure and is occupied by tenants and owners. This is an internal complaint case. The property was first inspected on December 31st, 2024 and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of January 7th, 2025. The property was last reinspected on March 13th, 2025 and the following violations still exist. Perstructural engineer report conducted for a milestone inspection and confirmed by city building official via field observation, stairs at building 6370 have significant deterioration and sections loss of steel support, members at exterior landings, the stairs current condition are dangerous and unsafe as defined in the Florida existing building code 8th addition. And shall be posted on fit unsafe. Stereo show be limited to emergency egress only and is limited to five days per the unit unfit unsafe notice. And per city building official stairiles in building 6370 are unsafe for use and therefore the building does not have sufficient egress as required by floor to fire prevention code. Failure to make necessary repairs to stairs under the direction of a licensed engineer that will allow the stairs to remain in service as an emergency exit or provide a temporary secondary means of egress with all required approvals from the building and fire department will require all units on second third and third floors to be vacated. Zero out of two violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing with sent first-class mail posted at Hall. Sent certified mail delivered by certified mail and was posted at the violation address on March 13th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records book 0 4139 and page 1060. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the Condo Association representative was on February 18th, 2025, and they did not indicate at that time when the violations would be corrected. Department recommends five days and $250 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts, the Condo Association has installed shorting, temporary shorting, and permits are in process. There's an ACON permit 2510-2870, milestone permit 2510-111-18, and an MP2 permit 247-00136. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on March 13th. Document 0-31325673, JCB and photos 1-6. This is an elevation shot of the first set of stairwell. The shoring installed. There's the second stairwell. Same view of the second stairwell. Right now opposite side of that. Second stairwell. Shoring installed. Would like to enter this spec sheet into evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Anybody have questions for staff? All right. So we're going to have to do the names and addresses again. Hi. I'm Eileen Wallen. I live at 637-0 for St. North and I represent the Mountain Vernon Association on the board there and that's in St. Pete. Okay. Karen Mallor, the attorney for the association, addresses 360 Central Avenue, 5th floor St. Petersburg, Florida. Brian Kider, principal engineer, elevate engineering services, 3306, West Knights Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33611. Thank you. So are there circumstances similar here? Can you tell me what's going on? It's exactly the same. This is just a three story billion set of a four story. It is right next door. They were built at the same time. Most likely everything's the same. The same damage. The same emergency shoring was put up the exact same time. And the plans, while there are two separate associations, the plans are pretty much the same. And it's also out to bid as well to contractors. Is there an elevator in this building too? Yes, there is an elevator and not building too. And this one also only has two sets of stairs. Okay. And the timing is the same as the last case. It's the same. I anticipate that we, although there are two separate associations, I had to do two separate bids. I anticipate we'll get the same contractor to do both. It's just a lot less expensive that way, and exactly the same time. All right, so. 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 is stated by the Coz investigator of not been corrected. The board orders Mount Vernon Vernon Hermitage Association to correct the violations within 120 days or by the date of July 24th, 2025. If this order's not complied with a fine of $200 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, any discussion? Okay, so let's vote. Ackless? Yes. Knighter? Yes. Ancha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Yes. All right, you have 120 days on this one too. Good luck. Thank you. Good luck. Item number 63, property owner, Danny Sandbar Sanbar Seid investigator Jose Rodriguez I'm Jose Rodriguez co-investigated for the city of St. Petersburg testifying and reference to item number 63, case number 24, dash 13797 regarding property located at 1105 Newton Avenue, south. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single-family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on August 1st of 2024, and the violation noted sent to the owner with the compliance date of August 26 of 2024. Property was actually inspected on March 20th of 2025 and the following violations still exist. Fence located at front south side of property is over six over height. Fence at front of property beyond buildable area cannot exceed four feet in height. Zedrow out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall and sent certified mail. It was posted at the violation address on March 11, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 22156, page 0404. My last contact with the owner prior to today was on March 25th, was actually yesterday in the owner, originally indicated that the correction would be made by March 19th of 2025. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for our compliance. So additional relevant fact regarding this case is the owner did reach out to me and let me know that they did adjust the height of the side fence so they originally just did the front part of the property. However, they adjusted the east side of the property but not the west side of the property. I would like to enter to evidence exhibit number one. Photographs which are taken on March 20th of 25. Document C, B-O-3, 2-0, 2-5, 7-9, 7-J, R, and photographs one through three. So this is elevation of the structure itself. So this fence right here, the vinyl fence you see in front was at six feet. So they did all to this to four feet or lower. So this fence that you see right here, this privacy fence, the wooden fence has been adjusted now to four feet lower. However, if you see right here on this side of the property, west side of the property, this fence has not been adjusted, which is they're still our invalation. Just let me know what I can do. And just another picture of the elevation. So again this side of the property has been front's been adjusted, however, this part remains in violation. 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 that fence has to be lowered to the house line. Is that it? No, four feet lower. So whether it is the buildable area is the front of the house out to basically the side walk. So again, everything has been adjusted except for the west side of the property. So once that gets adjusted, there'll be a man compliance. So it has to be fixed from the house to the street. Correct. Yes, ma'am. Okay, that's where I was going to ask. from the front of the house to the correct he has to be four feet yes or lower yes sir does anybody else have more questions for staff? Okay. Good morning, man Can you give us your name and address for the record here Anna Costa? 4609 Jackson Row, Tampa, Florida 336 24 Okay, and how are you connected to Danny? And he's my fiance and I have the authorization for to represent his property owner here. You could give that to the clerk, please. We correct the remaining funds yesterday. We take it out. And I think the weekend being complete right now. We just want him to inspect her to come back to see the property. Okay. So if you could speak to Mr. Rodriguez out in the hall and set up a time for him to come by. Yeah and I have featured us through the we did already. Okay. As soon as he sees that it's been fixed the case will close. Okay. Thank you so much. All right. Yeah. Let's do that just in case. 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 Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Danny Sandbar side to correct the violations within 25 days or by a date of April 20th, 2020, 25 if this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Thank you. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second any discussion Okay, we'll call vote please a checklist. Yes, neither yes, and shall yes, wait yes Alrighty so you have 25 days you don't really need it and we get ready when ready to do it Okay, and see mr. Rodrigues up in the hall and get a thank you. Thank you so much. I'm set up. Thank you. Next case please. Okay. Sorry. Item number 163, property owner, Leandro Del Delpino, investigator for zone 15, Jose Rodriguez. I come here. I am Jose Rodriguez, co-investigated for the state of August 24th. I was in the state of August 24th. I was in the state of August 24th. I was in the state of August 24th. I was in the state of August 24th. I was in the state of August 24th. I was in the state of August 24th. I was in the state of August 24th. I was in the state of August August 30th of 2024. Property was last re-inspected on March 17th of 2025, and the following violations still exist. Remove and or properly store our junk trash in the brie or outdoor storage, siding on the sexually structured and disrepair in various areas. Three out of five violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall since 35 mail delivered by certified mail was posted at violation address on March 13th of 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed by County Official Records book 18378 page 0950. During the course of my investigation my last contact with the owner prior to today was on August 19th of 2024 and did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day thereafter for our compliance. I would like to enter to evidence exhibit number one photographs which are taken on March 17th to 2025 document CBO31725858JR and one through five the first pitches the elevation of the property This is a photograph of some of the items that are in the rear yard. That has been removed. It was just a minute, sir. And again, more items in thearks. And this is just one side of the accessory structure. So a bottom portion has been repaired. However, there are other sections where the wood is detaching from the accessory structure or detach garage. I would like to enter this fact sheet to evidence exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Does anyone have questions for staff? All right good morning Sure, it's good to you. Please give us your names and addresses for the record Leandro Del Pino 7367 in the south You're living in this home. I live in New Jersey else. Okay. We need your address. Number 10, lemon wrote, farming the only Jersey. Okay. Thank you. And if you're going to speak, sir, we need your name and address as well. There's no need for him to speak. I'm the owner of the place. I don't know why he's here. Yeah. I was told to be here. My name is Robert. I hope so. So, but I'm just the tenant. You're the tenant. I have no control over any of that. Okay. We are in position 8. Item number 163. So, Mr. Doe, how are we with the things that need to go on at your problem? Most of the things, half of the things have been, the tires have been removed. The doors have been removed. The granite I'm going to lay in front of the garage and I'm doing the siding I show Mr. Rodriguez the siding that I'm putting up, I haven't ready to go so I'll be getting it done by Monday, no matter of fact, but he's going to be 25 days in case something that he doesn't like I can correct it. Okay, Alrighty. So he's asking for 25 days. Let me find out. Does any of this work require a permit? Not that what I can see on the detest garage. No, the area wasn't large enough that I believe will require a permit. Wonderful. Okay. I'll read something. Go. Yeah. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code, as stated by the Coase Investigator, have not been corrected. The board orders the Andro del Pino to correct the violations within 25 days or by April 20th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Snyder? Yes. Anchha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. All right, sir. The board's giving you 25 days. Please stay in touch with Mr. Rodriguez and let him know of your progress. As soon as he inspects and sees that the work is done, the case will be closed. Okay? Thank you, ma'am. Thank you board you Item number 230 Property owner believe and smile incorporated investigators a right on land is Ready Good morning, I answer right. I'm going to investigate it for the young. I'm testing in reference to item 230 case number 241229 regarding property located at 3743 8 Avenue South. I was learning at the beginning of this meeting. This property is a single home and is vacant. This case was a tenant complaint case. The property was first inspected on July 16, 2024. In Valetian, not as a entity owner, we compliance day of September 13, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on March 11,2025 and the young remaining violations do exist. After the fact that permit is required for the young removal and in close of the back door. Four out of five violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, send 35 mail. And it was posted at the Evaluation address on March 11, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. The ownership was confirmed in the accounting official record book, 2007-Fight 2, page 14A7. My last contact with the property manager was on March 14, 2025. And there was no indication when the evaluation would be corrected. That the department recommends 25 days in $150 per day thereafter not in compliance. Addition of Revolent Facts in regard to this case. There is AC unit permit Approved and there is 20 permit 25 03001471 in process It was the year of the year. It was the year of the year. It was the year of the year. It was the year of the year. It was the year of the year. It was the year of the year. It was the year of the year. It was the year of the year. It was the year of the year. It was the year of the year. I would like to enter into every exhibit one, Portals, which works. the inspection was done on March 6, 2025. I would like to enter into everything, exhibit one, photos which were taken on March 11, 2025, document 3, 11, 25, 2, 19, and I have two photos. So this is the front elevation. And this is the enclosed invalation. I would like to introduce fact sheets into evidence exhibit two and this will conclude my presentation. Thank you, Ms. Monidus. So the permit for the door is in process. Correct. It's just under review right now. It was rerout for review on March 13th. Okay, so they did some corrections and send it back. Correct, yeah. Thank you. Good afternoon, our good morning, sirs, sirs. I want to need your name and address for the record please. Robert Erhart, 3138th Avenue North, St. Pete, 33713. OK, and how are you connected to believe in smile? I'm authorized to represent. I'm also with investors choice royalty. They're the property managers. Blake is the property manager for the property You mean just one moment Clerk do we have authorization And you sir Blake Spencer property manager 1661 central avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 property manager, okay So you're waiting on your permit to be approved. Yes, but we'd like to get 60 days to get it all cleared up. Well, as soon as the permit is issued, this goes on hold. I know how that goes. Okay, does anybody have any questions? I had a question from Ms. Melinda's. If once the permits that have been applied for are granted everything that you have cited will be encapsulated in those. Correct. Yeah. The remaining is the back door and that would close that case. Well, I think we have to get a permit for the AC to change out. So. Yeah, but that that part of the evaluation was enacted because the property is vacant and I wasn't able to you know reinspect to see if the AC was fixed so I Saw that AC so that will correct that violation. Okay. Thank you One one you plan on writing it We have tenants scheduled for Just after these violations have been corrected so they're unhauled. So you have a date set up for them or? As of right now, tentatively April 15th. Okay. Thank you. May I say something? So before they rent, we had to do a final inspection on the property. Because all the other violations are inactive because the tenant will allow it. So you understand that, right? Before tenant can move in, she has to come back and take a look, right? Sure. OK. I'll read something. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders believe in smile ink to correct the violations within 45 days or by a date of May 10, 2025. This order is not complied with a fine of150 per day, shall be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Hanchal? Yes. Yes. All right, Sir, if you have 45 days. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye Give us just one I It was 45 days Okay, ladies are we ready for the next case? Are we ready for the next one? Okay. Are we okay? Okay, ladies are we ready for the next case? Are we okay item we lost internet. Oh yeah We're figuring it out. Okay, you say when we're ready. Okay item number 237 property owner Michael singleton investigators a right of Melendez Good morning. I am so right. I'm a land is going investigator for the city of San Pidespar testifying in reference to item 237 case number 24 143 45 regarding properly located at 3701 31st Avenue South. I was running at the beginning of this meeting and this property is a vacant lot. This is an initial complaint case. The property was first inspected on August 14, 2024 and Volition Noticent to the owner we compliance day of October 24, 2024. The property was less respected on March 11, 2025, and the following Valetio still remains. After the fact that permit is required for work in progress, for send-of blocks column in a draw-way. Zero out of one ballad show have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted a city hall and it was sent certified mail and it was posted at the ballad show address on March 11, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Honour Chief was confirming the official county record, book 21519, page 2139. My last contact with the owner was July 24, and there was no indication when the violation would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days in $150 per day thereafter, not in compliance. Additional revelant facts in regard to this case, there was a stop work order issue on August 9, 2024. There is a permit on 24, 09001867 for the driveway in process. and that application was rejected by zoning. Also 24, 0, 3, 0, 0, 1, 3, 9, 4. It was for the unstructured, that was being built and it was ready for correction since April 30, 2024. I would like to enter into evidence XCV1 photos which were taken on March 11, 2025, documents in Route 3, 11, 25, 3.45 CM and I got two photos. So this is the front elevation. This is the structure that we are talking about. So I'm going to show you this second picture. Hold on a second. So when the case started, it started with this project. And after this project, then he demolished the columns and built the second one, which is a metal structure. I would like to introduce fact sheeting to Evident Sivit II and this will conclude my presentation. Okay, Miss Melinda. Are these two separate lots? Is that what's going on? No, it's one lot So and I'm sorry Can we I'm gonna I'm gonna show this picture again because I forgot to mention something Can we put the the picture back? So the other issue is the driveway The driveway was not approved by the sitting. But this is a vacant lot with two structures. Two structures on it. Yeah, access to the structure and no main structure. No dwelling. All right. Is this zone residential? It is a residential area. And is the after the fact for both buildings? My understanding yes. Okay. And Ms. Melendez you said, I thought I heard you say that the city zoning rejected the driveway permit. Correct. The driveway is very wide. So it's like two dryways on the property. So the owner is going to have to do something to come into compliance with that particular aspect of the project. Mm-hmm. Well. And then I'm sorry. The other permit that I think there's one in process, you said? The other permit is for the structure, for the accessory structure. But it's sitting there for corrections since April 30, 2024. Since April of 2024. Correct. So it's been almost a year. Okay. And he hasn't made the corrections so the permit hasn't been correct. I'm sorry. A year. It's been almost a year. He needs to make some corrections and resubmit. Correct. Mm-hmm. So it's been almost a year. Yes. Next month will be a year. Okay. That's what I thought. Anybody Do you have any other questions for staff already? Good morning, sir. Could we please have your name and address for the record? Yeah, Michael, single ten senior. 1751 58 circle south, St. Petersburg, Florida. Okay. How are you using this property? Well, first off for the record, she's saying that lots was vacant, that lot. My parents bought that whole block right there in 1968. Duke Energy wasn't there anything. And my dad used to keep his motor home in that building. And the city couldn't find that building. I bought the permits to the city for that, for that the two garage doors. And she's saying that the lot was vacant and it's never, it's been there since 1990. I wanna say 1990. I believe vacant is that no one's living there. There is no house on the property. Right. Well, my mom, she, she, quick cleaned, deeded over to me. I own, I own a lot behind her house. And when they get done with Cerritti, and I'm gonna tear everything down, and I'm gonna build that, that whole block out. That's my plan. But I've, I've been working with the city down in permitting. The driveway is going to have to be cut so that it's separate. Okay, so you're aware that there are problems with the permit for the driveway? Well, what happened was you could see the first structure. And the engineer and the architect, you know know I lost almost $15,000 you know with all of that work and he was doing independent inspection. So it's been a nightmare for me there. All it is is where I store my classic cars and my RV. There's nothing we can do to help you sir until you straighten it this out with the building department. I have no problem with that You it's been almost a year Well, you know position at the building department is that there are corrections That need to be made to your permit Until those are made the permit will not be issued I understand it Okay What's your plan for fixing whatever's wrong? I'm gonna go get like I said I've been working with zoning for the driveway Okay And you still have the corrections in work for the building side of the thing. Yeah, that's just a temporary car pork. That's not a permanent scroture. I don't think that's what the city said. Is that what the city's position is? He built that structure there, permanently. You know, I mean, it's not a permanent scroture. It's just it's an aluminum car pork. Regardless, it's a vacant lot. There's no principal use associated with the vacant lot. And so therefore, there cannot be anything stored on the vacant lot. I'm still confused. Yeah. But the building was already there. You're asking me to tear that building down. And I don't think. I believe we're talking about the metal structure to the left of the two garage door structure. Yeah, he just built that. So he requires to have a permit. And you're saying the city's position is he needs a permit to do that. Correct. Yes, but the corrections from zoning are saying that there is no principle structure. What he has there is an accessory structure that can't stay there unless there's a principal structure. And there's no... Where I was going with that, yeah. Okay, so, there shouldn't be, he shouldn't be applying for permit because he can't have the structure there. You can't have an accessory structure there, correct? They're never going to give him that permit for just the accessory structure unless he has a main structure. Some main use added on to the property permitted. For what the existing building? It's on the property next door. That's what I'm here. So do both of the structures have to come down in order to be in compliance with the city along with, according to the city, doing the proper size of the driveway as well and And that will satisfy the city along with according to the city doing the proper size of the driveway as well and that'll satisfy the city. According to the permitting department. Yeah. He presented one option at one point to the city that he was going to combine that they can out with the property right next to it. Yeah. But I don't know what happened with that. So, but that was a conversation that he had with me and he was going to present that to the permanent department, but that never happened. So I'm not sure what happened with that. Is your intent to remove those two buildings and fix the driveway? I'm not going to remove the two buildings. If the only thing that I'll do is deed it back to my mom and we'll just make it you know attached to her house That's that's the only thing I that's I'm not gonna take the building down I'm just I'm not gonna do that Okay, so that building's been there in the city and and I took the permits for that the two car garage To the city the city didn't even show that that that that structure was there. And how did they didn't they not see it? And I walked in there with the plans and everything. So how much time do you need sir to combine the lot so you can come into compliance? I'd say at least 60 days. Anybody have any other questions? Well he'll be back for the concrete. But you're in 10 town the driveway. We're gonna cut the driveway in the center where it's two driveways. And within a time frame of 60 days probably not I would probably need a little bit more time in that. Okay. I'll read something. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, a move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Michael B. Singleton senior to correct the violations within 90 days or by June 24th, 2025 if this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. We have a motion in a second. Any discussion? It's vote. A cyclist? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Hands Wait. I got a, I have to recuse. I was out. I didn't hear the case. Oh, OK. Wilson. Yes. All right, sir, the board's given you 90 days. If you can't get the situation resolved by then, you will get a letter to attend a special magistrates hearing. Come to that hearing and explain the situation and ask for more time. Thank you. We'll probably get it. But if you don't come to the hearing, then leans will start to accrue. Understand? Good luck. Thank you. Item number 120. Property owner Bernard L. Whitehead Jr. and Rachel M. Hodges, investigator Robert Hicks. Good morning, I'm Robert Hicks, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item 120, case 24-7408, regarding property located at 5024 Dartmouth Avenue, North. I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by the owner. This is a citizens complaint case. The property was first inspected on 426 of 2024. In a violation, notice was sent to the owner with the compliance state of 8.1 of 2024. property was last reinpected on 322 of 2024 and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance state of eight one of 2024 Property was last reinspected on 322 of 2025 and the following violations still exists For the notice of a noncompliance issued by the construction services and the building department the structures have not been built to approve plans and do not meet the required approved setbacks and the accessory structure is over the allowable square footage. One out of two violations have been correct since the case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted to City Hall sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on 312 of 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records 22728. It's just a front elevation of the structure. It's just a front elevation of the structure. It's just a front allowable size requirement. I would like to enter into evidences. Zip it to the spec sheet and this concludes my presentation. Okay. Okay, if I could just add some additional. Yeah, so one of our problem developers who have been before you guys many times before for either unpermitted work or not building properties to plans constructed this home and then sold it to the current owner. So this is not something that the current owner did herself, but she purchased the property and I believe did not realize the outstanding issues when they did their due diligence. So I just wanted that out there, I'm sure the property owner can speak to it further. But this was a brand new build that was purchased that never got the CO and the reason it did not get the CO is because it was not built to plans. So it's quite a complicated issue to now unravel in order to try to get it approved as is. I'm positional. Okay. So other than a lawsuit what's her recourse? Variances basically to try to get approval for the way it was constructed. And the likelihood of that is. It's hard to know. I mean, that's up to the Development Review Commission, depending on, that's their call. The violation was that it's too big square footage wise but I did I also hear there was a setback issue yeah yeah yeah encroaches into the setbacks of the neighboring property so is it to the properties on either side or yes there are properties in each side and that's where the setback issue is or is it with the alleyway or no it's well it's that but the the half unit exceeds the allowable height. So I'm sorry I didn't hear you It's oversight the half unit is actually oversized Which is causing the zoning get back. Yes Got it Okay, and the it wasn't built to if I heard that correctly the the plans were correct But it wasn't built to the plans. Do we know the plan? Right, yeah. So the city, obviously got the plans. They approved all the plans because everything that was submitted to the city met setback requirements, met the square footage requirements, but then when they actually constructed the home, they didn't construct it to those plans. And then did not get their approved inspections and then went ahead and sold the property. Without a CO. Without a CO. Okay, so that's where it should have been flagged but it wasn't. Yeah, the due diligence in the purchasing of the real estate should have shown that that was outstanding. That's crazy. All right. Could we have your name and address for the record please? Rachel Hodges 5024, Dartmouth Avenue North, St. Pete Florida 33710. Thank you. I'm represent my husband as well, Bernard Whitehead. I'm his legal guardian. He's incapacitated. Okay. We are, well, let me start by saying, I'm sorry for your trouble. Thank you. It almost doesn't matter how much time we give you because this is going to take a while and we know it. Whatever avenue you decide to pursue is going to take time. Do any of the members of the board here have questions? For Ms. Hages?ages. I'll read. I mean, I... Okay, we're going to read something into the record. But I will tell you before I do that... Your problem probably won't be solved within the time we can give you. So you will have to come to a special magistrates hearing and explain the circumstances again and get more time as you need it. Thank you. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected. orders Bernard L. Whitehead Jr. and Rachel M. Hodges to correct the violations within 180 days, or by the date of September 22nd, 2025, if this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. We have a motion in a second. Can I ask it before? Because I didn't, can we do it less than a hundred a day? Or is that the minimum? I don't know. Can we do less than a hundred a dollar per day? There's not a million. Yeah, that's at the board's discretion. Yeah, it's maximum, but there's no minimum. I see $10. 50 is what it needs to do for. Administratively 50's no minimum. I see $10. If it's a minimum, $50 is what it needs to do for. It's administratively 50 years. If it's $50 is a minimum. Say that again. $50. Is it? OK, that's what we're looking for. Thank you. Would you care to amend your motion? Oh well, let me amend my motion. So I want a great question. I want to amend the fine per day amount and reduce it from $100 per day to $50 per day. Second. Okay, motion in a second. Let's vote. Aseclis? I have to recuse. It's my neighborhood. Schneider? Yes. Pantyaw? Yes. Wait? Yes. Wilson. Yes. All right, ma'am. We've given you the maximum we can of 180 days and reduce the fine to $50 per day Okay, but please please please show up to the special magistrates hearing that way the fines aren't important because you won't get Okay, thank you. Thank you. Good luck All right, we're gonna to take a 10 minute break. We're taking a 10 minute break. you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. you Hey 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 more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh Oh Oh Oh and Oh Oh I'm I Cause it doesn't mean Cause it doesn't mean Tell me you don't know Tell me you don't know Oh, it's a bite It's a bite It's a bite It's a bite It's a bite It's a bite I've been trying to breathe on the water I've been trying to hike as I'm scared The shoes and wood just were from the other The shoes and the shoes were from the other the the the the . . the This is the best. 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 gonna go back 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. Yeah. 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 put it on the top right corner of the screen. I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the screen. I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the screen. I'm going to put it on 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 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 you I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the screen. I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the screen. I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the screen. 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. I'm going to put a little bit more careful. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Do we need to repeat the case? Yeah, none of it was on the records. Yeah, I was refreshing as it went along. you you you 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. Are you back up, Lonnie? I am. Well, my wife is here. We're good for a minute. He's going to be back. We're still showing in recess. I know. I know, but after the fact now, it would be today with the fact agenda. You were having problems yesterday. Are we up? Okay. It was a lucky idea. We need to re-read the case because it was not captured on video. So Mr. Rivers, if we could go ahead and read in. Item number five, property owner R, L, and T management incorporated, and investigator Anthony Rivers. I'm Anthony Rivers, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference item number five, case number 24-14029. Regarding property located at 6558, second avenue south, I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and appears to be occupied by a tenant at this time. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on August 7th of 2024 and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of September the 9th of 2024. The property was last reinspected on March 19th of 2025 with the following violation that still exists that's the need for permanent approved inspections required for a new cover patio deck at the property rear, new windows that have been installed around the structure as well as the front exterior door and wall that has been moved. Zero out of one violation has been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall and since certified mail as well as posted at the violation address on March the 11th of 2025. Ownership is confirmed in County Official Records Book 22505, page 1721. During the course of my investigation, I've had no contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day. They're after for noncompliance. As far as additional relevant facts, our record check shows implant tracking, an application for permits, a residential authorization application, the comments in plant tracking show that the plans are ready for corrections. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one, a photograph which was taken on March the 19th of 2025 You'll notice this photo. That's the the front of the structure At this address and here's the area that has been enclosed and converted which used to be a Carport area He noticed the new windows around the structure and the door that has moved from this area over to this area. And so I would like to enter into evidence this particular fact sheet is exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you Mr. Rivers. Have questions? So Mr. Rivers, three quick questions. Is it, you still think it's being occupied by tenants? Yes, well, it appears to be. The last time I was there, there was a car in the drive and I've seen a vehicle there. Okay. And what was the specifics behind the citizens complaint? Like what did it say, like what was the specific complaint? I can go back to that for you. Then the last question is you're looking at that. In the permit, was the additional structure included as well? Yeah, so in the plan tracking comments, that's what they're requiring to be on the plans that they resubmit, that shows all of those things that we cite it. Yeah. You want the exact checks for the complainants? Yeah, just what was the Genesis food? They built a 16 by 20 deck with a roof and the ceiling tiles are coming off. They never put up a permit box and he has never seen anyone come out to do an inspection of the work done. The fence is falling down into the yard. You can see this from the alley behind the house. Thank you. And originally I spoke to one of the neighbors in the area, no doubt who was the complainant across the street from this property and at the time the fence was down now it's up so we can't see that deck. I have some older pictures of that deck that was constructed though. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And this is his... was down now it's up so we can't see that deck. I have some older pictures of that deck that was constructed though. Okay, thank you. Yeah. And this has been ready for corrections since January, you said? January 22nd, yes. Okay, okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Good morning, sir. Good morning. Give us your name and address for the record, please. My name is Ram Tahoe. I leave that 7-3-296 in order. Same piece of floor, though. 3-3-7-10. But you spelled the last name for us? Tahoe, TAHOA. And how are you connected to our L&T management? I work for them. We work for them. We would need an authorization represent or we would need a representative of the management. Unless do you manage the property? Yes. We can hear from the property management. Okay. So the permit that you didn't get to begin with, but is in city process now has been awaiting corrections since January. What are you doing to get that permit issued? As soon as we got this code violation, the front door was moved three, four feet and the cardboard side is the same roof line. Anyways, needs for me. So we got an engineer, his name is Mike Kelly. So he submitted the plans, but he never correct him. He's fighting for his life, he has a cancer. So I couldn't replace him, I was looking for another engineer, and there is a rental manager that rents the property. Her name is Kelly Pylon, if I'm not mistaken, Pylon Pylon. She came to the city, she talked to the inspectors many times how to do those corrections because Mike Kelly wasn't the engineer on file. He's keeping in and out of hospital. He's having, giving a therapist every two weeks. So we tried to get another engineer right now that he was not giving up till now. My property manager, Kelly Pyle, on that method, is seated to correct those, to make sure that those corrections get done. She still insisted that he is engineering file. He has the correct, but he hasn't been able. So I had enough of this. So like a week ago, I got an engineering engineer. His name is Ty Carter. I didn't get his license yet, but just for the record, his name is Ty Carter, TY-C-A-R-T-E-R. So he's coming on a property Friday. Probably he's going to take over all those corrections and get it done When do you think he can resubmit? Well, it's very hard to find I'm civil engineer by trade myself. I use all for Corp engineering Europe for many years I've been in this place for six seven years Can find the right engineer can find the right act that they come they get they never do the corrections. So I'm guessing that I'm going to need like three months probably. I mean, everything is done just they have to correct those. All right. So let your managers know that they can't do work of this scope without a permit for. Right. Definitely. