I apologize about that. Paul, by consideration of lien release request. Leane certifications are heard by a special magistrate and a special hearing. During this evidentiary session, we will hear testimony from property owners and the city code compliance department about whether a property is in violation of city code. We will hear testimony from the City Code's 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 the ward will not be have the right to be heard. This hearing will be conducted as follows. The city shall present its case first and 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 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 case file. The city will be able to cross examine you in each of your witnesses. You have the right to remain silent and your silent will not be held against you. You have the right to testify and have your testimony considered on the same standards as other witnesses. The board may ask questions of witnesses on both sides as the evidence is presented. This is not a criminal proceeding. Shrick rules of evidence are not applied during this proceedings. After the board has heard all testimony from both sides, the board will entertain a motion they may enter a close discussion at this time. During the closed discussion amongst 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, board will order the property owner to correct the violation within a specific time period and a daily fine to occur thereafter for failure to comply. Failure to correct the violation within a specific time will result in a fine for each day the property is not in compliance after the time period. After the board has made its decision, a copy of the board's findings and order will be mailed to the property owner of record. The correction of violations may 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 position the circuit court of Pinellas County. Roll call. Let's do roll call first. Wilson, here. Schneider. Here. Enzler. Burning. Wait. Auseklas. Here. Riblay. Here. Okay, we will now stand for the pledge. Allegiance. Please. And then those of you that are going to be testifying, please stand. Please warn in. The pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic, which stands for nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth? You may be seated. Everyone, please. So just so you guys know, your agenda just has the updates that you normally don't see. So the red just means obviously it's closed or whatever. So it's the same agenda just a little. Okay, the red just means we're not going to be able to. Okay. I kind of like it. Everyone, please make sure they silence their phone. If you need to take a phone call, you can step outside to just pay attention to the board and when your case is being called, please. Thank you. Okay, first case. Item 137. Property owner, Donald Ivan Jacobson Trustee, Evangelan Harry Jacobson Trustee. Investigator Eric Carvella. Yes, sir. Yeah, please. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Eric Carvella, code's investigator for the city of St. Peter's testifying into reference item 137. Case 24-6112. Regarding property located at 33058, the Avenue South. I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. This property's commercial structure is occupied by tenants. This is Goads Followup case. The property was first inspected on 4, 5, 2024. When violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of 4, 30, 2024. Property was last reinpected on 8, 22, 2024 and the following violation still exists. There's disrepair to the support beams at roof overhang on the pool deck. A permit will be required for all repairs. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail. It was hand delivered by Alex Knight on 813 2024. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, book 22517, page 2693. During the course of the investigation, I got in contact with the owner prior to today, was 730 2024, and owner did not indicate when those violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $200 a day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts, all repairs been made to the roof. However, they never pulled a permit to inspect it and see if the repairs are suitable. I would like to enter into evidence, exhibit one photograph which were taken on 4.5 and 8.22. Here's some of the rot in the trusses on the roof. Again, more rot. This is the exterior elevation of the roof. and this is what it currently looks like. I'd like to enter this fact sheet into evidence, and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Good morning, sir. Can you state your name and address for the record? My name is Raymond Gilbino. Properties located at 3301. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. my presentation. Okay, thank you. Good morning, sir. Can you state your name and address for the record? My name is Raymond Gilbina, property's located at 3301 58 Avenue South, St. Pete. I currently live. You reside there? We need you. I'm sorry. I currently live in Aliso Viejo, California, 13th Channel Island Street in California, 92656. Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to the federal island street in California. 