you you you you you you you The code compliance board and I call this meeting to order. The NSB code compliance board of March 20, 2025. The procedures of this hearing are to provide due process to every respond to and the city in accordance with the Florida State Statue 162.073, which states formal rules of evidence shall not apply but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. Here say is admissible but only but only to support other components to substantial evidence. Other evidence must be presented. Are there any questions? Any decision made today can be appealed by sending notice of appeal to the circuit court within 30 days of the execution of the orders per Florida State statute 162.11. Can we have roll call please? Yes, Dan Coffer. Here.. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you communications to disclose? For the record none. Has each member had a chance to approve the look over the minutes from the February 20th, 2025 meeting? And if so, do I have a motion to accept? So move. Second. Dan Coffrey. Aye. Clifford Warren. Aye Aye Albert Schumansky. Aye Aaron Dennis aye Ruth Kessmerich. Yes And at this point can we have the swearing in of any city staff respondents and any witnesses that may testify today in front of us Can everybody please stand and raise your right hand in the matter to which you are about to give testimony do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The witnesses have been sworn in. First case. First case is case 0614-2024, 826 East 10th Avenue, Officer Beverly Abrahamson presenting. Hi. Hello. This case is for 826 East 10th Avenue, case Number CCB 06142024. This property is zoned R2, single-family residential. On August 6, 2024, Code compliance received a complaint regarding the condition of the roof and it's covering. On August 7, an inspection was conducted and the property was found to be in violation of city code sections 26 914-13. Outside storage, metal roofing materials being stored on the front yard. Section 26 171A permits required. There were two expired re-roof permits. On February 6 2025, a notice of violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of February 26, 2025. A copy was also mailed certified mail to the property owner and returned to the sender on February 8, 2025. On February 26, a follow-up inspection showed the City Code Section 2691413 for outdoor storage was in compliance and Section 26171A permits required was still in violation, but later came into compliance on March 14th. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the board find Kenneth Munitz, indoor entity in violation of section 26171A permits required. This code was in violation from February 26th, 2025 until March 14th, 2025. A permit was applied for an issued on March 14th then bringing that bringing it into compliance after the comply by date Okay, any questions from the board The permits that read will expire you said you said there were two permits expired? Were they by contractors or by? The first one was by a con. I think they were all three of them are by a contractor. The first one was actually canceled. There was never any work done. So they went ahead and canceled the permit on that one. And then the second one, just recently, they went ahead. I called the permit department and they told me that they would just close that one out based on the fact that he now has an issued permit. So. Okay. Thank you. If I find this in violation or if you guys find this in violation for the time period in which it was not in compliance, then if he doesn't finish this roof up and get it inspected. There's no open for me so I missed that. Correct. Yes, there's one issued permit. By a contractor? Yes. We know what he's going to be doing. Well, the roof's kind of already done. Oh, the roof's done. So we went for it. When he had the second permit, there was two inspections done. They did the end progress inspection and the roof sheathing inspection. And then he covered it with a tarp for some reason, had something to do with insurance. And this was after the hurricanes in 2003. I think it was. So he took the tarps off because they were torn. And parts and stuff was flying all over the place, and the neighbors were concerned about it. So he took that tarp off and put something else on there. It's some kind of a I don't know if it's a bit of men. So, yeah just another question is the is the violation for permits based on a contract or a homeowner? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It's just It was worked on without a permit. Okay. But he now has a permit issued. Any other questions from the board? If so, if not, can I have a motion? Is there anybody else here to speak on it? Is there anybody else to speak on this matter? matter in the audience? For the record no. What was the recommendation? To find section 26171A, permits required in violation from February 26 until March 14 of 25. And I guess you find it in violation and comply it. Just find it in violation for those couple weeks. I'm going to accept the recommendation. Can I get a second? Second. Who is the second? Thank you. Deanne Copper. Aye. Clifford Warren. Aye. Albert Shamanski. Aye. Erin Dennis. Aye. Ruth Kessmerich. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code in to verify compliance with this order and to also be aware that the respondents Have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days Any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years from the date of this order Shall be treated as a repeat violation of which a find-up to $500 per day may be imposed Next case please. Next case is case 0657-2024, address of 2631 Brookline Avenue, officer John Parks presenting. Afternoon. Case number CCB0657-2024, 2631 Brookline Avenue. This property is owned are two single-family residential and violation cited was 26-171 permits required in section 74-146 local business tax imposed. On August the 28th, 2024, Code compliance received a complaint regarding a pool and deck installed without a permit. On August the 30th, 2024, an inspection was conducted where I was able to observe upright, wooden posts and structures that would be associated with a pool and deck. A check of the permit system found no permits. The property was found to be in violation of Section 26-171. On September 30, 2024, I posted a courtesy notice and spoke with the resident who advised that he was the renter not the owner. The check of the BTR system found no BTR. The property was found to be in violation of section 74-146. On November the 26th, 2024, notice of violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of December 20th, 2024. A copy was also bailed, certified, mailed to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on November the 26th, 2024. On December 6, 2024, follow-up inspection at the request of a neighboring property making a complaint showed that extensive extension of the driveway and shed were both done without a permit as well. On March 10, 2025, a check of the permit system found an application for the pool in deck with fees due and recent middle required. There is no application for the driveway extension or the shed. It is staff's recommendation to board to find Terry Lee Longer Jr. and or entity of violation 26-171 and section 74-146 and give until May 9th, 2025 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it's task recommendation to impose a fine of $50 per day until the property is brought into full compliance, maximum fine not to exceed $10,000. Any questions? In the board. I move we accept the recommendation. Aye. Second. Deanne Cawfer. Aye. Clifford Warren. Aye. Albert Schumanski. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Ruth Kazmerich. Yes. Motion carries. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order and to also be aware that the respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which you find up the $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. Next case is 0796-2024. Addresses 1325 Sachs and Drive. Officer Barbara Bobalak presenting. Good afternoon. So, KCCB-07962024, property is zoned B5 Plan Shopping Center. It's located at 1325 Sex and Drive. On November 4th, 2025, a co-compliance received a complaint regarding waves, hair design, changing ownership in August of 2024. The previous owners contacted Kathleen Adel, the business license specialist and informed her of this when they received their renewal notice. So Kathleen had contacted the new owner to inform her that she needed to change everything into her name. On February 12, 2025, it was turned over to us because Kathleen had made several attempts by letters and calling the owner to get them to change the business license and get it into their name. So on February 12, a check at the business license database indicated that there was no business license tax receipt that had been put into the new owner's name. And notice the violation and notices and hearing was mailed certified mail to the property owner and the business owner. The certified mail sent to the property owner was signed for and accepted on February 14th, 2025. The notices were also posted on the property with the initial compliance date of February 28th, 2025. The property owner, or the business owner of Waves' hair design, she has several other businesses in the city. So she's well aware of the process for the business licenses. So Kathleen and myself, we'd been emailing back and forth. We got the property owner, which is public, also involved. And the last email correspondence that we had showed that the previous people that had waves decided they were going to sublease the property. Public's does not allow subleasing of the properties, so now we're going back and forth trying to get a property owner, Appa David, from publics for the new property owner. They have submitted the business license tax receipt and they kept putting off submitting the Appa David. They didn't, they did send one showing the previous lease holders name. That's how we found out they were sub leasing. So as of yesterday, we had some in regarding businesses. We had correspondence from public telling us that they're trying to straighten us out so that she can move on and get her business tax license. So my recommendation is to find real sub LLC and care of public supermarkets in waves, hair design and or entities in violation of section 74-146 local business tax imposed and given till April 10th, 2025. And the event that they do not comply, we do it one time fine of $250. So this is, and the way we know that this business owner that's in there now, she just had three inspections on her other businesses. So we know that she is well aware of the rules and regulations. So. Any questions from the board? Can we have a motion? I make a motion except for recommendation. Second. Thank you. Ian Coffer. Aye. Clifford Warren. Aye. Albert Shamanski. Aye. Erin Dennis. Aye. Ruth Casmeric. Yes. Motion carries. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify the compliance with this order and to also be aware that the respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respawn up within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which to find up the $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. Next case is Cherry Street. It is a vacant lot and officer Amber beige is presenting. Hello. So the property location is going to be parcel number 74180110090 Cherry Street, which is a vacant lot. This property is owned by our two single family residents on January 6, 2025, Code Compliance received a complaint regarding a residential zone a lot being used as a construction site for storing equipment in the breakdown of concrete and rock type materials. On that same day, January 6, 2025, an inspection was conducted and the property was found to be in violation of LDR80202 storage or residential lots. Observed heavy machinery using construction being stored on the lot, which could be observed at the top of the fence line. While conducting the site inspection, I made contact with Mr. Gregory Wright. and it buys him that the equipment was not permitted to be stored on a residential lot and that any and all breaking down of construction materials on the residential lot had to stop. On January 23rd of 2025, the initial notice of violation was posted on the property within initial compliance date of 06, I'm sorry, February 6th, 2025. A copy was also mailed certified to the property owner and was returned unclamed. On February 11th, a follow-up inspection showed the construction equipment that was visual from the top of the fence line had been removed and it looked as though the property had been brought into compliance. I spoke with Mr. Wright on the telephone and he stated that all the construction equipment had been removed from the property. I also spoke with the complaint and I confirmed that the construction equipment had been removed and the construction work had ceased. It is the staff's recommendation that the board find Mr. Gregory Wright and or entity of violation. LDR 802.02 from the dates of January 6th, 2025 to February, 2025, and in compliance on February 11, 2025. Okay. Any questions from the board? So he's in compliance? He's in compliance now, yes. What's the motion? What's the motion? What is it that you think? I would like it that he be found in noncompliance between January 6th of 2025 to February 10th, 2025. So if he were to bring the equipment back, it would be a repeat violation. I shall move. Sorry, is there any fines that go along with that? No thanks. Thank you. Except for the repeat. Yes. Yeah. Just to confirm Cliff, you motioned in Albert E. Second. Okay. Dan Caffer. Aye. Clifford Warren. Aye. Albert Shamanzki. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Ruth Kazmerik. Yes. Merchant Carries. order to contact the code inspector to verify the compliance with this order and to also be aware that respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondent within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which you find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. Next case is dash 202, I'm sorry, ignore me. 614 A.O.L.I.N. Drive, officer Barbara, but we'll like presenting. Case number CCB-0055, 2025, 614 A.O.L. in Drive. The property has owned PUD planned unit development. On January 21st, 2025 code compliance received a complaint stating the property recently sold and is being rented as a short-term rental on Airbnb. They also inquired if this was allowed use for the property and if so has the property registered with the city of NSB and for Belucia County for short-term use tax purposes. On January 22, 2025, check out the business license tax indicated there was no business license tax receipt for the property and was found to be in violation of section 74-146 local business tax imposed. The courtesy notice was mailed to the property owner informing them of the violation with compliance date of February 5, 2025. No application for the business license was submitted to the city by this compliance date. On February 14, 2025, a notice violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of March 7th 2025. A copy was also mailed certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on February 18th 2025. On March 12th 2025, I conducted a site visit and knocked on the door. No one answered the door. However, when leaving the property, I could see lights on in the home. When I returned to the office, I emailed the Utilities Commission to verify utility service. There's utility service to the home. The utility service is in the property owner's name, which is basically a real estate company. I tried reaching out to them. The phone number that I found was actually for a different company with a similar name. And they stated that they were not related to this property at all. So I went through different processes trying to find contact