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, the board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders RL and T management ink to correct the violations within 90 days or by June 24th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day, she'll be in post. Second. Okay, we have a motion in the second. Any discussion? Yeah, you got a tenant in there. You did some substantial construction. I'm wondering if we shorten that time frame, just a light of fire. I was just in my two cents. I mean, I hear you, but if the situation is the way he said where there's plans already drawn up, but then the engineers unable to set the corrections, now he's got to get another person to pick up. And I don't even know if the new guy's gonna say, now I wanna do my own plans. You know what I mean? I don't know. They put themselves in the spine. We didn't. They're the ones who built without permits. So that's my two cents. So I'm just, so they put themselves in the situation. Not it. We'll see where we're going. Okay. Yeah. A cyclist? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Hanchaw. No. Wait. No. Wilson. Yes. Yes. Snighter. Yes. Ancho. No. Wait. No. Wilson. Yes. Passes. So that was 3 to 2. Yes. Yes. 3 to 2. I'm already. So, sir, they've given you 90 days. Thank you. You've got to get new plans in and get that permit approved. All right. Within that time period. Thank you. You've got to get new plans in and get that permit approved within that time period. Thank you. OK. All right. Next case, please. Item number 94, property owner North Sunrise Motel 2, LLC, investigate her money quietly. the . Good morning. I am on the testifying and reference to item 94, case number 24, dash 13602. And this is regarding property located at 442 Fifth Avenue North. And I was sworn in at the start of this meeting This property is a multi-family structure and is occupied by tenants This is a codes initiated case the property was first Inspected on July 31st 2024 and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of September 8, 2024. The property was last respected on March 19, 2025 and the following violation still exists. The building officials are unfit, unsafe for use. The entire second floor balcony must be blocked off and secured to prevent access and use. The first floor balcony must be blocked off with the fixed barrier until the second floor balcony is repaired with permits under the direction of a licensed engineer architect. Every post-suring can be installed under the direction of a license engineer or architect. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail. It was posted at City Hall. It was sent certified mail. And it was also posted at the violation address on March 8th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 17132, page 1440. My last contact with the property manager was on March 21st, 2025, and he advised he was going to get plans, he's got plans with an architect to get permits obtained. The department recommends five days and $250 per day thereafter for non-compliant additional relevant facts regarding this case is that the balcony has been Replaced and repaired without Permits in place and I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit one photographs which were taken on March 19th 2025 CEB 032 625602MW. This is just showing the elevation of the structure, and this is going to be the portion of the balcony that was that's been repaired. More of a close up from can see the unsafe structure. the unsafe structure. And then this was just showing where it was just taped off. And I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you, Ms. Wadley. Is something done upstairs to prevent an upstairs tenant from walking in that area? Not since they've repaired it. Yeah. And additionally for the direction that was provided in this notice and that came straight from the building official, the second floor balcony had to be blocked off until it was evaluated by an architect or an engineer. We recognize that they have made repairs but there's no permanent process and we haven't received anything from a licensed design professional regarding it. So this will continue until we have that actually evaluated by an engineer in this permitted. Perfect. That was my next question. Yeah, just mine too, but just to clarify, even though repairs have been affected, it's still the city's position that this is a safety issue, until they get whatever they need from an architect or engineer saying it's not. It has to be evaluated. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Your name and address please. Certainly, Tim Calendrino, 4657th Avenue, North St. Pete, Florida, 33701. I work for the owner of the property. And what capacity is it? I'm his assistant as well as a property manager that oversees other properties for him as well. We just received notice to our office on the 8th of March and that's when I had contacted Miss Watley since then. We've gone ahead and contracted Langen Fafoglia to engineer and architected designs based on a repair that was made. the tenant decided to train handle it on her own, which wasn't appropriate. She was trying to use a ruling of the repair being less than $500, which is not correct as far as needing to pull a permit for it. So, to your testimony, did you never receive notice in July? We never received notice in July, the tenant received the notice in July. I was embroidered into this until March. Okay. So, notice is, so you know, going forward since you managed this property and others. Notices are mailed to the address on record, which is the address that's in the Pinellas County property appraisers office. If you don't have an office address as a mailing address, then you will never receive these kinds of notices. We will give you some time to get your architect or engineer to get plans into the city. But it's been eight months. Yeah, like I advised earlier. That you as a property manager or the ownership had no idea that conditions at this property were that bad, that the tenant was making her own repairs. Doesn't that build well? I can understand. Yeah, I would just like to add. So not only did we send no see address of record, but this was also in an LLC. So notice went to Troy Michigan and also an office upon alternate 19 South and Palm Harbor. So there was mailing that went to multiple addresses that were associated with the LLC as well as what was on property praser. Yeah, overall it's looking like they're just not paying attention. I had a question. So for seven months, the tenant on their own was performing construction on a building and nobody from the company was on premises for seven months and knew that there was construction going on. There are multiple buildings there and that was just one factor that we didn't we didn't review we didn't see it. We saw that the repair had been done and the tenant had advised whoever had gone out of what she had found online with the $500 rule, which I know myself that you need to pull a permit for something like that to have an engineer and architectural drawing as made up. So since, yes. But beyond the permit issue, there was a woman who was performing construction on her own The tent of a building in nobody knew it. No ma'am. Unfortunately. So the tenant actually Contracted for the repair. Correct. All the repairs on the pictures we saw were done by the tenant from contractors that she had hired. Yes ma'am And since we've been notified of this, since I've been notified of this, we have locked the upper balcony off. I do have a little lock in class, but a key so that nobody exits onto that balcony. We've closed off the front entry as well. Looking at the construction that was done, the construction that was done actually was actually really really good. They went ahead and they showed up the ceiling and instead of having beams every two feet they did every foot. They also went ahead and put new six by six posts embedded into concrete and when they do two by 12s, three two by 12s across the header. So the construction that was completed was actually very good work. Hope you're going to reimburse her for it. No, not after this. What we're asking for the designs to be complete, me, engineer drawings to be done is just 30 days since I was just brought into this. Did the tenant send a request? Anybody asking that the work be performed before she undertook it on her own? No, not to my knowledge. Not to my office didn't receive anything. Apparently they didn't know't know they've received code notices either. Yeah, so it's hard to say. I have a question for the city. So the issue here, at least that we're talking about, or that's in front of us says unsafe structure. So this gentleman has said they've cordoned it off and no one can go there, et cetera. Works been done that's now got to get an after-the-fact permit. I take it as what he's done so far put this on hold. Is it we got away for the permit? Yeah, I mean we have no idea if that work is sufficient. Obviously there's no permits pulled for it. So I get maybe let me rephrase the question. So the inspection for the work that's been done can't happen until a permit is required. Okay. That's really what I was getting at. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Let's read something and I'll read something. Based upon the evidence presented in this, I move that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the Coase Investigator have not been corrected. The board orders north sunrise, motel, the second LLC to correct the violations within 30 days or by the date of April 25th, 2025 if the sort is not complied with a fine of $250 per day shall be imposed. Need a second. All right we have a motion in a second any discussion? I think that's too long. Too long. Okay. Realistically though he's got a plan. I know. Drawing it to the city and have a permit issued. Nope. That was kind of my view, doesn't it? Yeah. Let's vote it out and share where we are. Oh, cyclist? Yes. Snyder? Yes. Ancha? No. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. All right, sir, you have no wait yes, Wilson. Yes All right, sir. You have 30 days. Thank you Get that paper work into the city right now absolutely and do what you can to move your management This is an unacceptable situation. I totally agree. Thank you Item number 67 property owner 16th Street Investments, out LC, investigator Jose Rodriguez. 30 days, 250 days. Our Jose Rodriguez co-investigated for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 67. Case number 24, dash 15126, regarding property located at 1046 Teens Street South, and I was swan in that this meeting. It's property as a commercial structures occupied by tenants. This is a citizen complaint case. Property was first inspected on August 19th to 2024, and the violation notice entered the owner with the complaint state of August 30th of 2024. Property was last reinspected on March 18th of 2025 and the following violations still exist. Permits are required for renovations on the interior of building. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing with sent first class mail posted a city hall on certified mail. Delivered by certified mail was posted at the violation address on March 11th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County in Fisher Records book 22717 pay 0987. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the general contractor was on March 12th of 2025 and the GC did not indicate When the violations would be corrected the department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for no complaints Decident of relevant facts and regarding this case are there's an a-con permit number 24-09-0-0-0-0-0-1-4-1 which is in process the last action from the building department is ready for corrections on October 19th of 24. And as of October 28th of 2024, the fire department said it's ready for corrections as well. And the permanent self is for demo and remodel without permits. Some of the details within the permit itself are replacing plumbing fixtures, replace all floor tiles, replace existing gas lines and fire suppression system for hood, all cosmetic. I would like to enter into evidence exhibit number one photographs which were taken on 18th of 25th and October 18th of 2023, document CBO31825, 126 J.R. Photos 1-3-3. This first photograph is the elevation of the store of the building itself. This is a previous picture while the work was being done back in 23 of the inside of the structure. And this is another picture of the interior of the structure prior to all the work being done. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence exhibit number two when this concludes my presentation. So Mr. Rodriguez actually started in 2023? Yes, so when I took those pictures, the original pictures were in 23, yes. Does anyone else have a question to perspective? What was the August 24 date you referenced? What did that pertain to? It was the August 19th and August 30th. So what happened was we had a original case and then it changed owners. So after it changed owners, we realized that the address changed, but the owner was the same. So that was why such a short period for compliance at that particular time. Okay. Good afternoon, good morning, sir. Would you state your name and address for the record please? I'm Justin Cook, 11 of three West, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Sephiron, Florida. I'm here representing the ownership on behalf of the contracting group that's handling this project. We do have a permit that is in review at the moment. We hired an engineer to highlighting the issues with life safety, MEP, structural, and a few other perspectives that are needed to be done and handled and then it is currently submitted and sit and review. Okay. According to what Mr. Rodriguez said, the status of your permit is returned for correction since October last year. Okay. I don't have any information in regards to that, but I can definitely get with the contractor group and the interest of the owner to get that taken care of. Okay. How much time do you need to get the permit issued? I would imagine at least within 90 days I believe we could have it. Probably sooner than that but I think 90 days wouldn't be a bad buffer. Does anyone else have a question? I have a question. The permit is there two permits? No, there's one permit. Just one. In process I'm ready for corrections. That's the one that From back in October Okay And this gentleman's representing them but did not know about it. Yeah Okay, were there any permits pulled for any of the work or was all of this done without a permit. I believe all of this was done without a permit. I can go back through the other permit history. There's other ones that have been closed out. Yes, there was a electrical permit in 24 to replace the light fixtures in the ceiling, but that's the only other thing that I see that would be applicable to the work that was shown. Wow. OK. And when did the ownership change? It just changed in the address. Name. Yeah, the address that was just not the owner. Yes, really not. Yeah. So it's been two years, almost. I'll read something. Sure. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. board orders 16th Street Investments LLC to correct the violations within 45 days or by a date of May 10th, 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. Any discussion? Good. Let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Nighter? Yes. And Sean? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. All right, sir. The board's given you 45 days. You'll light a fire on you. Whoever needs to do this and get it done. Thank you. Thank you. Next case please. Item 183, property owner Molly A. Crants and the Lee Rosen Crants, investigator David Walker. Good morning. I'm David Rock-Walkodes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, Testifying and Reference to Item 183, Case 24-15184. Regarding property located at 44-00, 45th Street South, I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure and is occupied by the owner. This is a citizens complaint case. The property was first inspected on August 22nd, 2024, and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliant state of September 11th, 2024. The property was last reinpected on March 20th, 2025, and the following violations still exist. Any person who keeps or maintains chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, guinea fowl, or any other fowl in a resident district must obtain the written consent of the owners or occupants of any residents within 50 feet of the residents where the foul were kept or remove the foul from the residential district Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began notice of hearing was sent first class mail Posted at city hall censored Fied Mail and was posted at the violation address on March 11th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 2.0057, page 0689. During the course of my investigation, I have not had contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are the owner has documented her chickens and other birds and fowls on her TikTok. The first video being posted on March 15, 2023. The last video being posted on January 3, 2025. There are 39 videos in total. I would like to enter into evidence, exhibit one photographs which were taken on March 20th, 2025, documented March 2025 CB photos one through four. So right here, the 4400, and then the complainant lives right here, and the fence line is this line right here. And the chicken coop, which I'll show you, is behind the bushes over here. And then right here we have little chicken feet underneath the gate. And then this is the coop right here, this white line right here, that's the fence line. And then this is the TikTok homepage where all the videos are stored. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two. Okay, thank you. Just because I'm not sure. Is it required that all of the surrounding property owners within 50 feet agree to this? Everybody has to sign on. Within 50 feet of the coop. Word's located. So in this case, it's an 80 foot wide lot. It's right on the two boarding property lines So if the neighbor to that one side approved it it wouldn't matter on the other side So it's just the one neighbor that has to approve within the 50 feet. Okay, and there's no backyard neighbor It's waterfront property Okay, okay All right, ma'am could we have your name and address for the record, please? Good morning. I'm Molly Cranc, 4400, 45th Street South St. Pete. Okay. So you've heard the testimony and you've heard the explanation of the rules. So it sounds like you either have to convince your neighbor to like your birds or you have to get rid of them. So we have permission from the neighbors. She changed her mind after her dog attacked one of my girls, Dizzy, and killed my Dizzy. Then she decided at that time instead of taking responsibility for her dog trespassing onto my property that she didn't want me to have my birds anymore and changed her mind that was a year and a half after having them in that same location. So and we have written permission at the time of getting them from both neighbors on both sides. So the complaining neighbor did agree to it. Correct. Correct. So I can enter into evidence. I have a timeline of the entire process which started in fall of 2022 where we started talking about obtaining chickens on our property and started discussions with all of the neighbors in the surrounding area, not just within 50 feet, but all of our neighbors to talk to them about this. And all were in agreement. And then when we started moving forward in December and started talking about constructing the coop, we talked to the neighbors that complained, we talked to them again. In December said, as the way that the property is aligned that the placement on that south side of the house would be the best place for them. And again, they agreed. And at that time, the couple that lived there, they were married, and they were traveling. They were getting ready to travel the world on their catamaran so nonetheless they were all in full agreement. We received the chicks in January, everything was constructed and from January through October of that year we were still very friendly. I have copies of text messages that also went that said your chickens are great. I understand, but the situation is that the neighbor rescinded her agreement. So you have to either move the coop to 50 feet away or you have to get rid of the birds. So if I move the coop to 50 feet away to the other side where I also have written permission and that neighbor, if I spend $10,000 to move the coop to the other side, which is what it would take because that side is not equipped to be able to have it and there would be multiple items of construction that would need to happen to move that coop. Let's say I spend the $10,000, I move it to the other side and then that neighbor decides that they don't want it there. though I have written permission, then I have to come back to court and do this again. Yeah, I have a question for the city. Or you were in the birds. When someone gives you written permission. They rescinded, they ran. So it's no longer allowed. Yeah, I have to city of course. We had one neighbor that rescinded, so it of has no envoy to the other approvals. Jewell says a question. So to, to, I'm familiar with this process, if someone gets the written permission, there is no statute of limitations or anything associated. They can rescind it at any moment and then they're in violation. Is that true? Yeah, there's nothing within the ordinance that that references that I mean just states that they have to have permission from the written permission from the neighboring property owner. And it doesn't say for a certain amount of but the complaint came from that same neighbor I believe and so you know, there's nothing within the ordinance that addresses. It's good for so long. Right, correct. So, and the other issue now, I don't know the specific measurements and things like that. I don't think it was something that was addressed originally, but this, the coop is located within the side yard, and it would have to meet the side yard setbacks. So there could be the potential that it can't even be where it's at right now, but without knowing the zoning district, I don't have all the details I need right now, but it, I mean, all of it could be a mute point, honestly, because it's encroaching into the setbacks, that it is a possibility as well. Yeah, but the issue we're talking about is the approval of the council. Right, right. You're saying if they can rescind it anytime and then their inviolation. Yeah. Okay. So. Unfortunately. And that's now two and a half years. We're at two and a half years at this point from obtaining the chickens and having them as pets. Unfortunately, the way the ordinance is written, which is what I was just getting clarification from, they can rescind at any time and then you're back in violation. That's the way the ordinance is written according to the city. So you have a choice. You can relocate the coop or you can get rid of the birds. That's where we're at. Yeah, these are my pets. These are my pets. That's not an option to get rid of my pets. And I will also say that I'm not adding to my flock. We have four girls. We have four girls. And it's not that it's a large amount of chickens. No, there's no way that we can make this OK. You either have to move the coop or get rid of the birds and we need to know from you how much time you need to get that done. What is the next step in the process for me to appeal this? You can appeal. Yeah, you can appeal to Pell's County Circuit Court, the ruling of the board once they make it. Because this could be just an ongoing cycle of if there's a renter in the house next door that comes in that decides that they don't want them on the side next door. After again spending tens of thousands of dollars to redo that side. We understand completely your situation. You don't have to explain anymore. What we're telling you is that the way the ordinance is written, that's all we can do. That's all we can do. We can't change the city's ordinance in here. We don't have that authority. All we can do is give you time to come into compliance. Or you can, again, purve the city. You can take it to the next step, which is the circuit court of the county. Is that correct? Yes, we could also contact your council member because only council would be able to. There you go. So if the ordinance is to get changed, the city council has to obviously vote on that. How long does that take? No idea. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. I'll read some. statute of limitations on this type of thing that could be at least grandfathered back. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Molly a crants and lead W. Rosencrantz to correct the violations within 60 days or by a date of May 25th, 2025 if this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day, shall be imposed. Second. Yeah. Can I ask for more than 60 days? No, ma'am. You need to be quiet right now. Why do you choose that? It just gives us enough time to figure out what she wants to do. And it's a citizen complaint. So we have to take that into consideration. So I was. Yeah. So I was going to do 45 but I changed it to 60. And it has been going on for a while. And it has. It's been gone on since last August. August 24. So I'm sorry. May I address that? No, you may not. No, you can't. Okay. Thank you. Oh, second. Yes. Yes. Wait. No. Wilson. Yes. The board has decided to give you 60 days to decide what you're going to do about the situation, ma'am. If you don't have it resolved within 60 days, you'll get a notice to attend a special magistrates hearing. Please attend that hearing and you can ask for more time. You may get it if you've shown some progress. If you don't attend it that meeting, then fines will start to accrue against your house. May I talk now? Yes. In regards to timing, is it in evidence at this point of the timeline that has not only been discussed but also the timeline of my communication with the city code's compliance and that each, because you address the length of time that's already gone on. The length of time that has already accrued since the violation was noted, I have responded exactly that day and presented evidence and was told, we will get back with you immediately, we need to check on this and then I never was. And I have documentation of that that I can submit to. so I understand this has gone on since August of last year but that wasn't because of any delay on my part. You need to speak to either your council person or with an attorney and go to support. Okay. We have done all we can. Okay. We wish you good luck. Okay. Item number 99, property owner Catherine Lisa with, with dear, investigatumonequadly. I'm going to go to the next floor. Good morning. I am on the code investigator for the city of St. Petersburg and I'm testifying in reference to item 99, case number 24-10412. This is regarding property located at 441 22nd Street North and I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. This property is a single family structure and is vacant with active stormwater only. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on June 18th, 2024, and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of September 5th, 2024. The property was last reinpected on March 19th, 2025, and the following violations still exist. The fascia softet has rotted wood on the main structure. The exterior roof of the structure must be maintained in good repair and must resist water and deterioration from weather. The tarp on the main roof does not comply with proper roof maintenance. Rotted and splintered wood located on the main structure walls. Accessory structure garage has rotted in missing facials. Soft it. There's some tree plant vegetation throughout the property that is overgrown and it's not presenting in a neat and orderly appearance. There's some plant tree vegetation that's encroaching over and into the sidewalk. There's some tree limbs in the front that's encroaching and overhanging the curb, lower than 14 vertical feet and clearance. And there's some items stored on the property, not in an enclosed, fully enclosed structure. And zero out of eight violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail. It was posted at City Hall. It was sent certified mail and it was posted at the violation address on March 8, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records, book 14189, page 1742. I have not had contact with the owner during the course of my investigation, but I did have contact with a HUD certified housing counselor Diane Sardone back in September 11th, 2024, and she did not indicate when the owner would be correcting the violations. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. And I would like to enter into evidence as Exhibit One, Photographs, which were taken on March 19th, 2025, document C E B, 0 3 2 6 2 5 4 1 2 M W. document CEB 032625412MW. This is the elevation of the property and you can see how the landscape is also not presenting in a neat and orderly manner. This is not the right pictures. This is showing the fascia that's in disrepair. This is the tarp, part of the tarp that's on the roof. And here's some splintered wood on the top right corner. Let this repair. Again, this is more of the front and then this is part of the plant vegetation that is encroaching over the curb. That was all for the whole thing. That one. That's the admin. And then this is showing more outdoor storage. And that woman never comes. I'm going to go back to the website of this graph. And that woman of a company. More miscellaneous items. I said. I was going to say anything, but now I'm going to say. And then this is in the back, this is the accessory structure that the fascia area has crowded wood and then you can see on the other side of the main structure there's a part of the tarp. And I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you Ms. Wadley. Can you tell me what the involvement of HUD is with this property? They were just trying to get her assistance to help as what she had just mentioned. I was unsure if it was going through foreclosure or something, but she was just reaching out on behalf of the owner. Okay, so they contacted she didn't call me and it is vacant. That's what you said. It's vacant It's active stormwater and yeah So nobody's living in it as far as I know every time I've knocked nobody's in there Okay You had said there was active sewer only? No, it's storm water only. Is there electricity? That I did not. I thought that was not the highest crack. You said all there is is active storm water. No active water source. I didn't check power. I did not. Because I figured if it's vacant. Yeah. Any more questions for us? All right. Could you please give us your name, Senator Esses? My name is Kathy Lisa. Why dear? I'm going to tell you what I think. Okay. About my boyfriend is good. Yes. If this gentleman is going to speak, I'll need his name and address as well. I was going to say that. No, I need his teller. My name is Richard Birchmeyer, 5310, 11th Avenue South Gulfport, 33707. I'm a general contractor. Okay, and your address, ma'am. She's at 4 4 1 22nd Street. She has a stroke and has aphasia and cannot say numbers. I see All right So she's living in the home not currently because let me talk now Let me say it and you say after man Here's the thing. I need her address. Her current living address. It is the same. 441 22nd app street north. Our south is, what is it? North. 24 1 22nd street north. She's not living there. She's not staying there. She's staying in my house since the storm. FEMA has come in and said that they're going to repair her ceiling and her roof. Her insurance has sent her a proposal for with depreciation and deductions in it. And FEMA's going to cover the roof. She hasn't contracted, but she's got two roofers lined up to do most of this work that's in the code violations through the roofing. And then FEMA's going to help with some tree debris and stuff that came down from the storm. So she has a rougher in line. She's been trying to get in a program where the city was going to replace her, her roof for her, but there were some issues with her mortgage back at the time when she tried to do it originally. And since then this hurricane's hit and the tarps are put up by the group that came by, I can't remember what their name was, but they installed these temporary roofing on by their methods and means. And we're still waiting on a settlement from the insurance company. FEMA won't move until we get that. Once that is, and I have a copy of their proposal, it reduces down to about just enough to cover the roof. Maybe a couple thousand more that FEMA's gonna have to supply, which they will. Now it's just a matter of getting the insurance payment and FEMA and the roofer out there. As a GC, I could help her, but I can't do the roof. That's a separate discipline. It's not in my license. So we're waiting for FEMA to say what they will give her towards the yard recovery so that I can get my crew out there. which I tell them that you have a home and I have a home. You said they know your home. Well, I stay with him because I can't stay in my home because of the ceiling. When the big storm happened, four rooms are watered all over. I'm not very happy about that. And I wish my home was really nice early. I had a better job before. was my job. She's a chemical engineer. Right. I can't say words because I have a stroke. And I do the best thing I can. And I'm not very happy why this woman says she didn't call me or anything. I call I know she's the same woman, but someone call up. They may be five times and nobody call me because I want to say what's going on so that's sad about that. Well the main issue is she's on a social security income only and she can't afford to do all these repairs but I don't have a job but I do also have a job also I work for you as a part-time in their kitchen. Right so I work and I'm not afraid to clean my home, but there's a lot of crap to say they didn't call me. That's sad. Lisa, that's not an issue. Well, that's not right. So say I didn't try. She doesn't understand. Well, I know what happened. I have a way to get a hold of you. If you could please give some contact information to the codes investigators so they can reach you and her. Yes ma'am. With you. That's not a problem. That would help. Yes. That's what I'd actually spoke to somebody on the phone and they asked me to come today to help I'm a close personal friend as well as a general contractor So I will help her with my crew when we get to the aspects on the inside of the house But we can't do anything you know, there's no need to put ceilings in without the roof being repaired. I understand. OK. And then I've had four homes. I've had, I walk 10, 11 states. I've had good jobs all over. I wish she was an engineer. I had four homes. This is my home now and it's a mess. But the pictures that they put here, they have pictures not even the right pictures. I'm not very happy. They were like, is there anything like that? I don't like that. Because I try very hard to put things right. And when you have a big storm and all this water and everything, they upset about that. We just like to have 60 days at least to just get this No, man, man, I'm sure it's going. It's going, man. And then get the I think it's going to take more like two months before we have to do because I got the money now and it takes more time to do that and my home was going to be more pretty and nice but maybe six months probably but I'm not going to give us just a minute. I'm going to give you a little bit of a little bit months probably, but I'm long gone. It was just a minute here then. Does any of the rest of this work require permit? Are there no routes? I think it would depend on, I didn't see how bad the sighting was, I mean, certainly. Those were routes. They're not really cracked. Those are like vine roots that are propagated across the fascia. What I saw from Claude Gaswell deferred to him. Also a certain, a certain man I used to before the plan. When I got to home, I had no plans. None. And not you guys, somebody who give me a ticket and say, oh, you need plants, my God. So I did. And I had a lot of green and oak and so on. So I mean, so now there's a bit of storm happen. A lot of water, the papers, the green are gone now, a lot of them. So. Man, we do understand. Yeah, we do. And we're going to vote on giving you some time to get all of this taken care of. Mm-hmm. And the roofing folks that you're dealing with, that's going to require permits. So the, oh yes, they'll pull their own separate roofing permits if there's interior permits that are required for the ceiling and electrical, all that, I'll handle that part. No, so as you know, my home is very old. It's a, what does it say? I don't know. It's a 50. It's a 50. It's a 50. It's a 50. It's a 50. It's a 50. It's a 50. It's a 50. It's a 50. It's a 50. We understand that. that. I had a, can you maybe just get it so it's so the landscaping issue is that something that? Yeah I can come out there and trim off the sidewalks and I've done that several times over the months to keep the bushes off the sidewalks. Oh oh yeah that yeah, that's another thing. My boyfriend, he does fix my home, maybe one, two, or three times, so it's all clean. The picture's, I know she's doing the best. She's, it doesn't, yeah, but the picture's, wasn't even right because when the storm happened, Richard already cleaned. They both come in. That's okay. Yeah, so yeah, we understand that. Yeah, and I had a friend he died later. He worked in Tampa. Yeah, we need to do our thing here. OK, I'll read some. 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 same peaters for city code. As stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders, Catherine Lisa, to correct the violations within 60 days or by the date of May 25th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Remark. Okay. Okay. We have a move. Any discussion? We think 60 is going to get it. No, it will be more like this. It will be this month. I was like, they get the roofing company that they've talked to. The FEMA money sounds like it's right around the corner. If they get the roof repaired and clean up the landscaping, I think does that address all of the current issues? It looks like it. There were some exterior walls. They all over. A lot of pictures don't even write. Debris clean up on the front porch. Is that? Yeah, but some of that stuff. And some water. There's this June. Yeah. I wouldn't really like. But this has been since June. You've been here a whole time. You guys think both, yeah. They're both thinking more time. I don't know. And again, I know this was a citizen. Exactly. It's been since June before both hurricanes. Yeah, you can't walk. All right. let's go over that. Yeah. A sec list? Excuse me? Yes. Schneider? Sculpting. Yes. Cancha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. OK, ma'am, you have 60 days. What did you say? Two months. Okay. Two months. To get this started. I don't know if you'll finish within 60 days, but if you don't, you'll get a notice about a special magistrate's hearing. Come to the hearing and ask for more time. You can tell them what progress you've made and that you're working on it. And you may for all I know still be waiting on that FEMA check. Excuse me. By the way the notice for the magistrate meeting is going to go to the property that no one's living in right now. Be advised that's where things are being sent to. Is it sent to the full one as you as opposed to the box as well? Richard, I get in my mail. Okay. The box. Yeah. I'm smarter than you think. Because then, I happen to rule. It's hard to get the mail and you know that. Okay, you know that. So, there is a PO box. Yes, good. And they do check it. Good. That's good. Yes. If you could please meet Ms. Wadley out in the hall and make sure she has a way to get in contact with you either by email or by phone, it would help. Yeah, because I called them so many times. They never call me. I'm not very happy. Thank you for the extension. Also, I do want to tell you that I would like to, if I could, give me the transcript. Yes, so I can see what you've been said. Is there a way to get a transcript out of the words? I'll talk to them. Because she has a face and she probably didn't When will we have it? She'll talk to you about okay. Thank you. Okay Item number 80 case 2413456 regarding the property located at 556 Northmore Avenue North was worn in at this meeting This property is a single family structure and is occupied by owner. It's a sea click fix case property was first inspected August 9th, 2024, and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance state of September 4th, 2024. Property was last re-inspected on March 13th, 2025, and the following violation still exists. Areas of the offense are broken, leaning, falling, and are missing, and various areas of the fascia and soffit are either in disrepair and or missing. Five out of seven violations have been corrected since this case began. The 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 March 13th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 17499, page 0816. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today was March 13th. 2025 and the owner did indicate that the violations would be corrected by late May early April. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are the owner has installed a new roof with an approved permit 211-001237 and an approved final inspection happened November 23rd, 2024. Some of the fascia was replaced at that time and would just need to be painted. And the owner has scheduled the remaining work in April and today, she verified that some of the areas or maybe all the areas of the fonts have been repaired. I'd like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one, photographs which were taken on March 13th, 2025, document 031-325-456, JCB and photos one to four. Oh, it's all the same. Well, did it time out? I'll come on. Sorry. I fell asleep right as you were switching over. This is the happens. So here we have an elevation shot. An area where the fence was damaged. Some of the fascia that was replaced during the roughing work, but just needs to be painted. And some of the areas that would still need to be dressed as far as the fasoshis have it. Yes, 43 was marked on. I'd like to answer this fact. Students' evidence has exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. Does anybody have questions for staff? Yep. Good afternoon, ma'am. Hi. Could you state your name and address for the record, please? Robin Casey Weber, 556. North Moore Avenue, North. St. Petersburg, Florida. Thank you. How much more time do you need to get done here? I'm working on, I have someone coming in about three weeks. It's going to help me with the rest of my soft fit in fascia. OK, great. I thought it was included in my $20,000 roof. But apparently not. It's not. Barn. OK, so no permit required. No, the roof was permitted. The roof was permitted, but does she need a permit for the softened patient? I imagine that was included within the roof, typically if they're doing that work, too, it gets included in the roof permit. So it's still, even though there was a final inspection. Yeah, if it just needed the pain and stuff like that that would be. And most of the time if they're not doing the entire home, you know, all the way around the roof then a lot of times just those minor repairs don't require permit. Okay. That's sort of what I was told because it's where they had to put new fascia that they had to take down the old soft fit. Okay, so do we have any more questions? because it's where they had to put new fascia that they had to take down the old soft. Right. Okay, so do we have any more questions? So you think you'll be done by the end of April? I am asking for the end of May. I have someone coming the end of April to help me with. Okay, I'll read it if you want. Okay. 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 are stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected. The Board orders Robin Casey Weber to correct the violations within 60 days or by May 25th, 2025. If this order is not complied with the fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Let's vote. Oh, cyclists? Yes. Niter? Yes. Hensha? Yes. Wait. Yes. We'll send. Yes. Thank you. You have 60 days. Thank you. Thank you. Next case, please. Item 187, property owner George Higgins, investigator David Walker. Good morning. I'm David Rock Walker. Codes investigated for the City of St. Petersburg testifying in reference to item 187. Case 24-187-93 regarding property located at 5,998 Grove Street South I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by the owner. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on October 29th, 2024, and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of November 27th, 2024. The property was last reinpected on March 18th, 2025, and the following violation still exists. The oak at the rear of the property has been determined to be creating an intimate hazard to the abutting property to the east and utility lines in the area. Removal will be required and a permit will be required for code protected tree species. Zero out of one violation has 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 March 12th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 19735 and page 1728. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the property owner was on March 12th. The owner did not indicate when the violations will be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. I'd like to enter into evidence as exhibit one photographs which are taken on March 18th, 2025, and they're documented CEP March. March 2025 and its photos number one through four. So this is the front of the property right here. The tree in question is in the back but I have better pictures to show that. This is the tree right here in question. You can see that it's broken also on the left side there. That's the broken side and you can see that it's mixed in with the wires right here. And these wires right here. And then I got a close-up of it right there. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Are there any options besides removing the tree totally? Not after the determination of the city arborist. There is some other information, but I'm gonna let Mr. George explain. So we've had great contact. I will say that. There is a reason why it's taken a little longer too, because this is, but. Okay, I get it. Thank you. Okay. Hello, sir. Could you give us your name and address for the record, please? Yes, is Joyce Higgins my address 5998 Grove streets out St. Petersburg 333705 Alrighty and what can you tell us about your tree? The tree I call I contacted the city about the tree and they sent some some representatives out because I thought it was on the power line and I couldn't touch it. So they came and they agreed that they were going to remove it. And when they came with the paperwork and I told them that my wife had passed away that I was going to be selling house and moving to Texas. They said they couldn't remove the tree because I had to stay there for a year. So and I didn't have the money to move it at that time. So all of a sudden you have no financial help to do it. Right, no financial help. Right. Is there any, it looks like it's dangerously close to, I don't know if those are power lines or cable lines, but usually the utilities will come out and at least deal with that piece of it. Right. So the neighbor behind who complained about it, she has called the cable company and Duke, and none of them want to touch it. And that's where it came to. It's, you know, and he did it like he said. He did apply for the tree program. He was pretty much accepted until they came to the house and they did see that it was being sold. Because he does want to move with his family because his wife's passing. And that's why there's a little gap because we were going through the tree assistance program. But there are certain criteria. And that's the year long you got to stay correct. Yes. In those instances, the utility companies are just going to trim it back to protect their asset. They're not going to completely remove the tree. So they might clear some branches that are directly around the power lines or the cable lines, but that would be the extent. It looks like it was almost on top of it. Yeah. I guess that's their judgment call, but it looked pretty close to me. Yeah. I don't know. He gets a tree out there. They may say you need to get in touch with utilities. Exactly. If I were a tree company, I'd say go get the utility company to get it off the line first, but The individual who did complain has been calling them constantly to, you know, the power company and the utility company and the cable company. So yeah. Hey, I don't know what tree company's going to touch that. Is there a permit required to remove the tree? Yep. No, because it's been determined to be hazardous in the state law that passed a couple of years ago. They would not need a permit for it. No tree removal company if they were going to, if they would take it on, would need a permit. Yet typically in Arborist would make that determination on the private side of it. We've, our arborist made the termination we've cited. We're telling you this is hazardous. The state law exempts the permitting requirements and hazardous conditions. Let's. Arborists would make that determination on the private side. Since we've, our arborists may the determination we've cited. We're telling you this is hazardous. The state law exempts the permitting requirements and hazardous conditions. That's good, right? That's good. That's one less step. Right. Well, and also can have a quicker. Are there any alternatives for him to be able to try to get finances together to do this? No, I mean most of the city programs, you know, we have that for a reason where you either have to hold on to the property or not rented for a certain amount of time because we don't want to be providing funds. And then it's making the property more attractive than it just gets sold and then that property and our benefits from that. The intent of our programs is to keep individuals in their properties not facing any fines or leans. And that's why provisions in place So most any city program is going to have similar provisions around it I wonder if it'd be possible to sell the house Esgro the money for the repair and then go with his family. There'd be money to cure I Wonder if the house could be sold with that I mean mean the house can be sold with the violations still there, understanding that the new owner is going to have to take care of it. That happens regularly so. Yeah, and I forget the, or didn't, didn't quite get it. The, the whole tree has to come down or just the piece that's near the power line. Yeah, no. The whole tree. Yeah, typically our arborists will notify us if there's opportunities to mitigate the hazard by trimming because we want to try to protect our tree canopy of the best that we can. That was not an option in this case. So it is the whole tree. Correct. Wow. When are you looking to move? Probably at least by six months from now. You had the... Did I do your year? Do you have the house listed yet? Yes, I do. So it is listed. Yes, it is. Okay. All right. Oh, we could give him time and hope itself. I mean, that's a... Well, that the branch falls on the line. How long has it been on the market? I just went on the market about three weeks ago. Okay. I'll read something. All right. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, it moved at the board issue, the following findings of fact conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Coz investigator have not been corrected. The board orders George Higgins to correct the violations within 90 days or by June 24th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Can you just go, Sean? Okay, let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Ancha? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, sir, the board's giving you 90 days. Hopefully your home sells within that time. But if it doesn't, you'll get a notice to attend a special magistrate's hearing. Come to that hearing and ask for more time and they'll give it to you. Okay. Okay, thank you. If you don't attend the hearing, they're going to put a lien on your house. Okay, you need to come. All right. Okay, good luck to you, sir. Thank you. Next case. Item 220, Property Owner, Pacifica Emerald Bay, LLC, investigators of the right on Melendez. Just for clarity's sake, Pacifica Emerald Bay has another move to, these individual tenet complaints. The item is the item that the item is the item that the item is the item that the item is the item that the item is the item that the item is the item that the item is the item that the item is the item that the item is the item that the item is the item that the item is the item that the item is the item that the item is the item that the item is the item that the item is the all we're hearing. Okay. Okay. Good morning. I answer right. I'm a land is going to investigate it for the city of San Petersburg testifying in testifying in reference to item 220, case number 2412090, regarding property located at 390138 Avenue South. I was running at the beginning of this meeting. This property is a commercial structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a tenant complaint case. The property was first inspected on July 19, 2024. Involution that was sent to the owner, we compliance day of August 23, 2024. The property was last reinspected on March 18, 2025, and the following violations still exist. The electrical bus cover is loose inside the AC unit. The small detector in the hallway is missing. The hallway ceiling light cover is missing. Both light in the apartment porch are not working. The bathroom ventilation is not working. Three out of seven, Valencia have been corrected in this case again. Notice appearing was sent first class mail, posted a city hall and it was, and it was sent certified mail and it was posted at the Valencia address, which it was March 12, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Honor Chief was confirming the official accounting record, book 17837 page 1889. In my last contact with the property manager was on March 18, 2025. And they were working on correcting the violation, but there was no date when the abolition would be corrected. The Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter not in compliance. Additional revelant facts in regard to this case is I receive a phone call from the Antenna and she said partials of the violation was already corrected. She did say that the electrical box was corrected and also the smoke detector and some of the lighting inside. I would like to enter into evident exhibit one photos which were taken on March 18, 2025, document 318, 25, 9, 0, ZM, photos 1 through 7. So this is the front elevation. There's a light here and there's another light above the unceiling's showing peeling paint. So this is this violation still active. And this is where the small detector was missing. And this is the one of the AC, the thermal step that was also in this repair. And this is the AC electrical box that was exposed wires. And this is just a picture of the unit that was inspected. I would like to introduce fact sheet into evidence, exhibit two, and this would conclude my presentation. Thank you. Does anybody have questions for staff? All right. Hello. Could you please give us your name and address for the rest? Yes. It's Monica Watther, H-U-A-R-T-E, and the address is 39-01. 38th Avenue South. We will need your address. My address is 115-112. Avenue, I'm new to the area. I don't know the address. Avenue Northeast. Okay. Apartment 626. And your connection to Pacific Emerald Bay? I'm the new property manager. I started in February. So can you tell me why it's taken eight months with relatively minor issues here? Again so I'm new to the property. I just started in February. I only have one maintenance tag at the moment. My leasing agent just started on last week and my men instead started the same day as I did. He's not very knowledgeable so we're trying to get contractors out until we get a full staff. OK, so how much time do you need to fix the rest of the issues? So for this one, I have a contractor. I'm actually meeting with him today and Friday to get this completed. I want to say about 20, 25 days or less. Okay. All righty. Anybody got any questions? No. Based upon the evidence presented this case, the move that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the Coates investigator have not been corrected. The board orders, specific Emerald Bay LLC to correct the violations within 20 days or by the date of April 15, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Do you mean 20 or 25 days? I meant 20. OK. Can I ask a general question about the items for this same company that we aren't going to address, or can we not talk about those? The question is, were they removed because they were dealt with or they just wanted to push the date out? The other ones are vacant, the tenants move out. That's the question. What is the other one? So what you're saying is there's no tenant there, so we can't talk about them. Right, so basically once the unit is vacated, there's no more interior violations for us to pursue while there's not somebody occupying it. And what we do is we start a separate case that notifies property management that if you put somebody back in that unit before you fix them, that's a whole separate issue and they can be fine separately for that. We just don't bring those cases before the board because it's not an occupied unit that has active violations in it. Okay. That answers my, I just wanted to make sure, yeah. It doesn't mean that all this stuff... No, no. I believe as Miss Melena stated, most of those are going to be the fact that they were just vacating because attendance... I just wanted to make sure it doesn't mean that all this stuff is. No. No. I believe as Miss Melinda stated, most of those are going to be the fact that they were just vacating because the tenants moved out, not the fact that they were corrected. Okay. Thank you. All righty. So any further discussion on the motion? What was the fine? $200. $200. Okay. So let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Nidah? Yes. Ancho? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Okay, ma'am, you have 20 days to fix this. No, thanks. Thank you. And stay right here. Yes. Okay. Item 224, property under Pacifica Emerald Bay, LLC, investigators are item Melinda's. Good morning, I am the right. I'm a list. item 224, property under Pacific Emerald Bay LLC, investigators are item 11 does. Good morning. I am Sir Adam Melendez, go investigator for the city of San Pidesburg, testifying in reference to item 224, case number 24, 21347 regarding property located at 39, 38 Avenue South. I was running at the beginning of this meeting. The property is a commercial and this building is vacant. This is a close follow-up case. The property was first inspected on December 9, 2024, and it was in Valetian Notice was sent to the owner with compliance date of January 17, 2025. The property was last re-inspected on March 18, 2025, and the following violations still exist. Board City building official, the following unfit and on safe condition exists at the property. Unit A, Building 29 has partial roof collapse and is unsafe for human habitation and occupancy. Root repairs and mitigation of interior damage must be completed with approved permit, prior to unit being occupied. Belkening of unit G is in building 31 is unsafe for its intended use. Hard barriers must be installed to prevent access to both the balcony and the patio area on the the balcony. Repair must be completed with approved permits. Zero out of one, Valencia have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail. It was posted a city hall sent 35 mail and it was handed delivered by me on March 12, 2025, which is a list in's prior to this hearing. Honoshi was confirmed in the county official record book 17837 page 1889. My last contact with the property manager was on March 18, 2023, and there was no indication when the evaluation would be corrected. The department recommends five days and $250 per day thereafter not in compliance. Additional reveling facts in regards to this record. To this case, I'm sorry is that property owner manager told me that she is working with FEMA to get this building, this building's coalition corrected. I would like to enter into, evident exhibit one, photos which were taken on March 18, 2025, documents 0 3 18 25 3 4 7 ZM. And I had 10 photos. So this is the front elevation of building 31. And this is the unit number where the balcony is and it was posted on safe. This is the back porch where you could see the rotted wood and the pole is damaged split. This is another part of the back porch. And this is another picture. And you can see the open hole for the end-decking. And that's the back unit. This unit do not have a barrier to protect anyone going back there. And you can see a close-out. You see this pole is banded and and is also not secure to the concrete. So this is the other building with the roof damage and it's building 29. This is the front elevation. And this is the roof that is covered with a tarp. And this is the roof when it got damaged. I would like to introduce fact sheet into evidence. So it too and this will conclude my presentation. Thank you and nobody's living in either of these buildings. No, the building 31 is vacant. All the apartments, you know, I noticed that they are vacant. And also on the building where the roof collapsed is, there's two apartments that, you know, next to each other, they are vacant. Okay, thank you. Does anybody have questions for staff? All right. We'll need your name and address and relationship again, please. Okay, Monica Warte, 115-112. Avenue Northeast, the Parmin 626, and I'm the property manager. Okay, thank you. So, where are we at with the repairs to these two buildings? So, the same contractors that I mean, I'm meeting with today and on Friday, they're gonna be repairing that with FEMA as well. I'm meeting with FEMA and the contractor today, at three. Alrighty, please tell me you're not waiting on FEMA money to do these repairs. No, no, no, no, no, not for that one. I had a question because these buildings are all very close to each other. There's a ton of kids in that community. So are you doing anything to to corden off the buildings that are clearly unsafe so that people don't have access to them? Um, so right now that one just has a tent on it. We haven't blocked it off for anything. But like the balcony part, then where the balconies are damaged, is that cordoned off at all? As of now, no. Like I said, I've been under staff. I've just been meet by myself for a while for the past two months. I should be getting new maintenance and to be helping me out. But I can't get that blocked off. Care if I may. To reiterate, for the balcony, we did request hard barriers be installed underneath to prevent any access for anyone going under. And this was back in December. That wouldn't be, that hasn't happened. And that's, I understand that there's a longer process to get the permits, but that's the immediate need for that one. Right. I'll read something. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issue, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected the board orders Pacifica emerald bay LLC To correct the violations Within five days or by a date of March 31st 2025 if this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day shall be imposed. Second. So we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? No. Let's not say. Yeah. I hear you. I've got nine violations. Is this a list? Oh, sorry. Yes. Oh. Ready now? OK. A checklist? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Ancho. Yes, wait. Yes. Listen. Yes. Okay. A cyclist? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Ancha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Okay, ma'am. You've got five days. Okay. Your attention needs to be on safety. Sounds good. No problem. Thank you. No, thank you. Okay. We took a five minute comfort break. We're approaching lunchtime. Yeah, we are. Yeah, and horizon. It should roll up. Where are we? Yeah, we're gonna have to. We're halfway. Yeah. Okay. We got another page. Yeah. Do you want to do lunch now or where we want to do? I don't think it's here yet? It should be momentarily though, so I don't know if you can hold off another five or ten minutes Here a couple more cases and Okay, yeah, let's hear we're gonna hear two more cases and then we're gonna break for lunch. Yeah, so chair if I may. So we'll hear two more cases and we're gonna break for lunch. We'll be as quick as possible. S may probably about 30 minutes. So I imagine we'd probably be back around one o'clock to begin the hearings again. So anybody that is not the next two cases, you're welcome to go get some food refreshments and then make sure you're back by one o'clock, which is when we'll begin. One thing that I did want to note on each of your pieces of paper, there is a recommendation and you'll hear the investigators read that out. Most of the time it's going to be 25 days, but it can vary. If you believe you can have your violations corrected within those 25 days, you do not have to stay. You can talk with your investigator, you can let them know, and then your case will just get read in at the end of the hearing. I do want to make sure everybody understands though that this is your one opportunity to get information on the record with the board. So by no means am I encouraging anybody to take that recommendation if you want to provide your evidence, but that opportunity is there. If you firmly believe that you understand a violation exists, you realize that you can have it done within 25 days. You do not have to sit here throughout the entire rest of the hearing. You can speak with your investigator, and we will just read your cases in at the end of the hearing. So just want to provide that option for everybody. Okay. So it's going to be item number 107 and 168 can say. That would be 106, 22nd Avenue, Southeast. And. 168, 7. 161, well. Item number 168. 178. Okay. And 809, 9th Avenue, North. Okay. Item number 107, property owner OSE Rentals LLC, investigator Carl Gordon. I'm Carl Gordon, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 107, case number 24 dash, 1, 2, 5, 4, 5, regarding property located at 106, 22nd Avenue, Southeast. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a multi-family structure and occupied by tenants. This is a citizens complaints case. The property was first inspected on July 25, 2024, and in violation notice, sent to the honor with a complaint in September the 9th, 2024. The property was last reinspected on March 13th, 2025, and the following violation still exists. Facility has been operated as a Substance Abuse Recovery Center, Social Service Agency in a single family zoning district. Facility is currently not authorized with appropriate state agency for this use. Zero out of one violations have been correct since this case began. Notice of hearing with St. First Class Mayor posted that City Hall sent certified mail and was posted at a violation address on March 13, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records Book 22026 page 0561. And of course, in my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The Department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day they're out of full noncompliance. Additional roll effects to this case is a verbal admission from a tenant stated that they are using the facility as a drug rehab at that location. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photo grassroots were taken on March 13, 2025, document 03-625-545-C-B-CE-B, and photo numbers one through four. Here is an exterior of the property itself. Here, as you can see, and this, here the utility account shows the corner self-help center as The owner as the the name on the facility utility account status And here's the the name that was on the utility account, Coronal Self-Help Center. And as you can see here, their mission is to help recover individual suffering from substance abuse use, focusing on physical, mental, and spiritual conditions as a whole, contributing to the individual social reintegration in a dignified and efficient way. And here is their website also and their mission with what I just read and now as far as their vision is to become a model program that continuously improves the recovery of drug addicts and establish self-sufficient community community center in areas of need. I would like to enter this fact she into evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation Okay, so I've got a couple questions one is it that it's located in the residential area? Yes, ma'am It's not licensed. It is located in a residential area. I sing a family area So it does not have the proper approval to be a substance abuse center in that area. So there are opportunities for that but as was I think read in the violation, there has to be appropriate state licensing and then from the city standpoint, we have to make sure that there's not another location within a certain number of feet and verify that there is the state licensure that's all associated with it. So we're not saying that it's prohibited use by any means, but they haven't done what they need to, if that's what... It's an either or situation. Right, yeah. Okay. Did he say, did he answer your question? So they don't have a license? They don't have a, we do not have any information that they've got their state licensure and then submitted that to the city to verify that they then are not within a thousand feet of another location. So, I think for the answer, thank you. Okay. Good afternoon. I- and then submitted that to the city to verify that they then are not within a thousand feet of another location. So for the answer, thank you. Okay. Good afternoon. I will need names and addresses from each of you that's going to speak today. Good afternoon. I am Adam Bill. I am the attorney for the property. My address is 18920 Northdale, Maybury, IWay in Loots, Florida. I have the pleasure of representing OSE rentals, LLC. Okay, if you could hold just one moment, sir. If either of the two people who are with you are going to testify, I will need their names and addresses as well. Sure. I'll introduce the first. I have the property manager for OSE rentals LLC. My name is Zina Helleff, H-A-L-E-F, 2615 Big Pine Drive, holiday Florida, 34691. Thank you. And the gentleman. My name is Cristóbal Flores, and my address is 106, 22nd Avenue. So is San Piresburg. So you live at the facility? I live in the facility. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry. What did you say? Minor Flores. Be like boy, ILD like David And problem here sir is that the use in the building is not authorized at this point Yes, actually the violation description is under chapter 16 section 16.10 0.10.4, and the use table outline is in that subsection of 1610.020.1. This is a little different than typical violations. Aka regulates the lightensure of substance abuse services under Florida Statute 397.401. Violations of licensure are handled by AACA. And what is happening here is an AACA issue where they've come out and stated a license is never required and not. We have some neighboring owners who over the period of approximately year in communications with City were saying that the use is improper. It started as parking claims and we have from our public records requests that development over time which ultimately became a discussion about licensure. My client was not interviewed prior to the issuance of this violation. I do not believe 161010.00.04 or subsections are an appropriate basis for a violation to be issued in the first place. These sections reference a table, which for substance care facilities references another section of the city code. There is no remedies, there are no requirements section, and there is no change of use. In fact, if you examine Florida Statute 397.401, which deals with substance abuse services, these items do not require a change of use or zoning from the city. This is not something that's typically regulated. There are standards where that could come into effect arguably, and that would be a licensure issue, but for instance, if they were dispensing medication, if there was medical treatments being provided under the license of a registered nurse or physician, and their situations like that, that's a higher level that brings you out of a potential residential setting, although still handled under licensure, that typically begins with a licensure issue. And that typically makes its way to the municipality by means of a request for inspection that usually goes through the fire marshal and building the apartment or usage. Some of these facilities based off of usage might require sprinklers and things like that. And that's usually how we get these. So it's a non-traditional, I have not seen a cross reference to 1610.010.4. There is not a remedy section in there or enforcement and under the social services agencies, which I pulled from email correspondence with the city with the city as part of our public records request. That subsection says, quote, see use specific development standards. If I could please, the violation at this point is a zoning one're operating this or they are operating within a residential district. And according to our code, that's not allowed. Unless you meet some other parameters, I do understand your argument and I will let staff address that more fully. But at this point, what we need from you and all we need from you, is the number of days you need to come into compliance. Thank you for the clarification. Under 3974012, which is the very next section under Florida Satu, abuse services. This section is titled exemptions from licensure. In a state, it's the following exempt from licensing provisions. Okay, but sir, I'm gonna try and help here because I know all the lawyers speak stuff going on here, but anyway, that ship has sailed. They made a determination that there's a violation. They are steps you can take to address your concerns that the staff made a mistake. But we're limited to relying on the determination that has been made. So we can't undo the determination. You're arguing if this shouldn't apply undo that determination, that's not our job. We don't have the authority to do that. The determination was made that there is a violation and so we're giving you an opportunity to cure that violation or take it to another jurisdiction where you can appeal it to different folks than us. So that's kind of sort of what we're trying to explain to you. Well, agree with why we're here with the board and appreciate the position of all of you. Don't want to take your time necessarily, especially before lunch. It is important and I do apologize because because an investigation did not involve my client prior to this. They were not contacted prior to state that a determination has been made without any sort of process. You were notified back in July. Your clients were mailed notice. Yeah, they're notified back in July. July of last year, this has been going on. Yeah, if I may. So I believe what the representative is trying to make an argument is the Technical code section may not be applicable in this case. The zoning official Provided determination that in these cases The agencies are required to get that licensing information And at that time they actually receive a zoning form that they then have to submit to us as the city. And that's when the zoning department will review that form, make sure that there's no other facility within a thousand feet, and then it could be approved at that point in time. So I believe that we've shown sufficient evidence based on the utility count, the verification from an individual occupying the property that advised one of our inspection supervisors that this was occurring at that property, that that's the activity that's occurring there. And simply what we're looking for, we're not saying that you can't do it, but we would like it to be done to the standards that the city requires. And as long as there's not another facility within a thousand feet, as soon as that people work it's filed and it's documented, this case gets closed. So all they need to do is at least to start that which you just explained is fill out a zoning for a form from zoning It's a form that they receive from the state licensure when they when they receive their licensure then it They receive that document they give it to the city and then the city is able to verify and then approve it Okay. Yeah, we just, like the third, so we're just repeating ourselves. This is the third time we've said the same exact thing. So I think we'd- If I could- If I can please- We need to know the number of days it's going to take either- Yeah. You're the violation or submit to a different authority. Okay. If curing the violation- by curing the violation, the board's referring to licensure with under the statute under 3974012. However you choose to comply, you can either get licensed or take it to a different authority who can rule on some of your claims. And how many days is that, sir? I respectfully, if you'd please allow me to address exemptions because we have been in touch, we have been in touch with the licensing facility, and they do not require the number of days, please. I'll read something if you want. I would, we have, listen, I'd like a brief opportunity to be on record. I have been interrupted from reading this section and I appreciate the board's position. But you're asking for. You've been asked to stop. You've had your plenty of time to testify. We've said the same thing three times to you now. The city's been more than cooperative in terms of providing a pathway. It's your choice how you decide to proceed. We don't need to hear this anymore We're just gonna we're now gonna take the time to decide how much time you get Your chair Okay, licensing is a six-month process Do we need to escort the gentleman out? I'm answering your question on how long we need on what aqua licensing is. I just answered your question and aqua licensing is a six-month process. I'm going to, I'll read something. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders where are we? 107. 107. OSE rentals LLC to correct the violations within 25 days or by April 20th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Oh. No, I'm ready. Roll call please. A checklist? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Yes. Yes. All right, sir. You have 25 days to make up your mind. Yes. Wilson. Yes. All right, sir. You have 25 days to make up your mind Next case, please Item 168 property owner Carly Ruff and Michael Ruff and investigator for zone 15. Let's say robbery, guys. What? It doesn't look like the property honors here. That's what I think they might have left when we announced that we were doing lunch after the next two, because 23 was stricken. OK, so we'll just pick that up after lunch. Yeah, that's fine. So we'll break for lunch and we'll come back at one o'clock. Yep. We're breaking for lunch now. 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 and the the I'm going to go back to the next one. I'm going to go back to the next one. I'm going to go back to the next one. I'm going to go back to the next one. I'm going to go back to the next one. I'm going to go back to the next one. I'm going to go back to the next one. I'm going to go back to the next one. I'm going to go back 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 get the you the you . I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. the . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the 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. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a 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 bathroom. I'm going to get you. . . . . the and to you . . you . I'm going to use the same color as the other one. I'm going to use the same color as the other one. I'm going to use the same color as the other one. 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. 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 make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the head. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get you a little bit more. I'm going to get 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 the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put a little bit of the you 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. 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. 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. 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. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm gonna do it. to to . . . . you the the You I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. . . I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. you the all the body body movement of it all the pain it all the body 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 beach. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to go to the beach. for the party party The you I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to 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 the top right corner of the screen. I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the screen. I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the screen. I'm going to put it on the top right corner of the screen. . . 