926-556. Okay, thank you. In your relationship to the Donald Jacobson, I represent them with regards to I manage some of the maintenance at the property. I'm here every other month taking care of issues that come up. We can hear from the property, ma'am. Okay. GIL BUE and GILBWENA. Okay. All the facts that were submitted was correct. We did receive a notice of violation. This particular awning was sent to us a notice of violation on the fifth. We looked at it. It was on our docket to maintain it. It's a deferred maintenance issue. Like I said earlier, I'm there every other month. We have an 80-unit apartment that we maintain with many, what we call maintenance requests. This was on our docket to take care of. Unfortunately, before we were able to get to it, Ms. Nunan was able to give us a violation, and we took care of it as soon as possible. The issue here is that we took care of it prior to a permit. The person that we hired, Mr. Damien with the willed, I think his name is, let me double check it, name. Willing's home construction. I was told that he was also a contractor. He is a relative of one of our tenants at the apartment. He came in with respected references and took it upon ourselves to hire him to take care of the oning. I called Ms. Nunean on the 15th, stating that I need a little bit more time to make sure we have everything in order, the lumber, the equipment, and to make sure that Mr. Damien-Willian was capable of taking care of this. He had taken care of some items for us in our apartment, prior to working on the oning. And I said, okay, it seems like he can do a good job. We went forward. I did get a hold of Ms. Newton on the 15th, asked for us a 30 day extension. It was granted. We went ahead and started the demo on May 6. It cost us about $5,800. and he finished it on May 12th. After we finished it, we got a notice that they came out. Miss Nunean came out, looked at a couple of other beams that he had missed, so I had him come out to fix that. And he did a good job to care of it. I got photographs of evidence of that. After that, a notice was sent to me stating that a permit was required. Well, we moved so fast on the reconstruction or the maintenance of this that it was already done before we even got to notice. On April 15th, she sent me a notice stating that the extension was to May 30th. Okay. So the issue here is you need to get it, you need to get an after-fact permit. So, that's what Yes, sir. The issue here is that I've tried with much diligence to try to locate a contractor who would give me or issue or get a permit after the fact. I spoke with Jim at your office here who does or you're permitting. I asked him, do you have somebody who can help me out to get up after the fact permit? Well, I find that most of them won't do that after the fact permit. They're like, well, okay, they don't want to be live before it. So I went ahead and took photographs, which I have here that I can share with you from the construction of that to the finished product of which he submitted. So I'd like to submit that you can take a look at and see for yourself. Well, it doesn't matter because that's not the, we can't override that you need a permit. So you have to, we can give you some time to continue to research and try to find someone to help you with that. Unfortunately, I know it's few and far between, but there are some contractors out there you may find. Or he could submit for the permit himself. No, it's a commercial property. Yeah, and I thought we could, you know, but we don't live at department. If your home said it there, you can do that. That's what I had to say. Let's get a question. The contractor William Holden. Wiggins. Wiggins. Yes, ma'am. Is he a licensed contractor? He's licensed, in effect, for homes building. He works with a contractor who has a license. And I asked him to have his contractor come out and permit this because he had worked for him and he's thus far refused to. Since then we've just kind of parted ways and didn't work out well because I asked him to go back, give me a permit after the fact. That's where I'm at. So again, as I said, the only thing we can do here is give you some additional time to try to see if you can find someone to kind of help you. Do you have a suggestion? Because I've tried several. That's a tough one. Is it required plans to? Doesn't it require an architect, plans, or anything for that? It could be being that it's structural and it's commercial. Yeah, that's your other concern here is that you may need to have drawings done and that's something I would ask the building department to find out if it's just, you know, getting a contractor pull the permit or are you going to need some drawings to show? Because it's a roof support, I would think they would want to see some kind of drawings. Well the maintenance was for some beams that were repaired. And as you can see in the photograph, as you noticed earlier, there was some flashing that came down. And we repaired it, and we put new plywood up. In fact, we repaired the whole roof and put new shingles to and make sure that it's water tight. Well, for the, you know, it's water tight. Well, for though, you know, it does require permits. Okay, so you're saying I need to get some drawings or get with Jim and... I'm saying you should check with the building to put on that. Okay. Because that may be required. I would go and talk to them and say, look, what do I need to get this this after the fact permit? Okay drawings do I can I just get a contractor to pull and Yeah, unfortunately like I said we can give you some time So let's see if we can give you some time to keep keep looking. Yeah, please like I said I'm here every other month my partner Donald Jacob Sim He comes every other month, my partner, Donald Jacobson, he comes the opposite month. So we'll try to get this thing taken care of for you folks. I appreciate your time. 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 Code's investigator, have not been corrected. The board orders Donald Ivan Jacobson, TRE, to correct the violation within 90 days, or by November 26th, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $200 per day shall be imposed. Second. Hey, we got a motion in second. Any questions? I'm excited. I'm excited. Yeah. Yeah. Roll call. A checklist? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Yes Schneider. Yes Wilson. Yes Reblei. Yes. Okay, sir. We've given you 90 days Okay, if I chance you you can't resolve this Watch for another letter to go to the special magistrate and and you can He may be able to grant you some more time if you need it, but good luck with it Okay, thank you, sir. Do you need this? Because no. All right, good no. Thank you. Next case, please. Item 76, property owner Michelle Nguyen, investigator Tucker Hodges. Good morning, I'm Tucker Hodges. I just could investigate it for the city of St. Petersburg. Test them firing a reference item 76, case 24-5190. It's regarding property located at 2855 Valencia Way South. I was sworn in at this meeting. Properties of single-family structure occupied by tenants. This is a C-click fix case. Properties first, Inspector on June 3rd, 2024, in a violation notice centered on or with the compliance date of May 31, excuse me, 2024. Properties last we inspected in August 22nd, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Advertisement a rental of property for transient accommodations, occupancy for less and a monthly term. It's prohibited within the neighborhood traditional residential in T1 district. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice the hearing was sent first last mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, and was posted at the violation address in August 6 which is at least 10 days prior to hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records but 21085 page 0337. During the course of the investigation last contact with the owner prior to today was on July 22nd, 2024, and the owner did not indicate when the value of the students would be corrected. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. There's more relevant facts as of this morning at 8.16 AM, property had been removed from the Airbnb website. Like to enter an evidence exhibit one photographs, we're taking on August, or 22nd. Document 082224190RTHCB. It's a screenshot, but what's available minimum two-night stays. GenC here no tonight So host The aerial view of where the property is right here. This was a reservation made for three nights. Here's some reviews from two weeks ago June, three in June. I've done a fact sheet in the evidence is exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation Thank you Morning, I'm going to date your name and address for the record please michael win a 6608 Rangers drive temper for that 3615 Yeah, are you understand? The violation yes, and you've taken it down yes What took you so long Do you understand the violation? Yes. And you've taken it down. Yes. What took you so long? I had it setting at, I know I was aware that what I was reading on code that I can lease it out for 31 days at the time. So that's what I said to, but apparently on the air, air, even the website is, you can actually customize your minimum days by the time. So that's what I said to you, but apparently on the air, air room website is you can actually customize your minimum days by the day of the week. And so when I thought I did change the minimum days for the reservation, I did not do that for the specific day of the week. So that's why like sometimes if you click on like let's say Sunday, you cannot book it for the two days but if you could on like a Wednesday a Monday, you can actually book it for two days. So I found that was the reason why the minimum night was not updated for the day of the week. So I found that that out because I only have this one in simply that I don't really manage too much. This was actually a long-term rental for a long time and I took it off just last year just to try it out because I do have family and friends from Michigan that come down in the summer in the winter quite often. So I thought, you know, sometimes I can put this on, put it on as a short term and then when my family and friends are here, I can just let them use the space. So I wasn't aware that this would be, it was cause of issue and I never had a neighbor complain about any noise, aening, like that, recalling to my guests. What is your plan for this property going forward? I actually going to put it on a long term or midterm market rental. So midterm is, I think every minimum is three months. And obviously, anything three months, and obviously anything, three months and more, and what we consider as a midterm or long term. So I actually have some showing today for, um, lady that I wanted to rent this place for six months. And then I'm scheduling a few showing for the rest of the week. This property has been on Zillow for rent since like last month. I just haven't had anyone really wanted to see it. Okay. Did you have any rentals in July? Have you received the notice in June? Did you have rentals, short short term rentals in July? No, I think it was June and then one was two weeks ago. So none is July. Okay. Thank you. I'll read something. You need to be aware that since they found this violation, that they will continue to monitor your property. Unisted. that they will continue to monitor your property. Understood. We can give time, but there's really no point. I'll read something if you want. 