information. The only thing I could get was from the property appraiser website. And so it's my recommendation to the board to find BG real estate LLC and or entity in violation of section 74-146 local business tax imposed and given till April 10th 2025 to submit the business license tax receipt application and schedule the required inspections in the event that they do not comply the one-time fine of $250 would be imposed. Okay. Any questions from the board? Do we know how long they've been using it as a pardon? Do we know how long they've been using it as an Airbnb or? I don't the first complaint we had was in January and it sounded like that the real state transaction had not been much for you know they have our relatively new owners of the property and she said the lady that sent the complaint said they don't she knows that it's a rental because she's seen the property owners there showing the property to the renters so but I like I said I knocked on the door and there's been no contact information and a good indication to me that it's possibly a rental is that most tenants you have your utilities in your own name so I don't see why they would keep the utilities in their name if they had a full-time tenant so they could be doing short-term or just the 30 days which is permitted in that zoning but I would I don't think they're gonna have somebody change the utilities every 30 Come on, 30 days or weekend. Wave of motion. Did you say that you couldn't find the owner's name in this? I found the owner's name, which is the BG real estate LLC and their bailing address is on the tax roll and on the property of Fraser website, but I searched different websites to see if I could find a phone number. The phone number I found was for another real estate company that was BG something. So I spoke to a gentleman there and he said that they're not affiliated at all. So, which are they, I don't know. Okay. But they also accepted the certified mail, so they are aware of the property in the printing of beach. That's what you're saying. Have they addressed the Frenadina beach? Yes. And they accepted the certified. Okay. And they were real estate companies. So they should know better. And they're real, and they're, I mean, and they got the notice and they signed some of the sign for it. And the property was posted. And when I revisited the property, the posting was down as well. So here. So how does that accept it? Do we have a motion? I make motion to accept the recommendation. I so. Dan Cofford. Aye. Clifford Warren. Aye. Albert Schumanski. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Ruth Kazmerich. Yes. Motion carries. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify a compliance with this order and to also be aware that the respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which will find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. Next case is 0 0-2025. Address of 2502 Arlington Avenue Officer Barbara Babilack is presenting in Jason Yates absence. Case number CCB 0073 2025. Property Location is 2502 Arlington Avenue. The property is owned R2 single family residential. On February 6, 2025, Cone to Cohe Highens received a complaint regarding a concrete slab, poured approximately three months prior to the complaint. And now a three-card garage is being built on the cement slab that is located in the backyard. On February 6, 2025, an inspection was conducted. Property was found to be in violation of city code section 26171A. The three-card garage was visible from the street and no permit was on file. On February 7, 2025, a notice violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of February 28th, 2025. The copy was also mailed certified mail to the property owner and was returned to the city mark to return to sender. On March 3rd, 2025, the property owner contacted Jason Yates, co-compliance officer to inform Jason and he has been working with an engineer to assist him with correcting the violation of constructing the building without a permit. Mr. Ayer stated that he needed paperwork from the engineer who doesn't want to give him the paperwork. Mr. Ayer's is not sure where to go from here. Jason and former Mr. Ayers that he would give him more time to allow him to obtain the required paperwork and obtain the after the fact permit. It's staff's recommendation to find Mr. Robert Ayers and or entity in violation of city code section 26171A permits required and given till May 8th, 2025, to submit the required permits to the building department. If the owner does not come into compliance, it staffs recommendation to impose a fine of $50 per day until the property is brought into full compliance. Any questions from the board? I don't know. Do we have a motion? I move we accept the recommendation. I say Dan Koffer. Hi Clifford Warren. Hi Albert Schmanzki. Hi Aaron Dennis. Hi Ruth Kessmarek. Motion carries. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify the compliance with this order and to also be aware that respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation at which a find up that $500 per day may be imposed. Okay. That's it for any new cases, any discussion among the board members? I hope the record will be done now. Okay. Then I'll adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Thank you.