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 the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. . I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it 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. the Oh the I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm gonna be a little more. Oh Oh Oh Oh and Oh Oh Oh I'm just gonna do it. I'm just gonna do it. I'm just gonna do it. I'm just gonna do it. I'm just gonna do it. I'm just gonna do it. I'm just gonna do it. I'm just gonna do it. I'm just gonna do it. I'm just gonna do it. I'm just gonna do it. I'm just gonna do it. I'm just gonna do it. I'm just gonna do it. you the I'm I I've been trying to breathe on the water I've been trying to hide what's on scale The fused images were from the other That's it doesn't mean so much in the air you . the the . . you and I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a 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. the I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do 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 gonna go do it. you I'm going to do it. I'm going to be to 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 the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. . the and 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 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 the top right corner of 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. I'm going to put it little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. 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 the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. 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 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. you Thank you. you and you . you you you I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm gonna have to go back to the bathroom. I'm gonna go back to the bathroom. I'm gonna go back to the bathroom. I'm gonna go back to the bathroom. I'm gonna go back to the bathroom. I'm gonna go back to the bathroom. I'm gonna go back to the bathroom. I'm gonna go back to the bathroom. I'm gonna go back to the bathroom. I'm gonna go back to the bathroom. I'm gonna go back 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 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 gonna go back 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 not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. 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 you you you you you you you Thank you for our lunch break. Code enforcement board is now back in session. If there's anyone here who has not been sworn in, would you please stand and raise your hand or can swear you? If you can raise your right hand, if you plan on speaking and have not been sworn in yet. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? All right, thank you. You could be seated. Would you roll call us, please? A sec less? Your Schneider? Here. Handshot. Here. Wait. Here. Wilson. Here. So our next case is item 168. Yes item 168 property owner Carly Ruff and Michael Ruff investigator for zone 15. Jose Rodriguez. All right good afternoon. I'm Jose Rodriguez co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item number 168. Case number 24 dash, one, two, three, eight, five, regarding property located at 3755 Beach Drive, Beach Drive, Southeast. I was one in at this meeting. It's property as a single family structure and occupied by owner. This is a C-Click fix case. The property was first inspected on July 23rd of 2024 and the violation noted since the honor with the compliance date of August 16th of 2024. Property was last re-inspected on March 17th of 2025 and the following violations still exist. Advertisement and rental of a property for transient accommodations, I can receive a than a monthly term It's prohibited with the neighborhood suburban single family in S1 zoning district Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began Notice of hearing was sent first-class male posted at city hall since certified male Was posted at a violation address on March 13th of 2025, which is the least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, book 22784, page 2107. During the course of the investigation, the last contact with the realtor prior to today was made on January 9th of 25. And the realtor did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are, so the property is not active on Airbnb or VRB or for booking. Proof of cancellations never received for original observed bookings. Booking out short term stays. website, Instagram and Facebook page are active and the Facebook poses recent as March 6th. Events Space Rental Inquiry from Active Website, bookings available through direct message on Instagram or IG only, advertised for weekend packages on a website called Bribed Tribe. I would like to enter to evidence. Bye. I call bribe tribe. I would like to enter to evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken March 17th in some screenshots and for document 03625385 C. and photographs and screenshots of one through eight. So the first photograph is the elevation of the front of the front of the structure. So it's a listing on the website, again, bribe tribe where you can go and rent out the home for bridal parties or bachelorette parties. This is a screenshot of the checkout page so it is still active and you can book the property of short-term rentals. Again, in here, this is some other items you can book reference to the property itself for photo suits. And of course, the event inventory right here, the form. Here is a screenshot from Facebook, which displays the property, the rear of the property, the pool. And it talks about amenities and how many can stay. And again, another Facebook shot of the interior of the structure. And again, amenities. And again, this is from Instagram. So again, displaying that the property itself is for rent. And again, for specifically vital parties. And this is the landing page for the website which shows the front of the structure, again, the elevation shot that I previously shown. I would like to enter this fact sheet in evidence, exhibit number two, and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. All right, ma'am. We have your name and address for the record, please. Yes, my name is Carly Ruff, 3755 Beach Drive, South East, St. Petersburg, Florida, 3 3705. So you live at this property? Yes, ma'am. What do you do when you rent it for the weekend? I live with my boyfriend here in the city. Okay. So is there a reason you haven't cut it out yet? I actually have canceled all the bookings. I have evidence here with me. As far as the bride tribe company that was a friend that started it over a year ago, when he first started out and I haven't noticed that it was still up. So we haven't gotten any bookings through her or anything. These showed several websites. Yes, so we still have a website up but there's no booking link at all for anyone to book. The plan is, as he mentioned, I do have the house for sale right now is to relocate to a place that does have the right zoning for short-term rentals. So I just kept everything up to hopefully transfer that over to the new property. Anybody else have questions? Nope. I can read something. Go ahead. You okay? Okay. 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 has stated it by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Carly Ruff and Michael J. Ruff to correct the violations within five days or by March 31st, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. We have a motion in the second. Any discussion? Let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Cancha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. OK. You have five days to get that remaining website down. OK. to the city of the cancellation. What? Item 169, property owner Carly Ruff and Michael Ruff, investigator Jose Rodriguez. I am Jose Rodriguez, co-investigated for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying and referenced to item number 169, case number 24, dash 14647, regarding property located at 3755 Beach Drive Southeast. I was wanting at this meeting. It's property of the single family structures occupied by honor. This is a citizen complaint case. Property was first inspected on August 14th of 2024 and the violation noted since the honor with the compliance date of September 9th of 2024. Property was lastpected on March 17th of 2025 when the following violations still exist. No permits for interior renovations of structure, work observed, but not limited to, guest bathroom renovation with new plumbing and drywall additional of, excuse me, addition of electrical outlets. And kitchen renovation with removal of wall, after the fact permit will be required for work done to stretch. One out of two violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, was posted at the violation address on March 13th or 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, but 22784, page 2107. I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $150 a day, per day thereafter for our compliance. And no additional relevant facts regarding this case. And I would like to enter into evidence, exhibit number one photographs which are taken or screenshots, March 17th and document CBO31725647JR and photos one through four. So in this first photograph it just shows something that was posted regarding additional outlets installed in the residence so that in the conjunction with renting it out of people coming through who just not have to fight over outlets to charge phones and different types of items. This photograph displays, again, renovations within the homes before and after. It's again the elevation of next slide. This photograph displays kitchen renovations and again a wall that was removed. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. So we'll need your name and address again, please Yes Carly Ruff 3755 Beach Drive southeast St. Petersburg, Florida 3 3705. Okay so how long do you need to get a permit and after the fact permit for the Renault you did? I would say 30 days I actually have it partially filled out already with me right now. A lot of the things he mentioned the outlets were actually already all there when I purchased the home last year. So we did not add any additional outlets. No new plumbing. It was all existing plumbing. And then the wall was non load bearing wall, but I also got the permit after the fact permit. Okay. Any questions? I'll read some. 30. Yep. Based upon the evidence present in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of the law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Peter's Proc city code is stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Carly Roth and Michael J. Roth to correct the violations within 30 days or by the date of April 25th 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. We have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Okay, let's vote. A sec, Liz? Yes. Nighter? Yes. Henshaw? Yes. Wait. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Good afternoon. I am the right of Melendez. Go investigator for the city of San Pidesboro, testifying in reference to item 225, case number 24, 15671 regarding property located at 1835, 47th Street South. I was running at the beginning of this meeting. This property is a single home and I believe is vacant. This is an internal complaint case. The property was first inspected on August 27, 2024, and Valetian noticed it to the owner we compliance day of October 25, 2024. The property was last reinspected on March 18, 2025, and the following Valetian still exists. The building of the building is building the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building into the requirement repairs that completed with permits and under the direction of a licensed design and professional. Zero out of one violation have been corrected since this case began. Notice of was sent first class mail posted a city hall censored by mail and it was posted at the evaluation address on March 12, 2025 which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Honour she was on confirm in the official county record book to 1696, page 1642. During the course of this investigation, I haven't had any contact with the owner. The department recommends five days and on $250 per day thereafter, not in compliance. Additional revelant facts in regards to this case. This property was damaged by a vehicle and there was a permit. Permit 24-110-2255 that expired and there was no inspection. But as yesterday, the permit was reinstated on the 19th and then yesterday they got an update in inspection by the building department. So I would like to enter into evident exhibit one photos which were taken on March 12, 2025, documents 0, 3, 12, 25, 6, 1, and ZM, and I got three photos. So this is the prom elevation. This is the wall that got inspected yesterday. And we still have the stairs in this prepare, the poles under the anning, and also the the onion as well. And this is another photo of the front elevation, where you can see the stairs and the poles. And this picture is showing when the property was damaged. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence. See the two and this will conclude my presentation. Thank you, Ms. Melendez. Can you tell me again about the permit? The permit has been issued. The permit expired and there was no progress inspection. But as I yesterday, they had the permit extended. It was reissue and also they have one progress inspection. So now we just, and in this case would have been removed, but I didn't know who was the owner. So I tried to find out who was the owner this morning because I didn't have no contact with them. So, but now that we have at least one progress inspection, we just need to have this coalition's completed. Okay. So does the permit cover the scope of the work? All of it? Mm-hmm. Okay. Is anybody else have questions for staff? Do we need to hear this? We need to. Well, but. Well, yes, because they didn't talk to me prior to their hearing. I was going to ask it a little different way. The city still considers this an unsafe structure because they haven't gotten anything back officially from an inspection that says it's not. The only inspection that's been done is it's a sheeting inspection. There hasn't been any inspections on the framing or that exterior wall at the same time. So we believe that they're on their way. So obviously you can take testimony from the property owners, but just providing some additional time to get some inspections completed and then we would start deferring on our side to the active permit once we see some other inspections completed. I guess, you know, when you guys talk about unsafe structures it kind of puts in a different ballgame. Right. So that's how it's been presented. It's an unsafe structure. You guys are recommending five days. That's still your recommendation. Is what I'm hearing. Right, and that's going to be standard for any of the cases where the building officials making that determination. Obviously, you saw the conditions when we first cited this, right? There's been other work that's been completed since then to make those repairs, but only one inspection that came in just yesterday, and from where I can see it didn't have anything to do with the framing or the structural integrity. So back to my original question, you still consider it an unsafe situation? Yeah, at this point. But I mean obviously they have their permits in place, they're progressing. It's not one of those situations where the house still looks the way you saw it when the car hit it and they haven't done anything. But from a consistency consistency standpoint that's how we categorize this type of violation We're going to make the same recommendation just to make sure we're consistent based on what the case is okay Thank you, and you want to keep your eye on it too to make yeah just to make sure it continues moving forward Yeah, because we've seen other ones where one inspection gets done and then it sits for a while right and I just want to reinstate the recent that this case was submitted to a hearing was because the permit expired and there was no inspections. That's correct. Thank you. Thank you. So this was an internal complaint between the homeowners or for the city going out? The city going out. Yeah, we were notified either PD or fire that a vehicle had struck the structure. That's how we were notified. So because it came from an internal city department, that's how we categorize it. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Could you please state your names and addresses for the record? Yep. My name is Vincent Chao. My address is 50. Christopher Columbus drive. Jerry City, New Jersey. 07302. Okay, and your connection to short-reparant? I'm one of the owners. And you, sir? Good afternoon, Steve Tran with the XL Legal. I'm an attorney for the firm. I represent the first lean holder, lean Macapital 1. Okay, thank you. So, um, looks like a car hit the house? Yes, I believe that was August last year. Yeah, nobody's living in this building? Um, the tenant, um, left due to, um, the car hitting the house and causing it to become unfit. So we've already sort of, uh, re-homed her. So it's vacant? It's vacant. Okay. Um, work is progressing on the house now? Work is progressing on the house now. The contracting company we talked with notified that similar to what the investigator said that they're working on fixing the framing, the electrical plumbing and their scheduling inspections with the city to make sure that it will be certified to be fit for habitation again. OK, and how much time do you think you're going to need to get this done? When we first contacted the contract and company, they told us a quote of four months. I don't know how long they took an account in terms of the permit because it took them about three months. They told us to get the permit. This is the first time I'm hearing about this permit expiring with an inspection. So I'm hoping 60 90 days. Now the permit's been re-instated. Yes. You're aware. This is the first time I'm hearing about this permit expiring with an inspection. So I'm hoping 60 90 days. Now the permit's been re-instated. Yes. Yes, and they are now working on the property. Any other questions? I'll read something. Okay, thank you. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. the board orders short river investments LLC to correct the violations within 45 days or by a date of May 10th, 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 the second. Any discussion? Let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Niter? Yes. Hands off? Yes. Wait. Yes. Listen. Yes. All right, sir. The board has given you 45 days. Do the best you can to get it done. You out in the hallway after this hearing, talk to Miss Melendez and trade contact information so you can keep her up to date with what's going on at the house. Okay? Yes. Thank you. Next case, please. Item number one, property owner blaze Bhakkai and Sean Bhakkai, investigator Anthony Rivers. I'm Anthony Rivers, close investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number one. Case number 24-12788, regarding property located at 61-74 Third Avenue South. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a C click fix case. The property was first inspected on July the 24th of 2024. And a violation noticed into the owner with a compliance date of September the 12th of 2024. The property was last reinspected on March the 19th of 2025. And the violation that was cited was for advertisement and rental of a property for transit accommodations within the NT2 zoning district and other words, short term rental. 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 posted at the violation address on March the 11th of 2025. Ownership is confirmed in County Official Records, book 22161, page 643. And during the course of my investigation, I've had no contact with the owner. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case include the fact that our record check shows that now the rental calendar or least calendar now displays a minimum stay of 30 days or 30 nights. And this review does not indicate a review of the listing and advertisement does show an indicator stay in December of 2024 at that resident, which is after the compliance date that we gave of September the 12th of 2024. I'd like to enter into evidence as a number one photographs which were taken of the property as well as the listing and calendar and so forth. So here's the front of the short term rental property. And here is our listing for the property in question. So here's a calendar that again now shows a minimum of 30 nights. at the top left hand corner. Chair, I'll step in on this one because I look at these as they start coming up. This is one, I know Mr. Rivers indicated 30 days but there it looks like there's two different months in April and June where there was availability less than a monthly term. One was for like 18 days and almost for 15. Sometimes it's just an Airbnb calendar type of issue that they can work out with the platform because it does look like there was 30 nights on others but then there's these two rogue of months that kind of have that availability for less than a monthly term. Sorry, anything. No, thank you. And then our last photo here is going to again, this one is the reviews and you'll notice that the top left hand corner a review of Found in December made in December 2024 Which again is after the compliance state of September the 12th of 2024. So we'd like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Just one. Mr. Rivers, any need or any asked around proof of cancellations? Not that we've received so far. Okay. Thanks All right sir could you give us your name and address for the record? blaze backy six one seven four third avenue south St. Petersburg three three seven zero seven Okay, do you live at this property? Yes, I live at the property as well. I mean, when it's not rented, otherwise I stay with my girlfriend. I'm in the process of building an ADU on the property. So that will eventually be my living space. I bought the house a couple of years ago with the understanding that, if I had an ADU on the property, long term that I could short-term rental the house as well. When I did receive this complaint, I did cancel several reservations and I sent an email. I could, I have proof of the email I sent directly to Dan Thaney that showed my cancellations. I did leave a booking in December. As you can see, if you cancel so many reservations on Airbnb, it hurts your rating and reviews and all that too. And as far as I understand, there's allowed a couple of reservations under the 30-day mark. So I have changed the 30-day strategy. I canceled those reservations. And so I'm happy to proceed, however. And the bookings for April and May? They're all, I have one monthly booking. That's it. You made it. For all in May are 30 day bookings? Yes, everything going forward. My calendar doesn't allow you to book anything, less than 30 days, and I only have one booking right now on April. And then you made a comment that you are only the impression if you build an ADU it. Okay. Not zoned for short-term roles. As just an FYI for you. Okay. Even after this case is resolved, they will continue to check. Yeah. I understand. Well, you might want to, if you have any short-term roles, you might want to just just to cover yourself, show proof of cancellation and Mr. Rivers and just stay in touch with him. Okay, yeah, we can try it for this. I'll report on the email I had from before. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, the board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the code's investigator have not not been corrected. The board orders blaze, bake, bakey, and shan bakey to correct the violations within five days or by March 31st, 2025. If this order is not complied with the fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. We have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Let's vote. A second. Yes. Nighter? Yes. And, Shaw? Yes. Wait. Yes. Listen. Yes. All right, sir. Five days to get that roof of cancellations over to Mr. Rivers. Again. You might reference your earlier email. It might have gotten lost in his daily life. No, I know. Everyone's busy, so I get it. Yeah. Okay. And Chair, just to confirm, again, there, we've seen this with some of the platforms where if you don't have, like let's say somebody booked 45 days, right, from the middle of April until the end of June, The other 15 days automatically becomes available as a potential to book it. And for some reason it does not cut it off, requiring a 30 day minimum, but Airbnb can fix that for them, so we just wanna make sure that that's addressed as well. And that was gonna be my next statement. You do want to go into the mechanics of Airbnb and make sure that your listings are showing the way they should. Yep, 30 days. Yep. Interesting. Thank you. Item number 15, Property Owner Icarus Services LLC, Investigator Building Democordinator. Before we start, I have this as removed. O 28 was removed. 15. 15 is just it's read on our sheets. That was the previous version. Probably just been when she made copies. Okay. The previous version has been updated. It's this one is so good to be heard. Okay. Just but I check. Sorry. That's okay Okay Good afternoon. I'm Robert Hicks co co-sinvestigator for the city of St. Petersburg Testifying a reference to item 15 case 24-9467 Regarding property located at 4950 first Avenue, North I was sworn in and the start of this meeting Property is a-family structure and is vacant. This is a code-initiated case. The property was first inspected on 531 of 2024, and a violation notice was sent to the owner on 71 of 2024. The property was last re-inspected on the 322 of 2025, and the following violations still exist. First city building official fire damage structure is unfit, unsafe for habitation and use. Electrical service meter has been pulled. The building and electric permit require to repair the fire damage prior to occupancy. Design Professionals, Evaluation and Analysts that establishes the structural adequacy of the structure postfire will be required to be submitted to the building department. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since the case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall and sent certified mail. Also was posted at the property address on 312 of 2025. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 20686 page 2376. The department recommends five days and $250 per day thereafter for non-compliance. I would like to enter into evidence, exhibit one photographs which were taken on 313 of 2025 document CEP, MAR 2025. And that's just the front elevation shot of the property. It's me the east side. Oh, sorry. East side of the property where you can see some of the fire damage. The closer shot of the damage from the fire. And this should just be a rear elevation shot of the property. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence exhibit two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you Mr. Hicks. Can you tell us the extent of the fire because I only see one small part of the house damaged? It's unsafe unfit. I mean I think the fire department was out and determined that that was unsafe. And so that's how the case was developed. So, yeah. Sure, there were additional photos from the time of the fire that showed the interior conditions. And those were reviewed by the building official and he made the determination to have it posted unsafe. So we can show the interior photos. But right now, we wanted to show that the property is secured and boarded. Okay. Thank you. Does anybody need to see the interior pictures? Good afternoon, sir. Could I have your name and address for the record please? Yes, my name is Craig Henry. I live at 63, 74, 8th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, 33710. And what is your connection to Icarus services? I'm the owner, I own the house. So what are your plans for this? So I'm in the process of selling it right now. It's been a very complicated procedure to do so due to extenuating circumstances. So I'm having to do a seller mortgage owner financing and I'm getting ready to close on that here and I'm asking for 60 extra days just to make sure nothing goes wrong but I've got the attorney drawn up the papers I've got the buyer in place and we're we're all ready to go so okay that's for our our intent and purposes all that does is kick the can down the road. Right. We have a damage structure sitting while it's boarded. It doesn't look like it's just sitting there. Right. Right. You're not planning on demolishing them? No, the gentleman has a plan to go forth. He owns a commercial property, but he has another commercial property that is a Cata Corner. I've been talking to a few of the people in the area there that have commercial properties that were interested in it. He's going to try to rehab it, which the fire is not... I mean, there's no good fire, but it was the room that was taken, that burned out that back wall was actually a Florida room at one time. And it's somewhere along the line had been rehabbed, and they just left the jealousyed windows, and that's kind of went up, including a storage building that was back there. So, I know it's taken a long time, because we're heading towards a year and I appreciate that. Just, I'm just need a little bit longer to get there and So I know it's taking a long time because we're heading towards a year and I appreciate that. Just I'm just need a little bit longer to get there and like I said he's got a plan to go forth with this and and rehab it so. And you're asking for 60 more days? Yes ma'am please. It would be a full year that that thing is sat there. I can't hear it I'm sorry. So if you're asking for 60 more days that'll be a full year that that property is set there burnt out. Right. I don't know. I'm curious does the buyer know? Oh yeah I mean he's been inside it and walked around it with me so he's. Yes he's in the construction business so he he wants to keep the building as is the people behind it want to buy it and just level it. So I just was trying to get the most for the property that I can. The house was set on fire by some crack heads, some people that were not supposed to be there. And so this wasn't planned. This was going to be an investment property to pay for my retirement. But now I've had to, over this course, the sheer get it together to the point where I can just get rid of it. So I can ask the city a question. Sure. I realize, I always struggle with these safe, unsafe condition cases. I realize the standard that you guys come forward with is five days, I get that. Is there anything in this case that the city would say something needs to be done right now, not 60 days from now, but within five days from now to this property to... No, I mean, I think based on the condition of the property, it's vacant. It's not in danger of falling onto an adjacent property or right of way. It's just a visual blight issue at this point in time, but still, I mean, it's been sitting in that condition for almost a year now. I just wasn't sure there was nothing that you guys say, no, we can't wait that long. The city's position is it's got to happen within five days, but you're saying that's not necessarily the case here. Right, okay, thank you. And the house is secured, you can't get in it. I go by and check on a regular basis to make sure nobody else tries to get into it. So, yeah, the closing date. I'm sorry? You have a closing. the house is secured, you can't get in it. I go by and check on a regular basis and make sure nobody else tries to get into it. So, you have a closing date. I'm sorry. You have a closing date for the sale? Well, if we get everything, once everything's put together by the lawyer, he says two weeks. So I'm hoping that it's, you know, before April 15th would be nice. I mean, sometime in April would be better, But if something happens, then I'm going to be right back here at this special magistrate. So 60 days for sure, it would be nice. I mean, sometime in April would be better, but if something happens, then I'm gonna be right back here at the special magistrate. So 60 days for sure, it'll be done. So, in May 45 days, 60 days, I should be done. Any further questions? I'll read something. Based. Just for the board. 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 it, the violations of the, excuse me, St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders I, I, Icarus, Icarus services LLC, I apologize. To correct the violations within 45 days or by a date of May 10th, 2025, if this order is not complied with, a fine of $250 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in the second and a discussion. Let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Sider? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, sir, 45 days. Can I just add one more thing, please? I'd like to thank Mrs. Afri. She's a real, had been a real, very helpful, her assistance and patience and everything has been very helpful in this and I just want to thank her for that. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. We like her a lot. Yeah. Bish, good. Thank you. I'll say it on that. We like it. I can definitely go on vacation. Next. Please. Yes. Item 167, property owner Carol E. Miller, investigator, Jose Rodriguez. I am Jose Rodriguez, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 167, case number 24-12675, regarding property located at 408 Bluefish Drive, Southeast. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property of the single-family destruction is occupied by honor. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on August 5th of 2024, and the violation noted sent to the honor with a compliance date of August 28th of 2024. Property was last reinspected on March 17th of 2025, and the following violations still exist. No permanent file for shed or accessory structure over 100 square feet erected on property. Permit required for electrical services running to accessory structure. Only one shed 100 square foot or less is allowed in the rear 20 feet and there are currently two accessory sheds in the rear 20 feet. Zero out of two violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted a city hall sent certified mail, delivered certified male. I was was posted at a violation address on March 13th of 2025 which is the least 10 days prior to this hearing. On the ship was confirmed in county official records book 10884 page 2351. During the course of this investigation my last contact with the owner prior to today was on March 25th 2025 and the owner did not indicate when the violation would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for not compliance. Additional relevant fact regarding this case is, and speaking with the owner yesterday, she did state that one of the accessory structures was removed out of the rear yard. I just haven't had an opportunity to get out there to inspect or reinspect the property. I would like to enter to evidence exhibit number one. Photographs which were taken on March 17th, 25 in July 30th of 24, document CBO31725675JR and photos one through five. So the first photograph is of one of the accessory structures. This is one angle of the accessory structure. This is the other accessory structure. So my assumption is this is the one that has been removed. And again, there just hasn't had an opportunity to get out to reinspect the property. This is the elevation of the structure. This is another angle. The very first photograph I showed, this is the other side of that particular structure that's oversized. And this is the overhead screenshot from Google. So this is the main structure of the home. This is the structure, the last structure I just showed, which is oversized. And again, I'm assuming this number two right here is the one that has been removed. And again, upon a reinspection, I'll be able to verify that. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence exhibit number two in this concludes my presentation Okay, mr. Rodriguez Yes, because what I have here on this sheet Always conform with what you guys have so okay, let me tell you what I Is development order conditions? So if it's the first violation now has been inactivated. Yes, ma'am. And so that and being updated a lot of times when we update it, if it's if it's prior to you receiving your documents, it won't be, you know, you won't see it on your side. But that particular violation has been inactivated. And the other one that I see is encroachment, NS. Yes. There's one of the two sheds in crotch. If it's the last violation of red, that's in regard to the two being in the rear yard, and again, they're only allowed to one. So again, I have to be in inspection how to see if the other shed was actually removed. If I'm understanding your question. All I'm doing is looking at my sheet and it says encroachment and and so that would be for both the sheds being within the rear 20 year only a lot of have one within the rear 20. Okay. Alrighty. Thank you. I appreciate it. I have a question to again clarification. So you said oversized was one was oversized or is oversized being driven by the fact that there's two Oh negative so a hundred square good with a hundred square feet so anything over a hundred square feet So if they removed one of them do they still have an issue with the other one? Yes, because the other shed itself is over a hundred square feet and you need to have that permitted yes, sir Okay, so it's just because they removed one there's still issues out there So that does correct one of the violations or part of one of the violations but is not correct the overall case itself. Thank you. So just because they removed one, there's still issues out there. Correct. So that does correct one in the violations or part of one in the violations, but it's not correct the overall case itself. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. We appreciate clarification. Good afternoon, ladies. May I have your names and addresses for the record, please? My name is Carol Miller. My address is 4008 Blue Fish Drive, Southeast St. Pete. 3705. Okay, and are you planning to testify? Yes. May I have your name in the name? My name is Trina Prashe, Rozier, 640, 10th Street, West, Palmetto, Florida, 3421. Okay, thank you. So Ms. Miller, do you understand what the problem is? Yes, well, I do now. I had a, a dent hall over 14 years, and I had a customer that always rent the hall, and he told me he was a general contractor. And they shut the clothes, the, the whole shopping center down. So they made all everything I had in there over 14 years, I had to find some place to put it. So he told me that he would bill me a share. So he'd be able to share. And then I had another share that my husband built in the 70s. That was back there, but it was down there, needed work down on it. So he said he can go ahead and fix that. And then he can bill me a share to keep my suppliers in. Supplies him. I didn't know that he was not a contractor. He told me he was a licensed contract, and I didn't know that at the time Okay, so which shed did he build with tall one the tall one? Yes, these are pictures of it's not there anymore So he removed it so I have the smaller shed in the back the tall one down. Yes, the big shed Well, they were the sheer sense the 70s. So we took the whole thing out All right. Um, is that curate, do you think? Yeah, that's the sheer sense to 70s. So we took the whole thing out. All right. Is that curate? Do you think? Yeah, that's all the wrong. Everyone was down. So the larger one was removed from what I understand the last picture that was shown. Is that correct? Not the one that was in the corner. So all was assuming wrong. Yeah, that should resolve it. Because now we would only have one shed and that one shed appeared to be underneath the minimum the Hunter square feet, which would exempt it from permitting requirements. Would that give them some time for yeah, just to go verify. Yeah. Yeah, because I heard Mr. Sorry, John Blank. I heard you mentioned that there's also electrical running out there too. So correct. So, um. All one or two. So my understanding is the electrical is going to the tall one. So if they're saying that's the one that was removed and the electrical has been removed. So at this point it will just be determined if a permit was just need to be pulled on inspection due to electrical being added without a permit. But then remove that's something that would have to verify with the permits department. Just for clarification. So we don't quite know yet if a permit was required or not or do we? Well I think what it had been, it's needed. Originally would have been needed so again that's I would recommend a time to do the additional research to the reinspection yeah the reinspection and also I mean it depends on the extent of work that was done from an electrical standpoint to get electrical out to that if it was just simply they popped off of one of the other exterior electrical building department might just say if that was all pulled back and it's been removed then they're not going to require a permit for it. So it could be that simple but it could it may not be so you know my recommendation you know giving more time in the case like this is it's the violation that we believe is pretty much corrected. I don't see any harm in providing extra time just to to be safe in case they do need to go do some additional permitting work for the electrical. All right, okay. I'll read something. Give it a shot. 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 codes investigator have not been corrected the board orders Carol E Miller to correct the violations within 90 days or by the date of June 24th 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 any discussion? All right let's vote. A sec less? Yeah. I do. Yes. Schneider? Yes. Ancho? Yes. Wait. Yes. Yes. All right ma'am you have 90 days. Please see your code's investigator out in the hall and make sure that you know how to communicate with with him and he will schedule something to come out and take a look and make sure everything's good. Yes, ma'am, I do see that you had a question. Well, I've had my hand up to speak. I'm the contractor that she contracted with recently, so I'm in a process to obtain the permit for the additional structure that's It's there. The other structure has been safe and the electric has been removed and we're in the process but it's permit for the additional structure that's there. The other structure has been safe, and the electric has been removed, and we're in the process, but it's gonna take longer than 90 days because I have to obtain engineered drawings and a survey to acquire a permit. So it's gonna take more than 90 days. There are about, I think, for eight to 10 weeks on releasing permits, and I have to get the engineer drawings prior to that. So it's gonna take more than 90 days. By the way, she wasn't trying to get our attention, but you had started reading so I couldn't control. Okay. So what do we do? I'm confused as to in terms of if you want to change the amount of time you can move to rescind the prior order or of course it's not done within 90 days and they would simply have to come back to special magistrates. That would be, I'd rather she didn't have to make a contract. I'd rather give her more time. So I'm coming to motion to rescind the prior order and we'll just need a new motion with a different time period. I guess I just want to understand so can we ask more questions now or are we allowed to? Okay. Once you resc once you were sent the prior, somebody said your order. Somebody needs to read. I don't want to amend. I want to ask another question because I want to know, did the wrong, are we talking, did the smaller structure get removed? Exactly. Right. I'm so I'm like, did we just, well from the city perspective, we have not been able to confirm that at this point. So we would have to go do a reinspection and all of the property. Right. So the bigger structures there, then obviously they're going to be more time that she says the bigger was removed. Well, she says the bigger was removed. And I guess that's the confusion is why do we need to why if it's a 10 by 10, why do you need all those permits? It's larger than a 10 by 10. She's probably gonna run electric. Okay, she just said it's larger than 10 by 10, why do you need all those permits? It's larger than a 10 by 10. Well, because she's probably going to run electric. OK. She just said it's larger than 10 by 10. OK. Thank you. You want me to rescind her? Do you want to leave it? I'll rescind her. I want to just amend it. I want you to make the initial motion. OK. I can just amend it, right? Or go out to rescind now. Because we've passed. OK. We've sent second vote on that, and then we'll have, we'll get us more questions, and then put a new motion on table. So help me with my language, if I say it incorrectly, but I make a motion to rescind our motion. I rescind the order I have to order. I have to order. I have to order. I have to order. I have to order. I have to order. I have to order. I have to order. I have to order. I have to I want to make sure we're not talking past each other The larger of the two structures that were in the back was the one removed right And she has pictures to to document so the one that remains is the one that was kind of off on the court right Okay, and it's larger than 10 by 10. It's the 10 by 14. Okay. And you want to add electrical and well, no, she did. I've just been told by the city this morning that she still requires a permit for that one, but that will require a revised survey and engineer drawings. And it's going to take time to get that because they're back a lot with storm work. So I need to obtain a permit through with a engineer drawing as well as a survey. and buy your estimation how much time do you think you need? I was still 120 days. Okay, I'll read something. Again. Try it again. Let us begin. 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 as stated by the Coves Investigator have not been corrected. The Board orders Carol E. Miller to correct the violations within 120 days or by the date of July 24th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, motion. Second. Vote, please. A sec, Liz, neither yes, and so yes, wait yes Yes, okay, thank you now you have 120 days all right Thank you Remember to get make sure that the two of you can contact one another and If this should go longer than 120 days before that permit drops Then you'll get a notice to appear before the special magistrate. Come to that hearing and ask for more time. You will more than likely get it. If you don't come, the fines start to accrue. So it's really important if you're summoned that you come. OK? You're welcome. if you're summoned that you come. Okay? Welcome. Thank you. Item number 97, property owner, Irina, Soto, Mendoza, and Fernando Mendoza investigate our Monique Wadley. Good afternoon. I am Monique Wadley, co-investigator for the city of St. Petersburg. I'm testifying in reference to item 97, case number 24-13721. This is regarding property located at 810 28 street north and I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by the owner. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on August 2nd, 2024, and a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance data September 29th, 2024. The property was last reinpected on March 19th, 2025, and the following violation still exists. There's new vinyl sensing installed without obtaining a certificate of appropriateness. Historic preservation needed to be contacted for any alterations or repairs. There was a COA 2490200123 that was in process, but the COA was denied by commission on 1211 24 at their meeting for the six foot tall vinyl fencing. Zero out of one violation have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail. It was posted at City Hall. It was sent certified mail and it was also posted at the violation address on March 8, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, book 21951, page 0578. And my last contact with the owner prior to today was on February 11th, 2025. She didn't indicate when it would be corrected. She mentioned she was going to try and reapply for the COA. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. And I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit one photograph which was taken on March 8, 2025, 030825721 RSH. This is just showing the elevation of the house with the vinyl fencing that was denied. And I would like to enter this fact sheet and evidence as exhibit two and this concludes my presentation. So Ms. Wadley, do you know why they declined or denied it? Was it the height or was it the vinyl or...? I'm just going to assume based on the history of watching their meetings. They've been very particular about their fence of proof-holes, the fact that one, it's over height and two, typically they are going to approve a picket style fence that's consistent with the neighborhood, which that is not. And we could ask the property owner if they have any additional information, but without going back and reviewing the details of their ruling. It's curious because she's on a corridor. So, yeah. Other than the historic, she's allowed to have offense that tall. If she's on a main street, yes, yes. It is a main street. But the zoning that she's in requires this historic review. Correct. Yeah. Good afternoon, ma'am. Could you give us your name and address for the record? Yes. Irina, Sotomindosa, 810-28th Street, North. OK. So where are you with your fence? I need to reapply for a new fence, but I have been out of the country for family matters that I've been helping with. So I did email after the COA fence, Cynthia, with the historic department about what were the next steps. She said I'll receive something in the mail. I didn't get anything until February 5th. So I had no idea that I asked her, do I need to remove the fence? And then she did redirect me to Mnique. And I think Mnique did. I think you did reply a few months or a month ago. I don't remember my email, let me see. I emailed you on February 11th. I think I got your email on March 20th about this meeting and I have already received, but I just waited a come here. I do need more time to apply for a new COA, which I don't think I'll make it for the April cut, but maybe for the May. And the contractor that I've been working with, the fence people they are just like swamp with, work from the storm and they want to take out the fence when they put the new one. Because that would be the easiest so I do need a little bit more time to do. So through the process again. You know, has the historic board given you any guidance as to what you can put in place? They said to reapply to a new COA. That was it. Yeah, so I have no, nothing other than that. I do know what the requirement is. I think it's the transparency and also the height. I am in a main street, and I did bring that to the board. It's a very busy street. That's why I installed a fence like that. There is another fence similar to mine across the street, and I thought it was something that I could do, but because I'm like in a particular set of homes that they are considered only, that they need to apply for a COI, I can't, but my neighbor can. So I just didn't know it. It's just, but I did call zoning. So when he told me I was okay with doing it. So yeah. You have a historic go for life. I got the extra step, yes. I just don't have the people and I did have to go out of the country for three months to hold my family. So do you think a couple of months? I would say 60 days. I'm going to try to apply for the main meeting. I just need to put my package together again. And then once they approve that, then I'll just meet with the fencing company and then they can switch it. Because as they the other one, they can take out the one that's right now. Or so I would say 60 days. Okay. Anybody have any other questions? I can try. I'll read it. 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 have not been corrected. The board orders Arina Soto-Mennosa to correct the violations within 60 days or by May 25th, 2025. If this order is not complied with the fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Do we think that's enough time? Well, I mean, I guess maybe I should ask this prior. Once she gets the approval of the COA, that's like getting a permit and then this case goes on hold, right? Yeah, there's no fence doesn't have to be replaced. It just has to be approved. Right and there's no permitting requirements for Offence. So if they were to approve it as it is right now, then yeah, it's the case is done. No, I she's gonna have to apply with a new fence design, I guess. Yeah. Because if that's her plan, yes, yeah. I mean, and then what will happen is that the certificate of Permanence will get approved based on that new design, and then they give them a time frame to actually implement that. And we don't enforce during that time frame. Okay. So we just basically need the COA to be approved, and then our job, correct, is done. Yes, so that's why I went with the 60 days. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. And Shaw? Yes. Wait. Yes. Listen. Yes. Okay, ma'am, you have 60 days. We wish you good luck. Okay. I was just caution you that the company that put the original fencing didn't realize these things. So just I Yeah, no I hired Somebody so yeah, thank you though Item 181 1134 Highland Street Trust faith and, Faith and Investments, LLC, Investigator for Zone 9, Jean Medu. Good afternoon. I am Jean Madoucote's investigator for the City of St. Petersburg. Testifying in reference to item number 181. Case number 23-3375 regarding property located at 1134. Island Street Note. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a multifamily structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a C click fix case. The property was first inspected on March 1, 2023, and is a violation notice was centered on with a compliance date of March 29, 2023. The property was last re-inspected on March 19, 2025, and the following violations still exist. Stiers are showing signs of wood rot and is in this repair. Exterior walls are in this repair throughout structure to include rotted wood, chipping, peeling, paint, cracks, patients are inrepair at multiple areas around the structure. There's also chipping and peeling paint on the facial and soft, observe the multiple windows and window casings in disrepair. Evidence of rotted wood, chipping and peeling paint and water intrusion. Window screens are damaged, torn, and or missing throughout the structure, electric wires under the stairs are hanging and exposed to the elements. They need to be properly secured and placed in conduits. One out of seven violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of herein was sent first-class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, and posted at the violation address on March 10, 2025, which is at least 10 days before, sorry, prior to this Heron. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 19970, page 2082. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner. Prior to today was on March 12, 2025. The department recommends 25 days and $200 per day after for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case. There are two permits. Permit number 25-0300125 it is approved and 25-03001260 is in process and those two permits are for siding only. There is however an expired, 23-05001138, that expired on September 26, 2024. I would like to enter in evidence as Exhibit One. Photographs which were taken on March 19, document 0319-2025-375-J1M photographs 1 through 13. This is elevated shot of the property. This is the rear of the structure. You can see the chipping paint on the walls in this repair rotted wood. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. the where of the structure where there's wood. Again, this shows the rear of the property in this repair. This is one side of the building that has rotted wood, chipping, peeling paint, etc. Again, rotted wood at the base there. This is the creaming, showing rotted wood there. If a shane softness is in this repeat over there with chipping and peeling paint. So over here has the rotted wood for the CAKs. Over here it looks like they did some work. This was had rotted wood there before. Okay. Same feeling paint on the floor. I would like to enter into every dance as exhibit one. Sorry. Sorry. I would like to enter this fact sheet into exhibit as exhibit two. And this concludes my presentation. Okay, we just wanted to make sure you were not. Does the expired permit encompass the rest of the work that? Yes, yes, that would cover the full scope of work. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Good afternoon, sir. Could we have your one second? I have a question. You said you said this was open since March of 23. Yes. Okay, so all right. So, Chair, if I made it clear, five, the conditions were cited in 2023. The property owners pulled that 2023 permit that covered the full scope of the work. So it was removed from the process, but now there's been Not enough work completed and that permit is expired and now the only approved permit they have covers just the citing Thank you for the clarification. So the permit that covers the full scope is expired correct Yeah, so one permit is open and the second permit is in process and the third permit is expired. Yeah, no, ma'am There is one permit that is expired. That's 2023 permit and then one approved permit for citing only there I do not have any in process at this time. I don't see any in process at this. It's under the sound by dress 1136 There There's one. Yeah, that's in process there. 32 is taken. Okay. So then under the half address, they have another permit in process and that only covers signing again, citing. So there's a half the I had two questions. Is this building occupied? Yes. And you had mentioned water intrusion. So there's been water intrusion for two years. But that I cannot confirm as often as you. She hasn't been there. Because I didn't see any pictures of the windows. Because you said that's where the water was was coming in Can you have any other information? There are previous photos of that like older photos. I'm just concerned about two years of water. There's probably full of mold Right I can't confirm like thank you All right,. Could we get your name and address for the record, please? Sure. Attorney Robert King, my home address is 76037 Street, North and St. Petersburg, Florida. My office address is 440 Park Boulevard and Penalist Park. And I'm appearing on behalf of the property owner. Okay. Which would be 1134 Highland Street or? Yeah, it's a trust. So it's 1134 Highland Street trust. The trustee is faith in investments LLC. Okay. So it's taken us two years to get to this point and wouldn wooden buildings of that age do not age well in this condition. What is your client doing or not doing? Well, you know, in the context of as many good contractors as there are in Florida, there's probably as many bad contractors. And unfortunately, you went with one called Honest Contracting, which should have been a good indicator that it wasn't going to be great. So once she signed with honest contracting for that permit that's now expired that was like a $300,000 all encompassing it was going to be windows you know everything. contracting put her with an engineer and an architect to draw everything up and prepared plans. By the time all of that was done and they were ready to actually do the work, then Honest contracting came back and said, oh, it's going to be $22,000 more than the $309,000 you already agreed to pay us and so that was like three days before the expiration of the permit and so if she didn't sign then they were just going to let it expire which is ultimately what happened She did hire a new contractor and there is actually a change of contractor form that was submitted to the city on March 20th. They wouldn't let the new contractor reactivate the overall permit until the change of contractor form was processed, which is a process that takes a few days from my understanding. And so once that change of contractor is applied to that expired permit, then that permit will be brought up to date and reinstated as an active permit. And then in an ideal situation, 100% of these outstanding issues will be resolved in six months or less. How many units are in her property? I believe it's a four unit. Four unit, okay. And are all of these units occupied? I'm not 100% certain on the occupancy level at this moment. I know at least two units are occupied, but I don't know if the entire building is occupied at the moment. Once the course of events goes as this person has described, once the expired permit gets reinstated with the new contractor, does this go unhold? It doesn't go unhold. We're going to want to make sure within 90 days there's work that's progressing and if we don't see anything within those 90 days then we would bring it back to the magistrate. So it goes on hold for 90 days? 90 days yes but not indefinitely when you know it's like an after the fact type of situation the work's already done. Right. Understand. Yeah. And just so I'm understanding so 23 crappy contractor 24 nothing done the entire year now 25 new contractor. Well it wasn't until, I mean during the period between the time that that contractor was initially hired in the time that they tried to present us with a $22,000 additional bill, the engineering work was done and all of the plans were laid for how this work was going to proceed. And so it wasn't that there was nothing happening entirely. And also there was some remedial repairs that were made in the interim to make sure that there wasn't any unsafe conditions that were unduly hazardous. When did the when did the permit expire? According to my notes it says.... September 2024. Okay, so you get all the way to September 24 until now we got to do something different. And then the hurricanes. Okay. And as you can imagine, finding a contractor in September of 2024 or October. I mean, what I think we should do is give you enough time to get this permit reinstated and then it's up to you guys as the city said to get going to make sure that you're not back in front of us. Absolutely. The only, I mean definitely moving forward on the sheeting and framing any issues with that should be not a problem within that 90 day period that you described. However, the windows my understanding is they're gonna take about four months, there's over 50 windows and the window order alone is like 110,000. I can't speak for this. I'm assuming if you're actively working on the property that's what they're looking for. Sure. So how long to get the new contractor form? You said only takes a few days, It's already been filed Yeah, I mean we expect the change of contractor to be Completed within the next probably by the end of this week and then I would imagine you know I don't know what the permit approval process is as far as reinstating that I know obviously new permits are timely or time consuming but Assuming that there's not a lot of time constraints in terms of just reactivating that existing permit then it shouldn't be a couple weeks I would imagine. Well doubt if anything happens that fast around here but okay but the fact that there was a permit approved means they have already approved the design work that was done so it should happen faster than a permit from scratch from nothing. Yeah. Okay. means they have already approved the design work that was done so it should happen faster than a permit from scratch from nothing. Yeah okay. I hear you. So how about the exterior stairs where there was wood rot deterioration wood placed in it? Has anybody gone out to is that permit required to fix those stairs? That the stair repair is included in that approved that expired permit. All encompassing one that we're trying to get that he's trying to get to walk down those stairs. So you're asking for we can evaluate it for an unsafe condition or for the safety condition. But that's not what the current situation is. No, I'm not looking for anything extra. I'm just I'm with alley on this one. There's on the stairs that was a safety concern for me. Sure, absolutely. Well, I think also those temporary posts that I saw put up. There was four. There was no Strapping there were no brackets. There was a single toenail kicked in and I'm really concerned about That they had four four posts up there that just weren't installed correctly like they're literally someone running to them They're gonna fall down should we ask in that case should we ask the city to go do I'm with Ali I think that's what Alibis view it yeah, I would highly suggest that safe since it's occup building is occupied the what is there? Yeah, okay, four posts don't really do nothing for me. No. So let's decide on a number of days and the time the city is going to go out and evaluate the safety of it. If you find it to be unsafe will you open another case? Correct. The stair violation in this case would be inactivated and we would start a separate unsafe case. Okay. Good. All right, Chills. That's hard. Okay. So I'll give it a go. Yeah. 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 codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders 1134 Highland Street Trust, faith in investments LLC to correct the violations within 25 days or by April 20th, 2025. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. I mean, the reason I chose 25 was because, I mean, if you guys don't want to hear it then. So we have a motion in the second. Did you mean 150 instead of 200? Because I like 200. Do you? Okay. Yeah. I can I to be honest with that in right down the city's recommendation but I can definitely I always do see, you can always ask me. All right, I will. The recommendation was 200. Okay, I'll amend if you guys are okay with that. Can I amend it now? Okay, amend the amount from 150 per day to 200 per day. And second. Second. Okay, so do we have any further discussion? I was just going to mention that the reason I selected 25 was because like I was getting at earlier, all I got to do is reinstate this permit that they had, and that's what the 25 days is for. The safety assessment is independent of that. Yeah, that's correct. And they start a new case. Right, if they find it's unsafe, right, that was sort of the reinsurance reassurance Exactly and just to clarify um, oh my back We'll be back with you in just a second. I'm So show we vote yep a cyclist Yes Schneider yes, and Shaw yes wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Okay. So the board has given you 25 days to get your permit reinstated. Okay. And then we need you to commence work to actually get things done. They will go out and assess the stairs again. The members of the board kind of felt that they were on shaky ground, if you will. If something happens and they find that those stairs are unsafe, what they will do is issue you another violation. But I would strongly suggest that if there are tenants living back there and using those stairs, that you get those fixed first and foremost. Absolutely. I'm sure you had a question. No, you addressed it. Okay. And I'd secure those four posts better than what they were. Okay. I'll definitely pass it along. Thank you so much. Your time. Okay. Next case, please. Item 21, property owner Joseph P. Johnson, investigator Carl Gordon. I'm Carl Gordon, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 21. Case number 24-1751. Regarding property located at 2310 La Parylla, Waysav, I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single-family structure and it is vacant. This is a citizens complaint case. The property was first inspected on September the 20th, 2024. And a violation noticed into the honor with a compliance date of October 17th, 2024. The property was last reinspected on March 17th, 2025, and the following violations still exist. Vehicles located on the property, not in proper operating conditions, including white, four-door Chevrolet truck without valetag, white dog truck without a valetag, any other inoperative vehicles located on the property. Inoperable vehicles, located on the property needs to be removed from the property, and or brought into compliance. John Trash and the Brea and outdoor stores located on the property, including the private property and or the public right away needs to be removed from the property. And the domestic equipment trade located on the property is in this repair and needs to be removed from the property. Zero out of three violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class man posted at City House and certified male and was posted at the violation address on March on March 11, 2025, which at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownship was confirmed in County Official Records Book 11664, page 0461. Doing, of course, in my investigation, my last contact with owner prior to today was on February 20, 2025. and I want to did not indicate when the volition will be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs were taken on March 11, 2025. Document 031-725-51-1-CBG and follow numbers 1 through 10. Here's a front view of the property itself. Picture of a flat tire or one inoperable vehicles on the property. It's by our tag on the vehicle. to expand tax. There's another vehicle located on the rear of the property without a tag. the this is a picture of that vehicle without the truck or without the Dr. Trash and the bre-located on the property here. or a junk trash in-located on the property. The domestic equipment trailer, as you can see the tire is not properly fitting within the room. The room. Another flat tire on that domestic equipment, the trailer. Here's another vehicle. Okay. On the property without a valetite. I would like to enter this vaccine to evidence exit. No. Number two in this concludes my presentation. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. Does anybody have any questions for staff? Okay. Good afternoon, sir. Could you give us your name? I'd like to address for the record, please. Joseph Johnson, 3226, 16th Avenue South, saying, please, we're 33712. Okay, thank you, Mr. Johnson. So, where do your plans for this property? How are you using it now? Well, I purchased the property some time ago. Actually, it's for me in retirement. Hopefully five more years from now, but the plan is to occupy it at some point between now and the next five years. Currently, I commute for work and takes a considerable amount of time to get back and forth. But since the the violation notice I did ask for additional time. I think that was on February 20th. I'm not sure about the communication on the 20th. I mean, on February 19th, it was actually when I sent an email, but I'm not sure about any communications after that. So I just want to try to get clarity on that. But as far as bringing everything into compliance, it's all about time. And since then, there's been much more as far as storm debris and not being able to access the property after the event. So some things have happened there. The vehicles, as you can see, is being used now to remove a lot of that debris that was deposited after I think that was Milton. So at least three or four weeks after Milton, we could not access the alley due to trees and debris. So we're going through the process of recovery and that takes some time. I'm sorry I missed it again when was the first violation notice? 9 9 of 24 yes sir 9 of 24 yes sir September 20th okay and did you just say that you were using some of the vehicles on the property to remove some of the yes since then I'm sure there's no pictures of it in this filing of this violation, but there were several trees that were down in that alley. We could not access it. We did not have the equipment to move it. At some point, I guess, with the emergency declaration being in place, the city did remove some of the debris and opened up that to access, but that was like maybe a month later. So we're well after that event. So and the debris that we had to remove in the yard. So yeah, we're using the trucks and everything to get that removed. When do you plan on start removing all the debris? Oh, we started. Yeah, yeah, we plan on finishing them. Well, that's a good question. I work out of state. So getting back and forth for me, especially today for this hearing, it has been a better conversation to understand just what I go through, but we never did get a chance to talk, never did get a chance to communicate. So the time is the issue. The clients is just addressing those. You didn't notice this, correct? I received my, when I found out, I did respond on February 19th. So I have not. So if I'm understanding correctly, those vehicles are now properly tagged and up and running and the tires aren't flat and the trailers working and you're using all those to facilitate the cleanup. Though the trailer will be removed. We're going to remove that. One of the trucks that I think that's the Dodge, it is properly tagged now. The Chevy, I was waiting on the paperwork, I bought it at an auction. So it was some confusion about just when I received that final paperwork. But since then, you know, since those pictures was taken, tree limbs and everything else fell on that truck. So, repairing it, we're still in the process, but I'm waiting for that paperwork to come through in order to get it properly registered. I can read something if you're ready. Yeah, unfortunately, though, Mr. Johnson, a lot of the stuff I saw in that picture is not trees. It's tires. Well, what I mean by trees is that there were no pictures of the actual damages from the event. That's kind of subsequent from September. What was it? September 10th. I think Milton happened in October. So all those deposits and all that damage and everything that occurred in that neighborhood. And I'm sure his pictures from perhaps damage assessment pictures that was taken after the event, but it was considerable damaging that neighborhood during that time. I'm not disputing that. Yeah. What I'm telling you is there's a lot more to the junk trash and debris. We could not access that property during that time at that area. We could not get down there. To build up all of that stuff. And I agree. I'm not disagreeing with you. As I stated, it takes time now in order to comply. You've had six months. Well, I haven't been here six months. I had to come in today just for this meeting. We just want that the evidence presented in this case, I moved at the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Joseph Johnson to correct the violations within 25 days or by April 20th 2025 if this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Okay we've had a motion in the second any discussion? No. Okay let's move. A sec list? Yes. Nighter? Yes. Hanchha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Listen. Yes. Okay, let's move. A sec list? Yes. Knighter? Yes. Hanchha? Yes. Wait? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Okay, sir. The board's giving you 25 days. Communication is the key and I would like to be able to communicate with the code officer to make sure that we have an open line so he understands that. It's a big deal. I'm amount in the hall. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Item 112, property owner Dwayne Roberts Scott, and Dwayne Roberts Scott Jr., investigator Petrina Millen, and great investigator Carl Gordon. Covering for Petrina. Okay. It's got training to be. We need to be careful. I don't know. I'm Carl Gordon. Coates investigator for the City of St. Petersburg testifying and reference to item number one, 12, case number 24-16516. Regarding property located at 616th Avenue South, I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure inupy about tenets. This is a citizens complaint case. The property was first inspected on September 11, 2021 and in violation notice into the honor of Compliance State of October 7, 2021. The property was last reinspected on March 13, 2025 and the following violations still exist. A vehicle located on the property, not in proper operating conditions, including a gray Chevrolet with our ballot tax. Any other inoperable vehicles like an on the property, inoperable vehicles need, located on the property needs to be removed from the property and are about into compliance. Torn, rip, miss window screens located on the structure. Missing torn screens located on the accessory structure. Rest corrosion located on the securing door. On the accessory structure, torn broken parts, pieces located on the door. outora out of eight violations have been corrected since this case begin. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, since certified mail and was posted at the violation address on March 13, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to his hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, but one828 page 2067. Doing a course in my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today was on October the 16th, 2004, and the owner was, I'll say they were working on the issues. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day. They are out of for non-compliance. I would like to enter into the evidence as exhibit number one for the grasswoods which were taken on March 13, 2025. Document zero three, one three two five five one six CBG and follow it number one through eight. Here is a front view of the structure itself. Here is an in-op of a vehicle located on the property as you see no tag here. So, is this a close-up shot showing that there's a flat tire on that vehicle? Here's the accessory structure located in the rear of the proper witches occupant by tenants. Here's the securing door which is located on the structure that As you can see here, there's rust corrosion missing parts, pieces located on there. Window screens located on the sassure structure missing. There's a more windows showing that missing window screens. And here's. Here's this front view of the vehicle that was in the inoperable vehicle that was located on the property. I would like to enter this fact she into evidence as exhibit number two in this concludes my presentation. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. Does anybody have questions of staff? I do. So is there two tenants in this dwelling? This is the rental unit. That's the rental, the accessory structure is a rental unit. There was, the front unit, we have, we've, it's a rental, feel like it's a rental person in the front unit, but we're not exactly sure. But we do, we know there's somebody in the rear of the property. And that rear unit is a legal dwelling? Yes, ma'am. And that's the accessory structure. Yes, ma'am. Anything else? Good afternoon. Could I have your names and addresses for the record, please? Yes. My name is Duane Roberts Scott. It's 26th Avenue North zip code is 3 3 7 1 3 So Mika Scott 26 37 27th Avenue North St Petersburg Florida 3 3 7 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 Thank you. So Both the main house and the accessory dwelling are rented out to tenets yes okay how much time are you gonna need to finish the work that you've started um I think the car is gone but I would like to it is gone um I would like the end of May if that's possible. Okay. So you're looking for yeah because we worked on the front we got the front done we're working on the back now and we have some flood damage to the back during the storm after the fact. Enter you guys clear with everything that needs to get done? You kind of understand all that. Yes, now we are. Yes. Yeah. And do you have a way to get in touch with your code's investigator? Yep. If it's Mr. Goren, yes, I do. Okay. Good. I'll read something. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The bill is the bill is the bill. The bill is the bill. The bill is a second. 90 days, $150. So I did 90 days because they're asking for the end of May. Yeah. And the end of May, I mean, it was $5.25 just given a little extra time to get it done so that they don't have to come back. I know it was a citizen complaint. Yeah. I think it's too long. There's tenants in there with no screens on the window. I think that's too long. Sean Kee. OK. Would you? All amend? Yes. I will amend item number 112 from 90 days to correct the violation to 60 days or by a date of May 25th 2025. Second. If not complied with the final be 150 per day. So we have an amended motion and a second for 60 days and $150. Any further discussion? Let's vote. My seclus? Yes. Nidah? Yes. Haunchaw? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. OK. The board's given you 60 days. Keep up the good work. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next days, please. Item number 51. Property. Michelle Denmark Williams, investigator Jose Rodriguez. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I am Jose Rodriguez, co-investigated for the City of St. Petersburg. Testifying and reference to item number 51. Case number 24-13484 regarding property located at 1063 Queen Street South. I was wanting that this meeting. The property is a single family structure, is occupied by honor. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on July 31st of 2024 and the violation noticed since it owned with the compliance date of September 6th of 2024. The property was last reinspected on March 18th of 2025 and the following violation still exists. Permits are permits required for any and all alterations to property. wall and the softwares corner of structure. Four out of five violations have been corrected since this case began. Notals of hearing was sent first class mail posted a city hall certified mail delivered by certified mail was posted at the violation address on March 11th of 2025 which is the least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records, book 22820, page 0788. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today was on March 10th of 2025, and the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. Department recommends 25 days, and $100 per day thereafter for not a compliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are there was a permit that was expired in regards to Windows being installed, but that permit has since been reinstated. It's a window permit 22-0500-2287, which doesn't expire until March of 2027. I would like to enter to evidence exhibit number one photographs, which are taken on March 18th of 25 and February 24th of 25. Document CBO31825484JR and photographs one through five. This first photograph is the interior shot of the door and the wall that have been installed at the property. Another interior shot, again, door and wall that was installed. It's a exterior shot of the wall and the door installed at the property. It's the elevation to the office. And there's just a shot of install windows that again that permanent this time is active. I would like to enter to fact enter this fact sheet into evidence exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Could you clarify for me where the door and the wall is that inside the dwelling or is that an exterior? It's on the exterior. So if you can picture a car port as an example, an overhang at the rear of the property, if you will. So one side of that overhang has a wall in the door installed. Yes, ma'am. Because it didn't look like it was an interior shot. It's not interior, no. Just the shot, like the picture itself, does make it seem like it's... I would address it maybe like a utility area, but it's more like an overhang. It's almost kind of a mind of a car port almost. Yes, ma'am. So the window work is covered by a permit that's.... It was one of the original violations just, but she had been going down and working on it, trying to get everything put together. And that's so my understanding through conversation is those were done prior to her obtaining the property. And then she had to go back and actually get that permit reactivated. But that's open and so the work is- That's taking care of. Right. Yes. It's the door and the wall that is the open issue. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Any more questions for staff? All right. Good afternoon, ma'am. Could you give us your name and address for the record, please? Good afternoon. My name's Michelle. Denmark Williams. address 1063, Queen Street South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33712. Thank you. So. did Mark Williams address 106 3 Queen Street South St. Petersburg Florida 33712. Thank you. So how long do you think it's going to take you to get a permit for the wall on the door? Well I went down that last week regarding the permit. I guess the main issue I had with it like he said it was previous issues and those all were resolved. I asked and question was when I purchased the home, right, because based on the codes when I got it, it was like I put the door in the wall there. So I was asking him in question like, hey, that was already there when I obtained the house. Didn't have to be removed or with the question. So when I went to to permitting they pretty much told me the option would be I guess to demolish it I mean you know take it down or to redo it I guess and get a permit for that so based on That I guess however long we would take for permit my option was probably just taking it down because I didn't understand if it was already there why we have to pay for permit to remove it if I didn't put it up. So I guess however long it takes for that. They want you to do a permit either way. If you want if you want to take it down and two if you want to. That was my understanding. I was going to go back to request it because I was like okay if I had just to get rid of codes and to not be bothered with those violations right if I just take it down with that suffice he said it's possible to be done but he didn't know if I would have to do a permit for it when I went they made me have the understanding that I would have to get a permit to remove it or a permit to redo the wall. I guess based on coal standings and building requirements, if I wanted to keep the wall there. Well, I can understand needing to get one to leave it there or to rebuild it. Right. Not sure about the demo part, but that's... I'm not in the building department. I mean that's so that's what I just wanted to kind of demo part, but that's I'm not in the building department. Well, I mean, that's so that's what I just wanted to kind of clarification on if it that's the case if because I didn't add the wall there, right? You would have to consult with the building department. They're the ones who give you the best advice. Okay, so I could that might entail somebody coming out. Okay, okay. Okay. Contact them to be sure. So I guess maybe on the safe side just to make sure um going back to them and if it if it does require permit maybe 60 days um hopefully something like that if I can just remove it so this can be off my back. So yeah we're in the business here of trying to get you to resolve violations, not to give you more headaches, but. Definitely. That, I mean, definitely. That's the reason that most, everything was done. You know, like I told him, it was all pretty much done. I just didn't understand when he initially was saying, he, he, he, he quoted it, he put it in the thing, and my understanding, he was like, hey, the door on the side. and I was like, hey, I just, because I had just brought the house in May, July. And I was like, hey, the door on the side. And I was like, hey, I just, because I had just brought the house in May, July. And I was like, that was already there. I didn't add it. So I was thinking that he thought I added a door in the wall. The house is almost 100 years old. I never added it. It's just repainted. Does the wall have any, give any electrical running into it. It's structural. It's just a ball swall with nothing on it. Right. So I said, I'm on the give any electrical running to it. It's structural. It's just a fall swall with nothing on it. Right. So I sit on the, I'm on the dead end street. My house is the last house. My yard is pretty much the side of the house. It's just on the side. It's just the wall there in the door. And I just use it for like things I really don't want to store. Like in the garage. like propane tanks, additional bicycles, you know, different things like that. You can always go down with a bunch of photos and just show them with that explanation that there's literally, it does nothing. Yeah, okay. Maybe they'll not require you to pull a permit. Maybe. Okay. Okay. It's not real. No. No. Okay. Fingers crossed. All right. So I'll follow back up on that. I would just maybe say 60 days just to make sure that I can do what's necessary if I have to have a permit to take it down. If they say I have to take it down, then my husband's willing to just take it down. But I don't want to go and take it down. then they tell me I took you down without a permit. So, I got an after the fact, demo and... You need to talk to them. If you don't do it their way, you're in trouble. Right. All right, so let us figure out how many days we can get yet. I'll be so. Okay, sounds good. All right, so. Here, can you just give me one second just trying to look at something with that. And why are you looking, thank you for being cooperative and getting everything else done. Yeah. Well, I leave you so thank you. Yeah, I mean I don't want to close the bottom of me and I don't think nobody does. You know, he probably don't want to deal with me either but... I just want to deal with you. I just... It's been a long day today. Oh, I've been in here with you guys all day. I know. Yes. Need the jeopardy music. Yes, I just wanted to look real quick. So I would imagine if there was an attempt to get it permitted, it would not be allowed, because it's going to encroach into the setbacks. It's right on the rear property line. And really, from a permitting standpoint, if it was just, if there was, let's say, you know, a header put across the exterior of that garage door and they just kind of leaned it off of it. Removing that is not going to require a permit. When they start tying into structural components of other parts of the building and then they want to undo that work, that's more when the permitting requirements would come in. So this is just a basic lean to that was kind of installed at some point back in time. Just removing that as long as it doesn't impact the garage structure, That's probably the best path forward because I don't believe it would be permitted because of the location. Right. I think what I did ex previously I went down for permitting because I was going to see if it could just be closed completely off and they told me I couldn't put the floor because of the I guess the like you're saying like the line of how far it, you know, go out, right? So you're suggesting if the demolition route may not require a permit? Yeah, I mean, I haven't seen exactly how it's tied into the main structure, but if it's not tied into any other structural components, then it should be as easy as just removing it and that's the end of it. Mr. Rodriguez can go out and take some photographs and we can review them. It's probably not allowed us to do that, but I don't see it being an issue. Yeah, I mean, he took the photos. It's just like a fence post, right? It's like they put a fence post and a fence post, a piece of plywood and a door. That's pretty much connected. You do know how to get in touch with Mr. Rodriguez, right? Oh yeah, definitely. Stay in touch with him and have him come out and take another look at the thing, a close look, and maybe he can help advise you. Okay. In the meantime, let us give you some time to get it resolved, okay? Okay, thank you. All right, I'll read some. Based upon the evidence presented this case, a 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 is stated by the Coves Investigator of Not Been Corrected. The board orders Michelle Denmark Williams to correct the violations within 60 days or by the date of May 25's been seconded. Any discussion? Could we vote please? Yes. Nidah? Yes. Wait. Yes. Listen. I'm going to vote. I'm going to vote. I'm going to vote. I'm going to vote. I'm going to vote. I'm going to vote. I'm going to vote. I'm going to vote. Yes, Schneider? Yes. Nanchal? Yes. Wait. Yes. Listen. Yes. Thank you. There's 60 days, ma'am. Thank you. Have a good one. Wish you luck. Thanks. Next case, please. Item number 88. Property owner Zayan Lababadi, Ryan, Nawi Lababadi, and Vesca Ramonee Quadley. Good afternoon. I am Monique Wadley, Coates Investigator for the City of St. Petersburg. I'm testifying in reference to item 88, case number 24-14591. This is regarding property located at 2020 Burlington Avenue North. NOS wanted at the start of this meeting. This property is a multifamily structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a code's follow-up case. The property was first inspected on August 13, 2024 and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of September 12, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on March 19, 2025 and the following violations still exist. In the main unit there are several lights in the hallway that are not illuminating. Currently there's two of them on the first floor and two of them on the second floor. There's Roddett and I'm sorry and there's also Mildew Substance located on various areas of the main structure. There's rotted wood and cracks located on various window trims. There's several window glass that have some cracks in them. There's various areas of stucco dysrepair on the main structure. There's also on the main structure in the rear structure. There's some bare wood and some like peeling deteriorated paint. There's a block wall along the east side that's in disrepair with cracks and voids. There's rotted wood fence panels above the block wall. And then there's mildew substance located on the block wall and the wood fence and then exterior door framing on the rear structure is in disrepair with exposed wood and there's some splintered wood on the fascia trim boards of the rear structure. Zero out of seven violations have been corrected since this case began notice appearing was was sent first class mail. It was posted at City Hall. It was sent certified mail and it was also posted at violation address on March 8, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, but 2-1-0-2-9, page 1110. My last contact with the owner prior to today was on February 27th, 2025, and he advised that the violations would be corrected as soon as possible. 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 March 20, 2025. Document C E B 0 3 2625 591 MW. This is just showing the elevation of the property. This is just showing some of the hall lights that are not working. This is showing some stucco this repair and all up here. Here's some rotted wood on the window framing. rotted wood and some mildew. This is the door frame that is in disrepair. Oh, I found it. And here's the other side where it's in disrepair and it's not painted. And this is showing some of the fence that's got mildew on it. 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 the mill do. And then this is showing the block wall that's in this repair. It's got some void in it. This is some of the window glass is cracked. And then it's just some more of the, um, Robert Wood. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you, Ms. Wadley. Does anybody have questions for staff? I do. What is, what is this building? What is it used for? What is it's? It's multi-family structure. There's tenets in this. There's tenets. So they have the main structure and then there's a rear structure in the back. So I think there's eight of them in the main. Yeah. Eight. Thank you. Did it in the front and then a probably one or two in the back. Yeah. Yep. And this was a follow-up from 813. Did you guys go out on 813 or was this case open before then? So I had previous cases that are going from here so it was a follow-up case from, yeah Good afternoon sir could you give us your name and address for the record please. Yes ma'am my name is the Adler of Edie and my address is 24th Avenue, Burlington, Mestresids. Okay. So how long is it going to take you to get all of these things repaired? It looks like there's a lot of work to be done in these old buildings. We have started actually doing a lot of stuff as, as Miss Wildly, I've been communicating with her all the time, actually. Possibly 90 days, I would think maybe 90 days we could get the job done. Is there already an open permit on this? No. No. Well, should there, I mean, some of this work requires it, right? Thanks, so. I mean, I think that like some of the minor stucco repairs, there's like windows. But yeah, with the windows, if they're going to be replacing windows, or if they start getting into the trim around the windows, and then there's, just repaired down into the actual framing and their replacing framing, then yes, that would trigger permitting requirements. And the block walls probably going to need something too. Yeah, with the step cracking like that, my experience with the building departments been been, you know, if they're just going to fill in the joints with some concrete to kind of shore up any of the separation that's happened, they don't require a permit for that. Now, if they were going to be pulling that block out and then rebuilding it, then that would be a separate issue. It looks to me like the blocks are out of position. Yeah, that would be the, I mean, if they've actually started, it's not just step cracking and it shifted out of place, and yes, that would be more. How long have you owned this property? Possibly 11 years. Because it looks like it's been allowed to deteriorate quite a bit. I mean, you're actually- Actually, some of that is correct. It's an old building and there's always things that you have to do. And- And I've been doing them. Actually, a lot of the issues that happened recently after the storm, and especially because of the roof. There's a bunch of other things that's not happened since the storm. That rotting has been happening for years. Some of this stuff, yes, yes sir. We had in the past couple of years, at least for the past two or three years, a lot of the issues may come in from the roof itself, and causing some damage, which we have been addressing, bringing people, supposedly, professional people, to fix it. Unfortunately, every few months, every six months, that thing goes back again. Until recently, we had to do the whole roof all over again. And that was recent in the past, possibly six weeks. Is that a per minute? Yes, it was. So you're an out-of-state landlord, correct? Yes, ma'am. That's really a cause. That caused me a lot of headache. I have to say, believe it or not, actually a few weeks ago, I had a hearing and I was overseas on business. Left business came back here, come to find out the hearing was postponed after traveling from overseas. Do you have someone local, a property manager, a construction company? I do. I do have somebody that comes and helps, but a lot of times the gentleman is absolutely correct. Some of the stuff we need to address and I'm very busy and it just happened that some of the stuff did not happen. The main issue is and the safety issues, those are, I do not, like go. Usually we address anything that has to do with safety we address those. There are some issues we need to take care of. Two questions. questions. Who's your property management company? And then if I heard the city correctly, you haven't done anything since August because they're saying there's still zero out of seven violations in place, so nothing's happened since August. But so can you answer those two questions? Who's property management company? What have you done since? I don't have a management company actually. You don so you do it all yourself I get some help it was a while and sometimes if it takes that I have to take care of it myself I do have you replaced the lights in the hallway so your tenants can see where they're walking at night we we do but unfortunately there's certain something that's happening in there. So we put a new bulbs in there and within few days sometimes they go for some reason. I have a lot of things you could have been doing in the last seven months. I understand we had hurricanes, I understand you're an out of state owner But you have to put things in place if that's how you're gonna run your business and Enough time is passed For these repairs to a lot of these you could have had four of these already done At least minimum before you came how many people are in And there's eight people or eight tenants in the front. Is there a back building? Is there two, are there two structures on this? There's an exterior back door frame that's on the back. And there's a rear structure with, how many tenants do you have? There is a rear structure. It's the two units in the back. And actually there are 10 units in the main building. There are small unit studios and efficiencies. So 10 in the front and 2 in the back? Correct. They all occupied? No. How many are? I believe right now, possibly 10 occupies right now. I think all we're saying is you've got a fairly large structure here. You've got 10 tenants you're collecting rent from and you're not maintaining the place. That's the bottom line. And so it's not fair to them. That's why you're here. And it's a great, great area. And he's had seven months. The story. Yeah, I mean, so you can do what you want. But if you're going to have all this property here and these tenants, it seems like you have somebody here taking care of it. Because you're obviously not able to be in this, you know, you're overseas, you're busy, whatever it is. Anyway, that's up to you to decide. You ready? Go for it. OK, based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issued the following findings of facts. it is. Anyway, that's up to you to decide. You ready? Go for it. Okay, based on pawn the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issued the following findings, the 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 Ziyad, how do you pronounce your last I love that beauty but I'm gonna ask you to see it again. All right. I'm gonna stick. Now we. Ziyad Labai. How do you approach your last name? Love at BD, but I'm asking you to say it again. All right. I'm gonna stick now. We love a BD. Correct To correct the violations within 25 days or by April 20th 2025 if this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day, shall be imposed. Second. Second. We have a motion for 25 days and $200 per day. It's been seconded. Any discussion? You want to find out? Yeah. OK. I want to make sure. He moved the fine up. I was just clarifying. The recommendation was 150. I take it. Yeah, it's two. Two on one. I mean, you know, we, we, I think everybody's discussing. I'm good with it. I'm good with it. I'm good with it. Okay. Let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Nanchal? Yes. Wait. 25 days, sir, that are getting busy. Thank you. Thank you. Item number 41, property owner trust, number 80514 Land Trust Service Corporation, and investigator Jean Medou. Good afternoon, I am Jean Medou. It's investigative at the City of St. Petersburg? Testifying and reference to item number 41 case number 24-9528 regarding property located at 805-14th street north. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a multifamily structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a sea click fix case. The property was first inspected on May 31, 2024, and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of June 30, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on 319 2025, and the following violations delexist. Advertisement and rental of a property from transient accommodations, which is occupancy for less than a monthly term, is prohibited within the neighborhood traditional single-family zoning district. The main home and ADU are both currently listed on Airbnb. Zero out of one violations have been collected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent a certified mail, and was posted at the violation address on 311 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 18076, page 1980. I have not had any contact with the owner. No, sorry. My last contact with the owner prior to today was on March 11, 2025. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit one, photographs which were taken on 812 and 114, 114, 2024, 16321 and 325 of 2025. This is an elevated shot of the property. This here shows reviews from three weeks ago, if you look at Stacy here, three weeks ago, and this was taken in August. So the compliance date was end of June. And so they had reviews from August. This one again shows two days ago in August as well of last year. And then again in November, it shows here that nights could have been booked. This was yesterday. It shows the booking page. That's the property where you can book the ADU. So these reviews were from March 21st and it shows here one week ago from March 21st, February 2 weeks ago, February 2025, again another February, another February. So it shows multiple reviews within that month. reviews again here for Johnny. I will give you a quick look at the data. I will give you a quick look at the data. I will give you a quick look at the data. I will give you a quick look at the data. I will give you a quick look at the data. I will give you a quick look at the data. I will give you a quick look. Thank you. Can I verify you said this case started in May of 24? Is that right? Yes. Yes. Okay. So why is it that? Don't forget we missed three months of hearings. Yeah. October, November, December. And this likely would have probably been yeah this probably would have been October time frame based on a notice. Good afternoon sir we have your name and address for the record please. Dennis Jones 432 North Burn Burnside Avenue, Gonzalez, Louisiana, 70737. All right. And your relationship to Trust Number 805-14? Um, to be on the fishy area, I think. We need, uh, we need to have some relationship to the owner of the property being either the trustee who is the trustee? Oh, you know these legal terms I'm not sure I know the meaning of the trustee maybe the lawyer in Lakeland or now in Orlando who set up the trust Who contacted you to come here? How did you know to come here today? because I think McAdoo put a Notice on my door and so I I have that paperwork. And so that's, I have this three page. Your door. You said you live in Gonzalez. On the door of the property we're talking about, which is here. Is it a treasure? How did you get it if you live in Gonzalez? Because I'm here several months out of the year. So you're in two cities mostly there but here quite quite regularly. So when you're here you're living at 805 14th Street North. That's my official address. Oh wait no no no no I don't live there Do you have a local address that you stand? I use that address for mail. Do you have something, Mr. Blanc? What was your name, sir? Dennis Jones. The host on Airbnb is Dennis. It appears to be the same gentleman here. Now, that doesn't mean that he's tied to the ownership where he's allowed to present the information, but he is the host for... Okay. Have you guys... I'm sorry. I'll rely on Devon. What do you think? Right. I don't think we have enough time to the ownership, but again, if... That's what I was going to do. If you heard today, then donors would simply be given the recommendation. Right. That's right. Can I ask, is this like your mom, your dad, your brother, a friend, a company, or I mean, who is this company? OK, the board, excuse me, board members. I'm sorry. Legal has advised us that we can't hear this case. Okay. The person can't represent this. Gotcha. Okay, we ask more questions about the room. I mean, trips and so here. If I, what is your report about? How are you associated with the owner of the property? There is a document that I probably have in my email or I can get it from my sister. You have more cases. I can work on getting the document that the attorney presented for I'm sorry I didn't bring that here today Perhaps I could I could clarify a little bit Would you essentially say that you act as the property manager for this property with regards to the short-term rentals? Yes. Okay. If he's managing the property, especially with regard to the underlying violations, then I believe it's appropriate to hear his testimony today. All right. So please go ahead and ask your questions. Okay. We've been back in the form of the couple of times. Sorry for the confusion. So you did have a question. Only my wife and I are co-owners of this trust So you said you don't live at this address 805 14th Street North when you're in St. Petersburg No, I don't like but I use it for mail Okay, so you're the property manager, right? and the owner I I said, okay. I said to trust up, we have established you can represent. So you do understand that what you're doing is in violation of the code here in the city of St.P. You've been issued notifications, the cease and the cease, all short-term run--alls and you continue to do it. So why? Why? I win this come up in May. I show here that we change it to 30 days and I show the bookings that I had. Beginning, well, beginning late September, October, October, November, December, all the way through through the end of February and maybe a little bit of March. These have all been long term bookings like over 30 days. We just saw all these reviews that these were two days day, three days days. Yeah. Right. Okay. So your information is pertaining to that house. Yes. Yeah. These are the bookings for that house. Well, those are the reviews for your house. Yeah. That we just review. Those people said they stayed at your house for two days in February. Yeah. Right. I. And those those reviews are it's clear that they're pertaining to this house or they're pertaining to my Airbnb operation. It should be, you can only leave a review for the property. I can show you the bookings. So what do you mean by your Airbnb operation? I have properties in Gonzalez, in New Orleans, in St. Pete. And. So you're running an Airbnb here in St. Pete? And that's, yeah, that's what we're talking about. Right. And you've been operating it less than 30 days on numerous occasions. And you know you're not supposed to be doing that. That's where you're here. And you're collecting the money for the short time stay too, right? Money going to you? For that short time stay? Yesterday, the picture you saw, I rented that for 30 days, for about $6,000, $800 of taxes. What about your other units there? What's that? What about the other units? That's something I never addressed. I didn't know that you were talking about that. And when we converse to those units, must be pertaining to the back building. And I never knew that you and I had were having a conversation about that building. It's both buildings. Yeah I understand. It's any dwelling. Let me just be clear it's any dwelling unit. You cannot legally operate an Airbnb right you're allowed three times a year or short-term rental less than 30 days. That's it, three times. Anything other than that, that has to be 30 days or longer. Any dwelling unit? Okay, if you got 30 units, one unit, half a unit. Okay. So, anyways, we're going to... I think that all of my Airbnb's are on 30 days minimum right now That's not what you just said. I'm telling you they are right now every door Every door every unit you have there I have in this city is on a 30 days. We can look Okay, well then the them what we're about to do, you shouldn't have a problem complying with. I'm in compliance and I am going to stay in compliance. Okay, based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue, the following findings, effect and conclusions of law, the board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the code's investigator, have not been corrected. The board orders, trust number 805-14, land trust services corp, to correct the violations within five days or by March 31st, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, any discussion? Let's vote. A sec, please. Yes. Yes. Cancha. Yes. Wait. Yes. Yes. Okay, sir. You've got five days to fix your listings. They are fixed as we speak. And that means no short-term rentals going forward. So you're going to have to show proof cancellation on all those units to your code enforcement. So you've got five days to produce all the evidence that you've ceased not only ceasing the cis, but you've got a cancel. Do you have to be so restricued as five days? You've got five days. You do okay, except you've known about it since June. Proof of cancellation. So your code's investigator out in the hallway and she'll make sure you have a way to get that proof to her. Have a good case, sir. Next case. Item number four. Property owner, John Lufthey, investigator, Anthony Rivers. I'm Anthony Rivers, code's investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number four. Case number 24-13357 regarding property located at 64-45, second avenue south. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a C- fix case. The property was first inspected on August the 7th of 2024. The violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of August 30th of 2024. The property was last reinspected on March the 19th of 2025. And the following violation still exists. That is advertisement for short term rental and rental of a transient property for accommodations less than a monthly term in an NT two zone. Zero out of one violation has been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall and sent certified mail as well as posted at the violation address on March 11th of 2025. Ownership is confirmed in County official records, a book 22598, page 2325. And during the course of my investigation, I've had no contact with the owner. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. As far as additional relevant facts regarding this case, our record check today showed that the listing that we previously saw has been removed. on the 24th of this month we were able to see listings and bookings for at least three nights, and we saw short-term bookings in March, April and May for the year of 2025. I'd like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs, which we took of the property on the 19th March 19th of 2025, as well as some evidence of the listings, bookings, reviews, and calendar. So this photo is the property in question, and just the front of January and also February of this month, which again is after the compliance state, which was August 30th of 2024. One day ago. Our next photo is a photo of the listing of the property. This was a snap that was taken on March the 19th of this year. The next couple of photos are going to show how we got a snapshot of bookings for at these three nights at this time. This is the calendar of an April. Again, you'll see in this particular booking from the 16th of April, 2025, allowing through the 19th of this month, which is I zoom man you'll see that it's still allowing for a booking of three nights, anytime less than 30 days, of course, is in violation. So we have more snapshots of evidence like that, but again, when we check this afternoon, the listing advertisement has been removed. But these bookings were still after the compliant state of August 30th of 2024. So I'd like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two, and this concludes my presentation. Does anyone have questions for staff? All right, good afternoon, ma'am. Could we have to introduce for Do you have any address for the record, please? Yeah, Mara Lopez. Three, two, four, one, 12th Street, North. Okay. And your connection to John A. Love T.P. Bience. I have a. Okay. If you would give that to the clerk, please. Okay. First of all, I apologize on his behalf. When we bought the house, we bought it to our BNB and we were told that we were able to our BNB. When we first bought it, the person who sold us the house. When was that? We first bought it in October 2023, but we didn't start our IPnbnet until last year. Okay. And I didn't get any notices until February, when I actually went to pick up the mail, and I signed signed for it but before that I didn't get anything on 2024. Okay. Well, you're not receiving notices on you. Right. Because the mailing address needs to be changed with the county. Mm-hmm. So that you get notices. Okay. The only way that this is going to go away is that if you provide proof of cancellation for those future bookings. All future bookings have been canceled. You will need to provide proof of that to your code's investigator. I have it and I also remove the profile from Airbnb. AnyB Any questions Based upon the evidence presented in this case and 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 codes investigator have not not been corrected. The board orders John a Lutfi to correct the violation within five days or by a date of March 31st, 2025. If the order is not complied with a fine of $250. I'm opposed. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Vote please. A sec list? Yes. Scyder? Yes. Can I draw? Yes. Second. OK. Any discussion? Vote, please. A sec, Liz? Yes. Scyder? Yes. Can I talk? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. OK, ma'am. You have five days to get your insulation information. Two Mr. Rivers. See him out in the hallway to make sure you can contact one another. Thank you. Excuse me, could you guys scroll that up a little so we can see how many cases remain? Yes, sorry. We just finished 45, so we have one to three more to go. Okay. Let's do it. So, 124 is our next case? Yes, 124. Item number 124, Rebecca Lemay. Investigator Ryan Henderson. That's noon. I'm Ryan Henderson. Code's investigator for the City of St. Petersburg. Testifying in reference to item number 124. Case number 24-15044 regarding property located at 255. Sorry. Wait for the, this will be. All right. For property located at 255-39th Street North, I was sworn in at this meeting. This case is a single-cant family structure and is occupied by the property owner. This is a tenant complaint case. The property was first inspected on August 20, 2024, and a violation noted sent to the owner with the compliance data September 12, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on March 26 of 2025, and the remaining violations are as follows. We have a permit violation that relates to the construction of an ADU without a permit plumbing, electrical, toilets, split, mini-split AC system, as well as a Tiki hut. There's also a violation for landscaping where they have rock and pavers that exceed the required vegetative green space on private property. And then there is a shed that has been constructed in the front of the property. So it's in the front yard, legal front yard. Zero out of three violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted that City Hall, sent certified mail, and posted the violation address on March 13, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, but 16996, page 2492, during the course of my investigation, my last contact with the property owner was September 13th of 2024 They only did not indicate when the violations will be corrected at that time the department recommends $25 or rather 25 days in $100 today. They're after for noncompliance In this case the relevant facts the additional relevant facts is that there is a Structures other than buildings permit, that's the NOTH permits application. That is in process, there's one from 2021. So that one is in process 21-05-00082 for the Tiki Hut. And then there's a application, one of those structures other other than buildings permits Application number 25-03001832 and this is for the ADU and the back yard or in the rear yard I would like to enter into evidence is exhibit number one Photographs which were taken on August 20th of 2024 March 13th of 2025 as well as the 26th of 2025 so here is the first photograph This is the year. This is the year. This is the year. This is the year. This is the year. This is the year. This is the year. This is the year. This is the year. This is the year. This is the year. This of the Tiki Hut in a moment. And you can also see some of the landscaping in the back with the papers in the rocks, and we'll have some more photos as well. That's that photograph number. The next one. This is the interior of the ADU. I'm not going to show every photograph that we took of it, which you'll all probably don't want me to show anyway. Here is actually before I show that one. Well, okay. This is the plumbing connections for the ADU, the sink, the toilet, and the shower. Better on the exterior. There is one other photograph that just shows some of the electrical wiring on the interior. So you can see there's a fan. Our next photograph has to do with the permits. So again this is the ADU and the split unit. Let's see what else we have. Tiki Hut. This is another view of the Tiki Hut that was constructed without a permit. Another landscaping photograph. This is from a different angle. at this point I think we'll just show you the shed that's in the front yard, and that should probably do it. And so this is the front yard, and that's the shed there that's constructed in the front yard. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two. This concludes my presentation. Does anybody have questions for that? Just quickly, the zoning prohibited use in the shed in the front yard is that? That's correct. Okay, so I wanted to make sure I understood that. You said there were permits and there was like a permit dating back to 2021. So it's- Go over those quickly again? Sure want there's an application for a Tiki Hut That was constructed previously and that's the one that goes back to 2021 There was an application, but there wasn't anything actually any action. It was never issue So there was construction, but there was never a permit for the Tiki I've heard but one was but one was never issue. Right. Okay. And was there a second permit? And then the second one is for the ADU, and that's from 2025. That's a more recent one. And so that one is from March this year, and that's for the ADU that's in New York. That is to that. It's just in process. both in process correct. So it's the ADU and after the fact it's got to be right. I was a deferral in two. Yeah I mean that's it's a structure is already there. Yeah it's classified as a new other permit because it's a new structure. Okay. I guess the Tiki HUD should also be an after the fact now since it's done. Correct. Correct. Okay. And then you said, just wanna make sure, you said it was a tenant complaint, so I must have the ADU was rented and. Yeah, you said that. So there was a tenant, there was a person that was occupying it at the time of the initial inspection, apparently according to the owner, that person is no longer there. And I have no, you know, no kind of way confirmed that they are there. They are still there. That's correct. They did initiate the complaint. Okay. And then last question you mentioned the green space, the amount of non-biological material. So is that, do you know if a variance has been applied for that or not? I don't have any information. No information. Is that listed here somewhere? I mean, no, yeah. It is. It's the second. Oh, landscaping. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. Got it. Thank you. I guess we would say for the orientation it would be the south side of the structure primarily. I had others I can probably show you for the orientation, it would be the south side of the structure primarily. I had others I can probably show you a little bit more, but you get the pictures like there's rock and pavers, but it's mostly on the south side, which is in the backyard, and some that comes out along the sidewalk and along the sidewalk on the west side of the structure. So the property. Of the lot in total, it exceeds the percentage of the structure. So the property. Of the lot in total it exceeds the percentage. That's correct. All right, good afternoon, ma'am. Could you give us your name and address for the record? Yes, Rebecca, LaMée, 25539th Street North. Okay, so What is your plan with the property? What are you trying to accomplish here? So I'm working with zoning currently, but I just want to kind of give you guys an explanation of everything going on. I'll start with that this little 120 square foot shed is not an ADU. We were renting one of our bedrooms and our main house for 300 a month to a woman who was sleeping in her car in front of our house and she had a little puppy and I have a soft spot for one you know humanity but especially for animals so we rented the room in our house to her for 300 a month, but we told her she could only stay a couple months. And then my brother Adam over there, he doesn't I guess want to stand up here with me. And my mom, they had to move out of their condo after 18 years. So I told this woman, I said I'm so sorry, like my mom and my brother are going to have to come stay with me for a month, why they're waiting on their new place. And she like went crazy and refused to leave our property and was very threatening. And she said, well you have that little art space out back for your brother. You know, I can just stay there. I'm not leaving and I just really didn't even wanna argue it. I just said, okay, you can stay there when my mom and brother are here, but I really need you to transition away. She was a problem the whole time she was there. I don't know, she suffers from bipolar or what, but it was really a bad choice on my part to have her on her property at all. And so I let her stay in my brother's art space and then she trashed it. You guys could see the pictures and then she called code enforcement. So she threw stuff all over the place there and then she like smoked marijuana so she poured like bon water all over the floor in there. She smashed like rotten eggs in there so it was just a big ordeal. We're really more interested in as why you have an outdoor toilet. So we make any sense. Well, we have a hot tub back there. So when we're back there and we have like people there, we utilize that space instead of having people come in the house. So it's kind of like an outside mud remas. What our point of that was. Okay. So you've applied for permits for all of this stuff. So here's the thing about that. So I had a gentleman who did the whole little project for us. So one, my brother's autistic, he can't go to his programs anymore. So we decided to make a little space for him. So that's the 120 square foot shed. And then there is electric in there because especially in the heater cold he can't be back there daily Yeah, so that's the electric and then the bathroom the outside bathroom is a different entity It's not like this is an ADU and they go hand in hand We just utilize that space homework back there. You're gonna have to clear all of that with the building department? Yeah, I'm working on that. That's not going to fly. No. I'm pretty sure. So you've got some work ahead of you. How long do you think it's going to take you to get the permits bearing in mind that you're probably going to have to make some alterations in your plan? Yeah, well, I already have the permit filed. The problem that I'm having is nobody returns calls and then I've even been down to the city building department twice this week and the lady in the front refuses to talk to me or help me and she just sent me away so I have been emailing with a woman in the building department and she has a gentleman who's going to be reaching out to me to see if I can cluster like the permits together because the guy that built that little shed for my brother, he fell ill and needed a heart transplant during the whole process. He never cared to tell us that he didn't file the permit for it. So that's the reason there wasn't like an existing permit on it. So let, let's, we as a board will discuss it and figure out how much time we can give you to get this affair in order to other issues that we haven't even talked about. Yeah, there's actually more because I have zoning. So I contacted zoning and I met with Chelsea with zoning. So like even the stone in the backyard, it's limestone. He was mentioning that there was some like in the front, like along the sidewalk or whatever. All that was removed, all the little pavor porch I had in front of my front window, that was removed. The only place we have any stone is in the immediate backyard and it is far less than even 50% probably less. I actually have a survey diagram if you guys want to visual, but it's maybe 35 to 40%. Nothing's embedded to the road. It's all our whole yard is grass and plants and trees. So, okay, so this has really been a learning process for me. I've lived in the house 16 years and I always thought that your front yard is where your front door is. I have two front doors to that enter the main house and then I have my garage and I have a driveway so you would think that's's the front yard, right? Well, no, the side yard is the front yard in the neighborhood. So I thought I was putting a shed in the side yard that doesn't really cover up the house like from the main center point of 39th and 3rd. But I'm just learning now, 16 years later, that the actual side yard is the front yard. So somebody kind of got things backwards at some point, and I'm just learning, and I've had 19 neighbors sign off on these variance application, and I was like talking to them. And this is a huge learning process, because people that have lived in the neighborhood for 40 years don't even realize that their side yard is actually their front yard so we can actually put a six foot fence and cover up our whole like front door and everything because it's not even considered a front yard which is crazy because one of the neighbors did do that and I wondered how they were getting away with that because I thought it was the weirdest thing. They have a beautiful house and you can't even see anything but their side yard. So basically, go ahead. So basically you think you've got the green space, right, sorted out with what you've done with removing rock. And then you're going for a variance on the shed and the front. Yeah, so yeah, there's the variance on that. and I'm working with zoning on that. And yeah, 100%, we have more than enough green space. Are you? Yeah, so yeah, there's the variants on that and I'm working with zoning on that and yeah, 100% we have more than enough green space. Our yard's beautiful and we only have stone in one portion. Have you submitted a variance paperwork to the city? Yeah, I did. So she hasn't returned any of my calls. I've sent her probably 25 emails now. I haven't heard back from her. I said, I need the meeting so I can drop this off. Because again, I have 19 signatures of people saying, your house is beautiful. There's nothing wrong with it. You have or have not sent the paperwork? She's not returning my calls. So as soon as I hear back from her, I'm ready to go. I mean, I have copies of that application and it's completely complete We believe you yeah I'll read so right thank you Based upon the evidence presented in this case I moved at the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the Coz investigator not been corrected The board orders, Rebecca LaMade, to correct the violations within 90 days, whereby June 24th, 2025. If this order is not comply with, a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. Second. Second. Okay, so we have a motion for 90 days and $100 per day. Any discussion? Let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Yes. Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Okay, ma'am. You have 90 days. If you don't make it, you'll get a notice about a special magistrate's hearing. Please come and attend that. If you need more time, it will probably be granted to you. If you miss the hearing, leans will start to accrue. So you really want to watch for that notice and come to that hearing, OK? OK. And I have these copies and pictures and stuff. Can I give it to anybody so you guys have an unrecord? Yeah, okay. Item number 148 property owner, Tim's barber shop, investigator Tucker Hodges. Good afternoon, I'm Tucker Hodges, could investigate it for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item 148, case 24 dash 15019. Regarding property located at 25-25, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street, North. I was sworn in at this meeting. It's probably as a commercial structure occupied by owner. This is an internal complaint case. Preparities were first inspected on August 17, 2024. And the violation of the sent to the year before the year before the year of the year. The year before the year of the year. The year before the year of the year. The year before the year of the year. The year before the year of the year. The year before the year of the year. The year before the year of the year. The year before the year of the year. The year before the year of the year. The year before the year of the year. hearing was sent first class mail post at City Hall, since certified mail and hand delivered by me on 320 2025. Ownership was confirmed county official records of book 14332, page 2429. During the course of my investigation my last contact with the owner practice today was on 320, 2025 and the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. Excuse me, the department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Relevant facts, as of 3, 3, 25, there was a permit number 25, and there's 0, 1, 0, 0, 3, 6, 3, 3, that's in process and is ready for some corrections. And speaking with the owner, he has hired a fence contractor. But I know he's having some difficulty with the contractor finishing the job, getting the permits taken care of. But there's a chain link fence at the rear along the alley. Just to wait a little bit. I'll show you that in pictures like that I read the evidence exhibit number one photographs taken on 814 2024 Document 0814 24019 RTH This is the business and the rear parking lot and then this is the chain link fence that's an issue. So this is it. This was putting without a permit and they're working on that. working on that. So I'd like to enter this in the excuse me. I'd like to express you in the evidence in this excuse me. Enter this in the evidence exhibit number one or number two, and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you, Mr. Hodges. Does anybody have questions for staff? I guess. I think for residential fences like that don't require permit, but commercial does. Yes. But other than the permit, the fence is compliant with height restrictions and all that. Well, absolutely. They're waiting for it and permitting or in zoning. It's stuck in for corrections. They want to have drawing from the owner or from the fence people to show where it is exactly on the property. So that's kind of the hold up right now is zoning. OK. Good afternoon, sir. Can you give us your name and address for the record, please? Yes. My name is Timothy Rinker, 25, 25, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida, 337-04. And answer to that, I, I um, to um, Tucker Hodges, who's been amazing. He's been amazing. He's been amazing. He, I'm answering that question. Um, I, I, I, I believe this is the owner of Tim's Barber Shop, just to confirm for the record if you... Oh, I'm the owner. Like that. But I... A few weeks back, Miss Tanisha is the most amazing lady in permitting. I provided three surveys, and she said she needed them completely blank, with a yellow highlighter where the the fence was and They're processing right now as we speak I sat here all day. I just sat her the entire day. I'm seeking if I could possibly get because perk minutes takes a while if I get like 90 days It's in process at the time and I have provided the three separate blank surveys they needed and the contractor ma'am has answered their questions. She had three questions that needed to be answered. He emailed them to her two weeks ago and I'm hoping that this thing gets resolved. And if I may say this for the record, before I placed that fence up, the alley became a super highway to get to MLK. And there were quite a few incidents of accidents. And that's the nature why the fences there, the fences there, clients have been coming out of the shop, and people have taken a shortcut through the parking lot to get to the back alley. And I had one instance where a gentleman last year was knocked down. So I said, well, I'm gonna put a fence up there just to deter people from coming. And I wanna say this to the entire board. People come up that alley about 15 miles an hour. And there's a little alley and they come up the street and they don't need, you should see the they travel. I said, well I'm going to place a fence there. I waited six months in a queue and I paid the 2,500 in advance and I want to say this for the record. I was unaware that they did not pull a permit. I was unaware. I went through a fencing company and now I'm dealing with it. And it's been really great to deal with, like I say Tucker Hodges, he's amazing. And Ms. Tanisha's doing a great job down at permitting. Every time I go on I say, can I just pay for it now? She says now we have to get it, the permits have to be completed. I've gone two or three times to pay for it in full, and I just want to get it put away and resolve, ma'am. Let the board talk about it, and we'll decide on a number of days for you. We do appreciate your patience, and we're sorry for your trouble, but this is a process that we have to do. The neighborhood really appreciates that. Fence, they said you've saved a lot of highways flying through there, but I mean I know they awarded me 25 days and the two I was trying to stay here all day to seek if I get extension. Let us let us talk about it and we'll see what we can come up with. Give us a few minutes. Yes, me and we appreciate your time. I'll read I'll read some. Based upon the evidence presented this case, the move that the board is 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 Cozinvests' scavenop been corrected. The board orders Tim's barber shop to correct the violations within 90 days, or by June 24th, 2025, if this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day shall be imposed. Okay, we have a motion and second for 90 days and $200 per day. Any discussion? Okay, let's vote please. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Cancha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Shulson. Yes. All right, sir. You have 90. Thank you. Hope you have a beautiful day. Thank you. Thank you very much everyone Is this the last case? Yes Item number 184 property owner Everest Flag, Flagler, Point, LLST, investigator, David Walker. Good afternoon, I'm David Rock Walker, codes investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item 184, case 25-176, regarding property located at 2,540 Roy Hanna Drive South. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a commercial structure and is vacant. This is a code's follow-up case. The property was first inspected on January 7th, 2025, and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance state of January 23rd, 2025. The property was last reinpected on March 18th, 2025, and the following violation still exists. Per the city building official at 6331 24th Street South Apartment 190 and 6367 24th Street South Apartment 216 are unfit and unsafe for human habitation and use. All repairs must be completed by a licensed contractor with approved permits. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice a hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on March 11th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in the County official records book 22633 page 0545. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the property manager was March 26 yesterday and the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected but we'll get into that. The department recommends five days and $250 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts are both units are vacant. And also as of two days ago they just received an approved roof impairment under 25-03002429 to fix the roof for the unit 216. I'd like to enter into evidence as exhibit one photographs which were taken on December 4th and 2024 and March 18th 2025, document CB March 2025 and photos numbers one through five. Oh it's up already look at that we're going. So this is the outside of the unit. We zoom in here this is is the unit 216. And then you got a little roof damage right there. A little more. And then we got the other unit, which is up here 190 right here. And this is what the inside of them look like due to storm damage. And this is another picture right here. Other side in storm damage. I would like to enter the SPAC sheet into Evans as exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Can you tell me you've got a permit for one of them? Yes, because there are two different, so what happened is we originally went out for citizens complaints, and we found them unfit. The property manager, when we found them unfit, moved those residents out. Okay. After that, so we sort of put it together, but there are two separate buildings. There is permits now for both of them, by the out. Okay. Um, after that, so we sort of put it together, but the two separate buildings, they do- There is permits now for both of them, by the way. Yeah, so they did get roofing, a roofing permit that was actually approved two days ago. Okay. Um, for one of the units, they're going through each unit, and that's what they're doing. Okay. Is they're getting their roofing permits? by unit by unit then? Yes, building by building we'll say. Yes. Alrighty, thank you. You're welcome. Did I miss here? Can you? Can you can you repeat the addresses that you have in the? Oh yes I can. I thought I didn't think they matched what was on our sheet but I may have gotten it wrong. Yeah this is a large apartment complex so there's going to be that's the main address. All of our cases get written against the main parcel and the main address per property appraiser because that's where any leans would be certified. But there's gonna be, especially in an apartment complex as other addresses that are associated with that building numbers, you name it. Okay. Okay. Any further questions for staff? Yes, so just, so you're just designating those units as being unsafe. So the one the joining unit is okay because upstairs will look like there were two joining units from my personal knocking on doors and talking have no complaints. Okay. It doesn't I mean coach showing up doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any issues either. Some people don't like to talk to us, let's be honest. Right. So, I mean, I tried. We do have a couple cases there, but a lot of them are being closed out to you the truth. Okay. And nothing, these two were the most severe. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. Good afternoon, ma'am. Could we have your name and address for the record please? I am Samantha Decker for 2540 Roy Hanna Drive South. St. Petersburg, Florida, 3371-2. Please stop you right there. So what is your address? 166-17th Ave Southeast. St. Petersburg, 337-10. Have you been sworn in yet? No. Did you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give us the truth and hold truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. All right. And what is your relationship to Ernest Blackler Point? I am the assistant property manager. Perfect. Okay so. So a couple things following up there I did find out after our conversation yesterday David when we were looking back at the permits that we pulled. So originally, when we submitted the permits, we did it building by building. And then they came back and said they wanted it by building type. So we submitted all of those again. And the permit that I should, we did look over yesterday included that building type. So we have submitted permits for all of the code violation that we have. That's hurricane damage, the mitigation inside of the unit. We are working to repair that. The permits have been filed. The units are vacant. And the minute that we got that notice from the city, we transferred the tenants to other units in the property. And they're happy. They're still on the property. But they have been vacant within the first five days of that notice of us. So. And we're skipping number one. All right. So your testimony is then that the permit that has just become active covers both of these units? Yes. I'm trying to confirm, Chair, I apologize. I'm having technical issues. It's been the order of the day owners in St. Pete still are. We haven't gotten anything from them financially, so we're at this point paying out of pocket to get some of these repairs going and started. We're just asking for a little bit more time as far as that goes. It's really hard after her gains. asking for a little bit more time as far as that goes. It's really hard after her gains, but. Yeah, we hear a lot. I'm. and started, so we're just asking for a little bit more time as far as that goes. It's really hard after her gains, but we hear a lot. I'm sure. I'm sure you do. What's the question that she's looking up? She's looking to see if the permit that's been just been approved covers both the units. It may. And if it does, then we sort of, yeah. We're kind of done. I got it. Yeah. I don't think I'll be able to see it. This is a, so the roof permit doesn't have the units. The units, it just lists building 636724 street south. That's one of them. So let me see if I can find it another way. We can give her some time and that way we'll be able to figure out what's the what. Correct so that like this permit right here is just for the roof but they will still need to eventually pull the permits to repair the interior conditions so they still need time at other way. way. The way my property manager was trying to explain it to me before I got here was that 6331, that building is the same building unit type as 6367. And so that's why when they had a submitted by building type, they clarified it was all under that. So that's kind of where I'm getting that. Okay. I see a permit that was applied for for the 6331 and that's to replace, remove and replace the outer band of deck with the same wood material. That one hasn't been approved yet. Okay. Still in process. So she still needs time. Okay. Already. That's very something. Thank you for looking that up. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Everest Flagler. Point LLC to correct the violation within 90 days or by a date of June 24th 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second for 90 days and $200 per day. Any discussion? Let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Nighter? Yes. Ancho? Yes. Yes. Okay, ma'am, you have 90 days to get those permits issue. Thank you so much. I'm really appreciate it. Thank permits issued. Thank you so much. I'm building the part. I really appreciate it. Thank you, guys. Thank you, David. Pfft. All right. All right. Where are we going? Where are we going? Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Go down. Yeah, go. Go. Looking ahead, we're not doing LR1, right? No. Can I see your binder for a second? Yeah. looking ahead we're not doing LR1 no can see the binder for a second yeah, there's a read yeah we gotta read talk about the open the links no you're gonna have to read if you got it in here once they read everything we gotta say we agree oh yeah you have that in there uh in there I believe so let me find it is I didn't bring my binder I have to read but So you've been up and down here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was happy. I don't think you'd be worried that anything would happen. Sure. I think this I can't do. Here yeah I know you can't he's got it No, Lonnie took care of me, as always. There's just a Jew, that's what it is. Yeah. I don't know why that guy lives a multitude. I'm just like, man, dude, you're collecting around 10 people out of your places. Sorry, thank you. It's like waiting until the end. Good, thank you. I'm sorry what item did you say item three? Okay, I'm Andrea Brown, Codes and Investigators supervisor forvisor for the City of St. Petersburg. Tessifying a reference to case number 24-12460 regarding property located at 7216-9th Avenue, North. I was sworn in at this meeting. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and 6 is been removed. I don't know for seven Daniels P. Sorenson case number 2412432 Properly located at 5026 fifth Avenue South The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet evidence I'm number eight's been815, property located at 166 Pinellas Way North. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence. I don't number 10 green bench hospitality LLC. Case number 24-17478, property located at 166 Pinellas Way North. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence. I don't number 10 green bench hospitality, I'll see. Case number 24-174-78, property located at 344-43rd Avenue, North. Department of Reckimates 25 days at $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence. Item, item number 11, St. Pete Housing Authority. Case number 24-21164, property located at 5026 First Street, North. The Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence. Item number 12 has been closed. Item number 13 has been closed. Item number 14 has been removed. Item number 16 has been removed. Item number 17 has been closed. Item number 18 has been removed. Number 18. Jose Edgar Gaurado Chaste. Case number 2418730, property located at 222-6, 10th Street South. The Department recommends 25 days at $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet nevidence. I remember 20 Terry Hobbs and Henry Hobbs. Number 24-13100 properly. and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public has been closed and number 24 has been moved. Number 25 has been closed and number 26 Jennifer Amoffit. Case number 24-14785. Property located at 6992, 34th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. Item number 26, Jennifer Amoffit. I thought with the register you should walk in and you can see that. What number you want? That's the one I just wrote. I don't remember 27. Same Pete's self storage. Case number 24-20793, property located at 78-38th Avenue North. The Department recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet dividends. I number 28 has been removed and number 29 has been removed. I number 30, Dominique Hardy and Felicia Hardy. Case number 24-14422, property located at 3931 Haines Road. North Department recommends 10 days at $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence I'm number 31s been removed. I'm a 32s been closed. I'm a 33s removed. I'm a 34s been closed. I'm a 35 36 has been removed. I'm a 37 has been removed. I'm a 39s been removed I'm number 40s been closed number's been removed and 43's been removed and 44. Ricardo Emilio Urard, Ironday. These number 24-20645, property located at 4635, 22nd Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days at $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet in evidence. I remember 45s and closed. Number 46 has been removed. Number 47 has been removed. Number 48. EGAR and Olga Melenick. Please number 24 dash 1195. Properly located at 52, 28, 23rd Avenue North. The Parliament recommends 100. I'm going 25 days and 200 dollars per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet dividends. I don't remember Is that a typo? Myself. Oh, it says 10 days on the agenda. Is that not right? No, 10 days 200. It's much there was an extra zero So I think that's why I would. Okay. I'll reread it. Okay. Did she read some of the? Department recommends 10 days at $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. I remember 49 has been closed. I remember 50 has been removed. I remember 52 has been removed. I remember 53 has been removed. I remember 54. I am H4 LLC. Case number 24-11242. Property at 84-016 street south department recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet nevidence 55 55s removed number 56 Rubin-Nesbitt and Rosa A Nesbitt case number 24 number 24-11381, property located at 1039, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street South. Department recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter from non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. Item number 57 has been closed. Number 59, REM properties four incorporated. 8th number 24-10565, property located at 927. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street South. The Department recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance vaccine evidence. Number 60 is the new. Dr. Marie 61, REM properties 5 LLC. Case number 24-135-47. Property located at 1025. Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior Street South. The Department recommends five days at $250 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet evidence. No number 62, IREM properties five LLC. Case number 24-13552, probably located at 1-001, Dr. Martin Luther King Street South. Department of Justice recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. Number 64 has been closed at number 65. The M. Master is here at LLC. Case number 24-14606. The Department of Justice has been located at 9-7-2 James Avenue South. The Department recommends 25 days at $150 per day thereafter for for non-compliance tax sheet nevidence. Number 66 has been closed. Number 68 has been removed. Number 69 has been removed. Number 70 has been closed. Number 71 has been removed. Number 72 has been removed. Number 73 has been removed. Number 74 has learned bill of state holdings. Case number 24-8241, property located at 54578th Avenue, North. Department of Reckonmins, 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet, and evidence. REM properties, 1 LLC. Case number 24-13959, property located at 6701, 4th Street, North. Department of Reckonmins, 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for non after for noncompliance fact sheet evidence. I'm number 78, St. Pete Housing Authority. Case number 24-21291, property located at 9101, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street North. Department recommends 25 days at $200 per day there after for noncompliance fact sheet evidence. Ividence? Number 79, St. Pete Housing Authority. Aest number 24-21405. Property located at 9101, Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior Street, North. The Department recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, that sheet, nevidence. Item number 81, 20191, 1H Barrow, OP. Aest number 24-11832, properly located at 307, 87th Avenue, Northeast. Carbon recommends 25 days at $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet nevidence. Item number 82 has been removed. Item number 83 has been removed.? Number 84 has been closed. Number 85. Dylan Bowman, Gabrielle. Number 24-12067. Property located at 8584th Avenue North. The department recommends 10 days at $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet evidence. Number 86 has been removed. Number 87 has been closed. Number 89. Map Web LLC. 8th November 24-20974, properly located at 820, third avenue south, the department recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet evidence. Item number 89, map web LLC. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Number 91's removed. Number 92's removed. Number 93. Jitto knew. A's number 24 dash 1, 2, 7, 9, 3, property located at 17, 50 second Avenue North. The Barbara recommends 25 days at $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Fact sheet and evidence. I remember 92's been removed. I remember 95's been removed. I remember 96 has been closed. I remember 98's been removed. number 100 sorry. Number 95 has been removed. Number 96 has been closed. Number 98 has been removed. Number 100 has been removed. Number 101 has been closed. Number 102 has been removed. Number 103, CDP consulting needs LLC. Ace number 24-10657, properly located at 680, 25th Avenue South. The Department recommends 25 days at $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet nevidence. Item number 105, Mary Ann Lynch. Case number 24-20824, properly located at 545-18th Avenue South. Department recommends 5 days at $250 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet to evidence. Item number 106 nominee investment group LLC. Case number 24 dash 6391, property located at 691 10th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days at $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet nevidence. Number 108 has been removed. Number 110 has been closed. Number 111 has been closed. I remember 113 has been removed. I remember 114 has been removed. Number 115. Cameron, circle, St. Petersburg, LLC. Case number 24-13237, properly located at 4850 Central Avenue. The department recommends 25 days at $200 per day there after for noncompliance fact sheet dividends. Number 116 has been removed. And number 117, Andrew S. Grover and Michelle E. Grover. Case number 24-12450, property located at 5600, 14th Avenue North. The Department recommends 25 days at $100 per day there for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence. Number 118, Mike and Chris real estate holdings. Case number 24-11251, property located at 1128, 45th Street North. The department recommends 25 days at $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence. Number 118, Lisa Peterson. Case number 24-13857, property located at 4429, Third Avenue North, the Department recommends 25 days at $100 per day there after for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 121, Nancy Lee Williams. Case number 24-16323, property located at 4516, Seth Avenue North, the Department recommends 25 days at $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet evidence. Number 122 is removed and 123 has been closed and 125 massage law incorporated. 8th. 8th. 24-16435. Property located at 4101 Central Avenue. The department recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet. 4-16435, properly located at 4101 Central Avenue. The Department recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence. Number 126 is removed. Number 127 has been removed. Number 128 has been removed. Number 129 has been removed. Number 130 has been closed. Number 131 has been closed. Number 132 has been removed. Number 133 has been removed. Number 134 has been closed. been closed and we're 135's been closed and we're 136's been closed and we're 137 has been removed. Number 130. number 132 has been removed. Number 133 has been removed. And one 34 has been closed. And one 35 has been closed. And one 36 has been closed. And one 37 has been removed. Number 138 has been closed. And number 139 rad to the Versailles RET incorporated. Case number 24-10989. Property located at 1614 Brightwater's Boulevard Northeast. The department recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet nevidence. Number 140 has been closed and we're 141's been removed and we're 142's been removed and we're 143 Elaine A. Wise. Case number 24-10558 property located at 755 40th Avenue Northeast. The Department recommends 10 days at $200 per day there after forcompliance fact sheet and evidence. Number 144 has been removed. Number 145 has been removed. Number 146 has been removed. Number 147 has been closed. Number 149 has been removed. Number 153 has been removed. Number 151 Connor and Danielle Deets. 8th number 24-1171 property located at 2625 Second Avenue South. The Department recommends 10 days at $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence. Number 152 has been removed. Number 153 has been removed. Number 154. Court S. Jacobi Trustee in Court S. Jacobi Trust. Case number 24-3819, property located at 2393rd Avenue South. Department recommends 10 days at $200 per day thereafter for the clients fact sheet nevidence. Number 155's been removed. Number 156 has been closed. Number 157's been removed. And number 158's been closed. And number 159's been removed. And number 160's been removed. And number 161's been closed. And number 162 has been removed. Number 162 has been removed. Number 161 has been closed. Number 162 has been removed. Number 164, Elite Equity Capital Corp. 8th Number 24-11852, property located at 67038 Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days at $150 per day thereafter from noncompliance fact sheet nevidence. Number 165, Cynthia L. Horn. 8th number 24-20192. Property located at 845 51st Avenue. South Department recommends 25 days at $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet nevidence. Number 166 has been removed. And for 170's been removed. And 171 Carolyn C sweet. Phase number 24-6615. Property located at 3200. Cocina key drives. Department recommends 10 days at $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet nevidence. Number 171. Carlin C. Sweet. That was right in. No, I remember 172 TGR homes LLC. Case number 24-12015, properly located at 4316 Cobia drives out these. The department recommends 10 days at $200 per day there after for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence. Number 173 has been removed. Number 174 has been removed. Number 175 has been closed. Number 176 has been removed. Number 177 has been closed. Number 178 G2 FLMH1 LLC. Case number 24-21098. Property located at 809th Avenue, North. Department recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence. Remember 179's been removed, number 180's been removed, and number 182 James T and Lori C Armstrong. Case number 24-10588, property located at 4198 53rd Avenue South. Department recommends 10 days at $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence. I remember 185's enclosed number 186 has a has a road LLC. Case number 24-14194 probably located at 62016 street south. The Department recommends 25 days at $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet nevidence. Number 188 Rashan S. Jenkins. 8 A number 24-13044, property located at 721 Pinellas Point Drive South. The department recommends 10 days at $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet nevidence. Number 189, Janet Arkinan. A number 25-8, property located at 5045 7th Street South. The department recommends 25 days at $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet nevidence. Number 190, learn real estate holdings LXI. Case number 24-2027A, property located at 2680, 54th Avenue, South. Department recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet nevidence. I don't know. Number 191, Lur, real estate hoardings, LXI. Case number 24 dash 20657, property located at 26, 80 54th Avenue South. The department recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet evidence. Number 192, Lur and real estate holdings, LXI. I'm sorry, what was the item number? C192 or 192? Okay, 190. Case number 24-20746, property located at 2680, 54th Avenue South, the Department of Regments, 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence I'm number one ninety three has been removed number one ninety four has been closed number one ninety five's and closed number one eighty six has been closed Number one eighty seven's been removed number one eighty eight's been removed under one eighty nine's been closed number two hundred Number two zero one and two zero two has been closed number two zero three and we choose to wait two zero three He's been closed and the 204 has been removed. The 205 has been closed and the 206, number 207 has been closed. Number 208 has been removed, number 209 has been closed. Number 210, number 211 has been removed, number 212 has been closed, number 213 has been removed. Number 214 has been removed, number 215 has been closed. And number two, 16 has been removed. Number two, 17 has been closed. Number two, 18 has been removed. I don't know. Number two 14 has been removed. Number two 15 has been closed. I don't know. Number two 16 has been removed. Number two 17 has been closed. Number two 18 has been removed. Number two 19 has been removed. Number two 21 has been removed. Number two 222 has been removed. Number two 23 has been removed. Number two 26 has been closed. Number two 27, Trustee Asset Services, LLC Trustee Clamby, you land trust. Number 24- number 24-16694, property located at 402634th Avenue South. The department recommends five days at $250 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet nevidence. N number 228 trustee services 2020, LLC trustee trust number 4420. Case number 24-12968, property located at 4426 Avenue South. The Department recommends 25 days at $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance, back sheet and evidence. Number 229, Regina and Valentino and Genesis and Least Martinez, L.C. Case number 24-13076, property located at 4371, 18th Avenue South. Department recommends 10 days at $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet nevidence. And number 231, Ronald L. Lindell, Donetson, Jr. Case number 24-16011, property located at 4319, 26th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days at $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet nevidence number 232 has been removed number 233 has been removed number 234 has been removed number 235 has been closed number 236 are we in properties 1 LLC case number 24 dash 7649 property located at 13 Street, South. The Department recommends 25 days at $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. I remember 238's been closed. Ready? Yes, that's the FD. I move that the board make the findings of fact and conclusions of law a set forth in the standard written order of the board in each and every case just presented by the code's investigator in order that the compliance timeframes and penalties as recommended be imposed for each case. Second. Hey, motion in a second. Vote please. A seclus? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Hancho? Yes. Wait? Yes. Wilson. Yes. Thanks. Thanks, ma'am. Okay. This concludes the March 2025 Code's board evidentiary hearing. We will now move to the lean release session. Welcome to the March 2025 code enforcement board hearing. At this time we will hear lean release requests. The lean release hearing is for cases where a code enforcement lean has been certified and the property owner or their agent is now seeking release of the lean. We have received a written report regarding each of these requests. These cases will be heard as follows. The City Codes Compliance Department will announce each case with the address, applicant, case number, and applicable liens. We will hear testimony from the applicant regarding the request. We may ask any questions of either the applicant or staff. After the hearing, the testimony and answers to any questions, we may do any of the following. Take no action, which will leave the existing leans in place, or take affirmative action to direct staff to release the lean in its entirety, or release the lien in consideration of a payment of a specified amount of the lien within a specified period of time. Once heard by the Code Enforcement Board, lien release requests will not be reconsidered by either entity for 180 days unless the property ownership changes. Okay. Those of you who are going to give testimony, if you would please stand for swearing in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give us the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. All right. Thank you. So are we have three lean release cases? I'm told that the first LR1 has been removed. Yes. We are going to LR2. Is that correct? Yes. All right. First up we have LR2 property address is 2020 Seminole Boulevard South. Current owner is Rose A. Thompson. I'm so sorry we have to do roll call again though for really. I think I'm sorry. Did not mean dinner. Wilson, here. Schneider. Here. Enzler. Brooding. Hancha. Here. We.er, Aseklis. Sorry. All right, so LR2 2020, similar bull of our south, Rose Tompsons, the owner, tolementalines in this case are $52,400, and they're associated with case number 23, 320, and it's for a junk rubbish and outdoor storage violation. A quick summary. this case began in March of 2023, and the April notice of hearing addressed to the owner was returned as undeliverable. The posting was placed at the violation address on April 7th of 23. April 26th there was no representation that board provided 10 days and then there was no representation at the Any of the special magistrate hearings at that point we removed the case to the max lean amount based on the just market value of the property And then the case was subsequently closed on February 28th of 2025. I believe we have Carlos Granados here to represent the property. Yes. Oh, so back in 2023 when Rose dot has just get your name and add. Oh, sorry, I'm sorry. It's Carlos Granados. My address is 5661 31st Avenue North, St. Pete Florida, 33710. Okay, and your relationship to Rose Thompson? I am becoming the probate, the person, the top person in the probate. I am friends with the family. You're the personal representative. Yes, yes. It is just to clarify, the letters of administration appointing a personal representative have already been. Yes. Okay, that is reflected. It's a Saturday County case. It took us a little bit of time to look it up. Oh, we're good to go. Yes. No, just a stick. Go ahead. Okay, Rose died in 2023. And that's, I guess, when it closed and went up to 52,000. Before that, the house had been condemned and torn down by the city because it was just in real bad shape. So from my understanding, it's been like two decades or so of just debris, all kinds of stuff out there, and just fines and leans on the property. Finally, I had the opportunity as a family friend to obtain the property. And I was told not to get the property under my name just yet. I talked to, I think that's Lonnie, right? Is that Lonnie? Okay, I talked to Lonnie and she advised that before I get the property on my name, I start to probate and get everything up to compliance. So that's what we did. We spent me, my wife, friends and families. We spent two weeks probably, like almost every single day, getting all that debris out of there. Other was bushes, there was trees that were fallen down. It looks, it looks like a lot. It looks like a nice clean lot now. And I have before and after pictures too. It's pretty crazy what we did. We're basically just trying to get those leans waved. We are trying to make the neighborhood more beautiful. It's in the south side. It's a rough neighborhood. There's people hanging out, people are using a lot to hang out and sell drugs, but now they migrated down the street. So already improvement in the city, and hopefully we could build a house there and have some more homes for people in need. So. So the reason the house was so bad that the city demolished it, and then the lot accrued all of this junk and trash and debris, is that what happened? No, actually, a company cleaned all that up, like the main stuff right to concrete and all that, all the roof, wood all that stuff got taken Away I think back in like 2016 or 18 right around there a long time ago and then it had been sitting Empty and then people took it over they put couches on there. There's chairs. There's domino tables. Yeah This the city have a record of them not going to take demolition? Yeah, I'm trying to see. Let's see. It looks like we did have a demo case and we entered into a stipulated agreement with the property owner. And I assume that with that stipulated agreement they were the ones that actually completed the demolition. Okay. But just some additional, this is a vacant lot. So normally we would use our lot clearing process and it wouldn't come before the board because we would just say that this needs to be cleaned up if it's not done every 10 days. Our sanitation department would go out and clean it up and then we would place an assessment against the property for that work that was being done. As Mr. Kronos mentioned, there were individuals that were occupying the lot and any time our sanitation department went to go clean up the property, they were refused or they, you know, basically the individuals on the lot would not allow them to do the cleanup. And then that's why, I mean, we had to do something, obviously, neighbors for complaining. And that's why it came before the board and that's how the lean started to accrue. And so Miss Thompson had no children or anything? She did. And actually, that's how I came into play her daughter, Juanita Johnson, different last name. She was kind of taking care of all this. And I, she didn't want to deal with it. She didn't want to deal with the lawyers with the probate. She didn't want to deal with the city and the codes and all that. So I was like, hey, I'm looking to make an investment and help out. So she allowed us to do that. So she just didn't want anything to do with it. So you're basically doing this in lieu of paying for the lot? Yes, yeah, I haven't paid for it yet. I'm hoping that this could get clear that way I could be the owner of the lot. That'd be great. If it doesn't get clear, there's just no way. It would really stink, because we put a lot of sweat and effort and all that into it. But it was a risk that we were willing to take is to get it up to your code enforcing status and hopefully get that wave so we could hopefully build. Is there monies in the estate? I don't know what that means. Other than the law. Assets. Any assets in the estate? Like in the property? Does she have other property? Does she have a bank account? Does she have? Oh, so yeah, so when she died she had two properties. She had this one and then she had her main address in Sarasota and it's that that property is owned by her son now. So but there is no bank accounts When we started the probate, the lawyer looked into, there was any other debt collectors or any kind of, you know, banks or anything like that, that could be attached and they didn't find anything. Nobody came forward either with any kind of, you know, hey, you owe me money or anything. I guess the other address in Sarasota, her address is 15.30 second. 15.36, 20 seconds, street. Is that, does the C-Sarisota on the end? Yes, it's a mailing address that shows up on the county's website. Okay. On the 2020 seminal bull of our mailing address is Sarasota. I just have a quick question. Did your attorney advise you that you would have to open up an additional probate in Pinellas County to have this lot transferred to you? I don't believe that would be required because the court where the property is located would need to be the one that authorizes you So that might just be a question you want to ask in my experience You've got the main probate and if there are property real properties in another county You also have to open a case in the county where that property sits So that's something to consider gotcha on probate papers, there is stuff stating probate relationships to the Sarasota property. So I think she kind of cleared all that out and for the most part, she's here in St. Pete so she makes sure everything is up to the rules and regulations of Pinellas County. Okay. I just wanted to make you wear that. That might be an issue you want. Yeah, I don't know if you have the paper works that I submitted with with Lonnie, but on the probate itself, there's a circuit of Sarasota County and then also the stuff for here for panelists for the lot so I Actually, no, I'm sorry. This is all Sarasota County. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry that there was still believe the Sarasota County will be able to authorize the sale of a Pinellas County property There will have to be a case opened up in Pinellas County that is connected to the Sarasota case. Just to allow that property here in Pinellas County to be disposed of as part of the estate. Okay, all right, I'll mention that to our, we are gonna go through like a title company and everything, I don't know if they would catch that or they. Should. Yeah, I'll definitely make a note of that. I'm not going to give legal advice on that. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. I appreciate it. To expeate the process, you might just want to check into that. Check with your probate lawyer. Yes. Okay. So does somebody want to read something? Yep, I'll make a motion. I move in this matter. The lien be released in consideration of payment of $750 within 45 days. Second. Okay, we have a motion for a payment of $750 within 45 days. Any discussion? That's vote. A seclusion? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Hintcha? Yes. Wait. No. Wilson. Yes. Yes. Yes. Wait. Wilson. Yes. Okay. So, sir, if you can pay $750 within the next 45 days, the rest of the lien will be released. Thank you so much. Get some paperwork over here. Okay. And we'll send you on your way. Appreciate it. Okay, next up we have LR3 property address 3830, 28th Street North, current owner is Prometix Inc. Case, excuse me, the total amount of liens are $5,000 associated with case number 23-16838 violations for zoning prohibited use. This case was initiated back in September of 2023. Just after the case was initiated we had a telephone conversation with the owner about a change of use and an extension. We then granted an extension, had another telephone conversation regarding the corrections that were needed for the change of use permit. Then there was the January notice of hearing that was returned in December, but it was not legible the signature. We posted the notice of hearing at the violation address on January 3rd, and then there was the January public hearing. The owner did attend the hearing, but they accepted the recommendation, and 25 days was provided. We had to follow up conversation on February 22nd about the zoning issue. At the Magrate hearing in February, there was a 90 day extension provided. That brought it back to the June hearing and another 60 day extension was provided. And then there was no attendance at the, I'm sorry, there was attendance at the September 24th hearing, but the magistrate made the determination to certify a partial lien in the amount of $5,000, and then in January of this year, the case was closed. Okay. Can you tell us what the zoning issue was? That's what I'm gonna look at right now. If you wanna grab his name and address for the record reason. Okay. Name a solstice? That. Just a moment, sir. This was for basically a portion of the garage next to this property and there was a bakery business that was operating out of the garage that was attached to the single family home. Which couldn't have. Which could not happen correct. Okay. All right sir could you give us your name and address for the record please. The name is Solstice last name is Bust. Adresses 8600 14th way north. St. Petersburg, Florida 3372. So, what can you tell us about why you want this lien released? So, this property is a built in 1962. It's a residence. And then there's like a 2000 square foot building attached to it, which was at its time, it was a TV repair shop. It was used commercially for many, many years. When I acquired the property and decided I wanted to rent out the warehouse, I went to the same-peat zoning three different times and told them, I want to operate a Baycread at this location. Are we okay? And I was told that yes, it was okay. The zoning allows for, I think it's CCTV1 and allows for mixed use for residential commercial. So I was under the impression that we were good. We leased it out to a bakery, they operated for a while. I called to get a commercial dumpster there and the people at the sanitary said no, it's not commercial. I insisted to talk to their manager, and that's when that was brought to code enforcement, hey, they're running a business out of a residence. So did you have the bakery move out, or what did you do? It was a long process. At first first I thought the bakery was responsible to do their own change of use. So I lost four or five months thinking they were responsible. After coming here once or twice I found out no as the owner you're responsible. Then I try to make plans myself when to the building department a bunch of times. Finally we realized that I have to hire an architect an, which we did. And that was like, you know, $15,000, $20,000 they wanted. We initiated plans, had meetings with zoning, with Adriana, and then finally we had a meeting with, I don't remember the gentleman's name, but they finally approved, yes, you can have a bakery there as long as you have a retail location as well. So we're not allowed to have manufacturing. So you can't manufacture bread unless you have a little window that you also sell to the public. And that's based on the zoning. And when we started going that way, okay, zoning allows it. Okay, now we need X amount of parking spots. It's 2,000 square feet, you need 13 parking spots. We don't have 13 parking spots. We could put a bicycle rack, reduce the parking, and the deeper we went into it, we realized it's not gonna work. We need a two hour wall between the house and the warehouse. And in order to do that, you have to go through the roof and that's a $50,000 investment. At the end of it, you know, we said, hey, this is not viable. So what are you doing with the building now? The building now is, that portion is empty right now. I'm gonna use it for storage, or maybe you rent it out as a storage base or something like that but it's not you know it's it's it's currently not being used. Does anybody have questions for staff? Yeah so did you go to the special magistrate hearings? He did. All of them. So when the lien was partially certified for $5,000 do you you remember the explanation that you got from the special magistrate? What did that person say? It was very unexpected that he certified the lean because it was just after we had the meeting with zoning and they were saying yes, you can do it. And I said that and then it was like, okay, we're certifying $5,000 and even the code enforcement Tucker, you know, Hodgson's was like, oh, that was unexpected To the best of my knowledge. I did what I could I was working out of state sometimes I traveled here for the hearings Today I traveled from the other coast for this So it's it's been a sort of a roller coaster and a learning for me But I know know, you know, I feel like the city has good understanding as well. It does. Sorry. I was just gonna say it doesn't look like he missed the single meeting, did he? No, he didn't. He attended everything. That's good. Did you ever get any documentation from zoning when they told you initially that you could operate a bakery or was this all verbal? Unfortunately, I did not. Okay. But it was definitely verbal and we had looked at the zoning the pages that say the zoning type and the use type. And it is allowed to like I could operate a bakery there today. Right. Except that you'd have to go through building, and they may have a bunch of requirements that are too difficult to do, although zoning allows it. So that's sort of what I've learned. Okay. Okay, yeah. So I'll make a motion. Okay. I move that in this matter, the lien be released in its entirety. Second, okay, we have a motion to release the lien in its entirety any discussion Let's vote a checklist. Yes, neither yes, and shot. Yes, wait. Yes, Wilson. Yes. Okay. Thank you You have no more lean. They'll be paper I'm going to see these ladies. You're probably going to work in the zoning office. Yeah. Don't ever complain to sanitation. Never requested them. Don't call sanitation again. I welcome. Last case. Yep. Last case. LR4 property address. 2-0- 2001 Iowa Avenue, Northeast. Current owner is Sally Kadenhoss. Case number is 22-22152. And it's for junk rubber shelter storage, pool spa pond maintenance, and pool pond enclosure required. Total amount of lean certified in this case are $69,600. Some details about this case. There's quite a bit here. This case we did start off with some civil citations for the owner regarding the junk trash and debris. And eventually moved that case over into the property maintenance case as we issued fines there was no resolution to it We posted the notice of hearing of the violation address on May 5th of 2023 The notice of hearing that was addressed to the owner was returned as unclaimed on May 24th There was the public hearing there was no representation the board provided 25 days We then deferred it from the next special magistrate hearing for 25 days. August 22nd, there was no representation. The lenient amount of $9,750 was certified. The following month in September, we'd recommend another deferral. And the lenient was 25 days. The November hearing, there was no representation. $12,600 lien was certified. And then over the next several months, there was a tenant at some meetings, and no attendance at others. Leans were certified partially or in full amounts. There was another extension that was granted at the May 21st hearing by the magistrate for 25 days. And then there were staff recommended deferrals towards the end of the case in January and February. I believe most of those deferrals were due to requests from the owner related to medical issues are not being able to attend the hearing. So we automatically did staff deferrals in those instances. And then the case was closed out on March 11th of 2025. Yeah. I noticed that there's an active tracking or monitoring cases in the name of the current owner. There's still one. Yeah. So, normally cases cannot be heard before the board if there's still active cases within the name of the owner. So this is a property that was impacted by Hurricane Helene. So we have our monitoring case to ensure that permits are pulled for FEMA requirements. Now we have no evidence that work's been done. I believe properly, I'll let the representative testify to it, but likely maybe being sold as is. So in that case, there's no real violation there until permits are pulled or they do work without permits So we did not want to prohibit them from attending today just because of you know Kind of this unforeseen circumstance where we have thousands of these cases And it's not that there's an active violation there necessarily because they haven't in this case started any work without permits We're just ensuring that We keep an on those, all those properties to make sure the work does get completed with permits. But with regard to the original issue, the 2022 issue, it says reason closed in compliance. So did they get in compliance? Yes, yes. The jugna-bury, the pool enclosure, yeah, that all got corrected. It's just we have this other active case right now for the monitoring, for the female requirements that again, normally you would not be able to attend the hearing to ask for lean release with an active case, but we made an exception and we would for any other property with similar circumstances. Right. But all of this case predates the hurricanes by a year or so. Right. Yes. Yeah. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. It was an ongoing. Yeah, there was four out of the 11 hearings, there was representation. I'm saying there were people there that knew what was going on, that new leans were accruing. Yes, Miss Hoss was at the hearings. I believe the representative can probably provide some more details that I don't want to speak on. OK. Good afternoon, sir. Could you give us your name and address for the record, please? Yes. Good afternoon or good evening, I should say. Sean Sandifer, I'm an attorney, and I represent Miss Nehaus since January. So I've only been on the last 60 days but we're making good progress. My office address is 360 Central Avenue Suite 600 St. Petersburg Florida 337-01. Okay. So can you tell me why you're coming forward to have these lanes released now? Yes ma'am. Well I'm not privy to all of the information that happened prior to my involvement which was only the last 60 days except to say that Miss Nehaas does have significant mobility concerns. She's had some health issues. She is in her mid-70s. And I'm understanding is that her family situation, she doesn't have a lot of assistance. No active involved children, her spouse is deceased. She has difficulty driving. So that is to explain some of the issues with her not attending. Some of the hearings in the past. And at some point or another, she was working on getting the property into compliance. Then of course, both her canes hit, and she was in those flood areas, which caused some delay. And again, she had some issues in terms of getting the properties cleaned up properly. Later on, she retained the services of a realtor to help her, who then advised her that this property has leans on it. It's got fines. Why don't we work on getting this in compliance? And then that's how I got referred. Since that time in January I've been working said facetly with Ms. Nejas and her friend and neighbor Ms. Shalini Reddy. You may have encountered her at a previous hearing. I'm not sure. Through me and through Shalini Ms. Nejas does have assistance now. Finally, thank God. And we've been cleaning up the property, or making sure people are hired to clean up the property, getting the pool area into the compliance, getting trash and waste cleaned up. And they are going to be selling the product. Once hopefully we get the leans removed, and the fines removed, which is what we're asking for today. We're are going to be selling the product. Once hopefully we get the leans removed and the fines removed, which is what we're asking for today, we are going to be listing the property as is to be sold. And I see that as a benefit not only to Miss Neha's but also to the city because the easier it is for us to sell the property, the sooner it can be transferred to new ownership and the leans and fines can be removed. Where is Miss Neha's living now? She is located at 8333 Seminal Boulevard Unit 635 Seminal, Florida 33772. I believe that is assisted living of some kind. And I will add, her caretaker is currently in India, traveling, so I'm here on her behalf. And it says on here that she owns the another property? She does, they do have another house. That's located at Dr. Mark 3275, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street North 3304. I don't have any information on that property. I think Miss Neha's hopes to return to that house at some point. But you know how that can be you know so there there may be she may not be returning and then we'll deal with with that issue at a later time. Did she live at 2001 Iowa Avenue? She did yes. Until the storms? Yes. Until the fall. Approximately the fall. Okay so she was living there when all this started and all these problems were accruing. Yes sir. And then rents out the home on MLK. I'm not sure the status of that home on MLK. I haven't been involved in that property at all, and then to know the address. I can find that information out. I think it may be vacant. So, Mr. Wade, if my memory serves me correctly, I believe she testified during the hearings that the property was vacant. There was no active water service at the Iowa Avenue Northeast property, but there was active water service at the other one. So even we weren't sure where she was actually residing, but she does own both, obviously. When you say there was no water service at Iowa, when? Starting when? I can confirm, but during the time that the case was going on, I believe that was one of the questions I was asked during the initial hearing, because she had said, I live there, but we had said that it was vacant based on the fact that there was no utilities on at the time. It's during the course of the case. What was the storm? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. And so it's... It's your testimony that just due to her age, mobility issues, and capacitated. That was the reason she wasn't able to get started. Yes, that's my testimony. That's right away. Yes, sir. That's my testimony. And I think that we're on the right track now. We just read off all the progress and what was not happening all throughout last year. And then now that she has proper assistance, I mean in the last 60 days, we've cleaned up the pool, cleaned up the cage, cleaned up the exterior, and it's essentially ready to be sold. And I just would ask the committee, the board, to the case has been closed. And I'd like to have the leans removed and the fines removed as well. At least personally, one of the things I like to take into account in these situations is the owner's ability to have kept the property from falling into this condition and not only physically but financially because you can hire people to keep your property clean if you're financially able. So, you know, questions that we have about other properties that are owned and things like that help us understand, why didn't the person when these properties were falling into these disrepair conditions hire someone to help them? Right. It's a good question. I'm not privy to her entire financial picture. However, my understanding is that she's on social security and in her marriage, which her husband's now deceased, she acquired the two properties that were discussed today. And we don't think the other one was granted. I think it is South Bay. I kind of remember. That was something that was discussed during the meetings, I think both the magistrate. I mean, candidly, both properties combined are worth over $2.5 million. And that was the questioning from the magistrate. You have equity potentially in these houses, you can get this done. I believe in my observations of the situation, I don't know that there was the capacity there from the owner at the time to be able to work through that process on her own, despite the encouragement of us at the city from the magistrate, and we did not see any progress until other individuals started to get involved. But certainly today, now that she has help and she has all this equity, these lanes could be satisfied, potentially. The Louisiana Leads of Warner Bros. Certainly. Yeah. If I may though that would require her you know she's trying to sell the property to somebody else. So it makes it harder for us to sell the property with these leans and fines still standing and if we do sell the leans are put there. We do sell we do sell it, we've got to, you know, it takes a lot of negotiating power away from the seller which is already sort of a buyer's market. So those are those are some market considerations we're taking into account. I don't believe that she has. Yeah, so there's ways around that. You ask grow the money, pay the leans. There's ways around that. Yeah, that's simple sure you know about those sure sure. Yes. Yes, but yeah, yeah, you know if the house is worth $70,000 and there's $70,000 a lien, I get it. If the house is worth a million five, that's a different story. I'm not sure it's worth a million five. I mean, I'm just saying. Yeah, it's in pretty rough shape. I don't think it's a family around. No, and in Pinellas County. No Is she have children? I believe she does have children, but they're not actively involved I would just stress you know to the committee we're dealing with it with an elderly somewhat disabled person with very limited family and that was what was causing the delay take no action. They can come back in 180 days. Is that what the rules are? I think you might. Yes. Yes. You can come back and discuss again. Well, it gives them time to him. He's been on the case for 60 days. He can go back and talk to the people and say and say look these guys aren't inclined to just wipe this clean because there's equity involved here is there a way we can go about setting something up so that we can satisfy the leans and still sell the property because these guys may not ever give us relief to these leans. I may our goal is to get the property sold as soon as possible. We'll input it up for sale. What are you waiting on? Well, we're hoping to get exactly. We're hoping it makes that process much better. I think it's better for the city for the property to be sold lean and buy. It'll be sold. And Chair, the right price? Yeah, if I, I mean, we also have programs that are intended to address these issues for new owners as well and My opinion in this specifically being sold as is likely demolished in a new property being built that's a very easy You know stipulated agreement as soon as the properties demo the violations are corrected that new owner gets reliefans. So I, in my professional opinion, based on the number of stipulated agreements we have, I don't know that that would be as much of a burden, because we do have a process to address that with that program. And it's intended to encourage the redevelopment. And the land buyers are well aware of this. Oh yeah, ever, yes, correct. And then the city would get zero? Right, we would not receive any funds, but we are, again, that's to encourage the getting the property, because that's what happened in the past, right? To his point, there were leans on a property that were encumbering it and investors or potential buyers were hesitant, or they would have to drop the sales price. And so this was a program that really did a lot of good in the community because we had these dilapidated properties that we could say, hey, don't be worried about these leans because we have a program that can resolve this for you as long as you bring it up to code. And if they're going to build a new house, obviously, that's a yes. You're going to scrape it anyway. Right. I think one of the things you need to appreciate is there's a lot of time that the city has spent taxpayer dollars to stay on top of this case. So I mean, I appreciate the comment around it's a win-win, but it's really not. These services don't come for free, right? You've got people going out, keeping on this property. Think about the neighbors, right, that are impacted by this. So if we just try to turn it blind, oh, okay, yeah, this is great. Let's just let this go away. You know, what does that really do? What are we doing that? What does it do to our process? Yeah. It's just you destroy the whole process, so. So if I'm one woman did not want to make decisions in her best interests, is that she could have afford to make decisions in her best interest, that she could have afforded to make. I think we have some capacity concerns I brought up to help explain that. I'm doing the best I can for her today. I have only been involved 60 days. I would just interject if I could, that if we don't remove any of the leans and fines, even a portion of them, I think that that sort of disincentivizes the process that we've seen happen the last 60 days. Miss Nehaas did eventually get help, granted better late than never. She has an attorney, she has a professional real estate agent, we've put a lot of time up, she's put time and money into paying me. She's put time and money into paying contractors clean up the property. I would really like to see some portion thereof of fines and liens removed. There's $70,000 in fines on this property. And if we don't remove any of them, really all that benefits is a future buyer. There's no benefit to the homeowner who is disabled who is elderly who allowed this to a crew Fair enough. I just think there should be some some remedy for her Given what we've been through the last year and a half the remedy lie lay with her two and a half years ago I'm sorry, but this is just that's hard. It's it sounds Sorry that it does, but she made her own bed here. And the remedy is... I'm sorry, but this is just. That's hard. It sounds good. She pointed five minutes. Sorry that it does, but she made her own bed here. And the remedy is she's not going to have to stroke a check for $70,000. So that's a remedy. Or reduce the price. Oh, she is. Because she's going to have to sell the, if the house is encumbered by $70,000, potential buyer is not going to say oh well we hope there's a lien removal program at the end of it or there's a there's a fine so they have she's going to lose $70,000. Any potential buyer is not going to say, oh well, we hope there's a lien removal program at the end of it or there's a there's a fine. So they have she's going to lose $70,000 in equity when she goes to sell the property. I hear your or $15,000. I hear you. There was there was also but there was mitigating this was not somebody who was in their prime healthy lots of people to help she she was having difficulty and I hear you on that, but I just think that that's a mitigating factor. Mr. Wal, does the program you mentioned, I obviously don't know it well, when let's say I was gonna buy the product, I wanna buy the property, and I'm going to demolish it and build a new property on it, which will be a new structure on obviously be up to code. Is it written down and guaranteed to the buyer that these leans will be done away with? In other words, there's no wishy-washy there. It's going in, if I'm the buyer, I know for a fact if I do ABC, these leans will go away. Yes, so typically what happens is just using this case as an example, if there's $70,000 in leans, those $70,000 get put into escrow at the closing. Now the challenge is if the buyer does not follow through with what they need to do going through the program then at a certain point the title company is going to release that escrow. Now if the buyer does what they're supposed to do, those lines get released, the money that's held in escrow goes back to the seller and that's the end of it. They see what they say they're going to do, they get the money. Correct, yeah, but we've had instances where ABC didn't happen, it's few and far between. That's up to the buyer. But ABC's already been done, right? The land developers all know this. Yeah, I was so happy. They can have it right in their advertised. Yeah, surely. My client did ABC. There's what I'm not sure what else is going to be like. Isn't there, isn't there, have property clean? No, I mean, especially not that. The cases have been closed now. The the the lean waiver program addresses the entire property not just whatever our case was So now that there's interior damage from the hurricanes that are flooding, all of that, that new, the program gets the entire property up to current standards, whether that be through rehab or a complete rebuild and redevelopment. As long as it's up to code. Correct, yeah. So, and I mean, the last thing that I will say and you know obviously it's the board's decision I understand a lot of the commentary. As I mentioned before it's a little bit of both right there is some lack of participation from the owner but I think a piece of that is a capacity issue in order to get that done. Now, I don't know how we got to this point where this gentleman's now involved in the other individuals that have finally been able to get there. Obviously, we would have preferred that to happen two years ago and maybe we're not even here right now and I don't know how much ability the owner had to do that. But I just wanna say in our observation, I don't think it's something where it was a blatant, even though I have access to these resources, I'm not going to do this. There was somewhat of a capacity issue there to navigate the process. And I do think that that is something that the board should take into consideration, not to say that everything should be released or anything like that, but I think it's a factor. Yeah's fair. Yeah, and I think that was the common I was going to make. I mean, if I'm sitting in your shoes, that's the position I would have taken. Coming in saying it's zero and then we should look at our assets, it should have been all around her inability to communicate her incapacitation. I mean, that's really what you're talking about, right? I mean, that's really what this bull's down to. That's why she couldn't do what she was doing. That's right, I'm really concerned. So let's just zero in on what the issue was. You need to quit your age because 70 is not old. Just for the record. It depends on who the person is I guess, right? You're right. All right. You're going to read something. All right, here we go. Take me out of the side. I move that in this matter. The leans be released in consideration of payment of $22,350 to be paid within 60 days. Those are the first two leans. Second. Those are the first two lanes certified. So that's where that money, that amount came up. How does everybody else feel about that? That's what I thought. OK. You what? I don't think that's enough. OK. You don't think that's enough? If I was going to read, I would have read something higher than that. OK. It's 70,000. I understand this. about half. I'm taking into consideration her health. I understand she's got properties but Okay. It's 70,000. I understand this. About half. I'm taken into consideration her health. I understand she's got properties, but I just- I'm with you, Allie. My thinking was the first two lanes that were certified. That's where it got to my point. I mean, it's- I said half, but I mean, the difference between what you said and what I would have said is not that much money. So voted out. Yes. Schneider? No. Handscha. No. Wait. Drum roll. No. Wilson. No. Okay, so let's try again. You want to go? You want me to go? I will amend the motion. Go ahead. Sorry. Oh, yeah, we're seeing the new ones. Oh, we're ahead done. But anybody can make the motion. Go ahead. I move that in this matter. The property be released from the leans. I'm sorry, I'm reading the wrong one. I move that in this matter, the leans be released in consideration of payment of $35,000 within 60 days. Second. OK. So the motion is now $35,000 within 60 days. That was my second. Any discussion? May I? No, not right now. Any discussion? And let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Hanchion? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. No. All right. So if your plan is willing to pay the money within 60 days, then the rest of the liens will be released. You see these ladies for paperwork. This concludes the code. Excuse me. Code's board, lien release hearings for 25th. Thank you, everyone. Thank you.