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 following, that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Michelle Nguyen to correct the violations within five days or by September 2nd, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Well, I thought it's the evidence that it has already been corrected because the link was. Is this one second? Oh, sorry. Give this one second. OK, so we have them. In a second. Any other questions? Let's do our vocal. Yes. Nighter. Wilson. Reble. Yes. Okay, ma'am. What was your question? I'm sorry. I thought the violation has already been corrected. Yeah. Mr. Reble. It's not corrected. You don't mind all address that considering I think we have quite a few other similar cases this morning So as we've referenced before the city's position on these is If rentals or the advertisement remains after the compliance date which in this case was back in May There were a still availability. There were still rentals that were occurring after that. That's why you're here today So you were in violation after your compliance date We have seen in many cases that either just before this hearing or even sometimes just after the listing gets changed. So that's why the cases before the board say to determine whether or not a violation exists, which it did after the compliance date, and then they provide time to make sure it stays in compliance. If we see that it comes out of compliance, then the case moves forward and you'll be facing leans against her property at her future hearing. Okay. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. X case, please. Item number 92, property owner Marilyn Guarino and James Guarino, investigator Greg Foster. Good morning. I'm Greg Foster, Coats Investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, Testifying and Reference to Item Number 92. This is case number 2314073, regarding property located at 2834, 11th Avenue North. I was warned and started this meeting. This property is a single-family structure and is occupied by owner. Case, this is a single family structure and is occupied by owner, case. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on July 31st, 2023 and a violation that was sent to the owner with a compliance date of April 24th, 2024. The property was last reinspected on August 23rd, 2024. The following violation still exists. Permits are required for construction of an oversized shed, accessory structure located in the rear of the property. Police contact for construction services. Zerata one violations have been corrected since the case began. Notice the hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall since certified mail was also posted at the violation address. On the 16th of August, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed County official records book number 11831, page number 1117. During the course of my investigation last contact with owner prior to today. Early in August, owner indicated that he's working on the permits, did not give me an exact date of when the permits would be active, however. Department recommends 25 days, $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts is that there is a permit that is in process. I just, I believe, is waiting on a couple corrections at this time. I would like to enter an evidence as Exhibit One photographs taken on August 23rd, 2024. Documents 0823273 photos 1 and 2. Earlier on, in the case, we were able to get into the rear of the structure of a adjacent property. The structure is back here in this area. This past Friday, I was able to go out and shoot that, but I was not able to document too much other than just this top of the structure structure. There was some prior photographs taken in October of last year. Owner is indicating that he is working on the permits to get this accessory structure approved. I would like to enter this fact sheet and those two photographs into evidence as exhibit number one and two. This would conclude my presentation. Okay, thank you. I have a question for you. This has been open for a year? I believe so. I believe that there was some, maybe some communication going back and forth between the building department and what was going to be required. I think there were some setback issues. I think at first there was issues with even just being able to view it from The rear adjacent neighboring property and scheduling time on that I believe those were some of the issues that contributed to the delay in this okay. Thank you Good morning. Can you state your name and address for the record please? It's Jim Garina 283434, Levitt Avenue North. Did you hear it? I'm sorry. I didn't. Jim Garina. Can you get closer to the mic please? Jim Garina, 2834, Levitt Avenue North. Okay, thank you. In your relationship. Oh yeah, okay. James. Okay. Sorry. So how is it going with getting this permit? I'm working with a company called APEX renovations and they're requesting that in order to do you know if they don't want to really do any work to it unless it gets approved by zoning. So if it's not going to get approved by zoning then So are you in the process of trying to... I've been calling every day, we have wrote a letter, and I haven't heard anything back yet from zoning. So I'd like to request, you know, go for zoning process. Is there a zoning process for... Is there a zoning process for... Is there a zoning process for... Is there a zoning process for... Is there a zoning process for... Is there a zoning process for... or how does it look? There is a permit in process. And zoning is shows that it's ready for corrections from zoning as of May 29th. And corrections were sent to Mr. Guarinos email on June 11th. You received those corrections? Well, I'll be waiting to hear back from Chelsea Freeman or something from Zoning, but I haven't heard anything back yet from her on going through the process of getting that approved. Do you respond to the corrections they sent you? Yeah. Sounds like you were sent an email on June 11th, wasn't? Yeah, June 11th. Have you seen that? Yes. Have you responded? I don't understand how I can correct it. You know because they're saying that it's it's in the zoning area. So I'd have to move it. They're telling you that you can't have a shit where it is. So I was requesting a variance. Okay now so. Now we understand. Okay. So if I can't get a variance then there's no need to go further on. Okay so they need to apply for the variance. I've been emailing Chelsea Freeman and I haven't heard back. I've called every day. Nobody answers there in the zoning. I would suggest that you go to the building department and tell them you need to apply for a variance. So that's what where I stand. Trying to get the variance first before I can proceed further. I've got a, the guy from AX renovation has a structural engineer on standby waiting for that to be approved first. Okay, so let's see if we can give you some time to feel for how much we talk. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I believe that the board issued the filing 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 Marilyn, Guarino, and James Guarino to correct the violations within 90 days or by the date of November 26, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in second. Any other questions? Roll call, please. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ripley? Yes. Okay, sir, we've given you 90 days to leave. If you can get a variance or at least find out what you'll have to do there. If you don't resolve this within the 90 days, you'll get another letter to go before the special magistrate, which you can then ask for additional time if necessary. Okay. Okay. So to get to zoning, how do I get a hold of them? Any recommendations? So if you have time this morning, you can just walk over to the municipal services center, which is about a block and a half away Central in Forestry and then right downstairs in the permitting office They have a desk for the zoning department so you can have that conversation Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Good luck X case Item number 26 property owner Grace Williams investigator Carl Gordon. I'm Carl Gordon, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 26. Case number 24, that is 7 6 9 0 regarding property located at 1909 28th Street South. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure and it is vacant. This is the Coz initiated case. The property was first inspected on May 1st, 2021. And the violation noticed into the honor of the compliance date of May 27th, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on August 15th, 2024. And the was last reinspected on August 15, 2024, and then following violations still exists. That hazardous tree located on the property needs to be removed from the property. Zero out of one violations have been correct since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class man posted at City Hall sent certified mill and was posted at the violation address on August 8, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. The ownership was confirmed in county official records book 01517 page 0614. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the associate of the property was on May 15, 2024, and they did not indicate when the violation would be corrected The department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day they are the for non-compliance I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs were taken on August 15th 2024 document 0 81524 690 CBG follows numbers 1 through 4. Here's a front view of the property of staff. Here's decay and how the tree. And as you see, branches and stuff are starting to fall from the tree onto the property and it could affect neighboring properties too also. We'll let you enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Morning, could you state your name and address for the record please? Hammer Williams, boy, five, four, eight, three, 18 flame style department, eight. And your relationship to Grace Williams? She was my mother. Did your mother, okay. So you've heard the testimony. How much time do you think you need to take care of this or is this in probate or? I'm trying to get there. I was referred to the program and it has been like pulling teeth to get in touch with somebody. So they said they were having staff issues. And actually when I leave out of here I'm going over there because they have a new attorney who just called me and left me a message so that they say it's going to, that's working on my case. But I've been trying to get that tree cut down even before this in the prices that I'm given. Is this so at the end? Did they do that kind of stuff? No, so that's a little bit too large for the end team to remove. If they're able to work out the probate issues and if it is a property that's going to be occupied and home-setted, we do have a new program that was just approved to address hazardous trees, but there are certain requirements for it, so we can revisit that once the probate issue was taken care of. But right now, there wouldn't be any programs available. Okay. So the attorney that you're speaking of is part of the probate assistance process. Yes ma'am. Okay. Yes. He's been not even take the whole treat out. It's like tram a little or something. Yeah. Okay. Alright, so it's not ma'am and it sounds like you need more time. Does anybody would like to do her? Okay. I'll give a shot. 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 Coase Investigator, have not been corrected. The board orders grace Williams to correct the violations within 60 days or by October 27th, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. Second. There we have it. I should really think 60 days. I don't think it's enough time if she's going through a probate. Yeah. My personal opinion. Yeah. I don't think it's... Okay. Uh, 90, 120. I think that's 120. Yeah, 90's still iffy too. Okay. I'll amend that to the Board orders grace Williams to correct the violations within 120 days or by December 26, 2024. If this order is not comply with the fine of $150 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay. We have a motion. second. Any other questions? Roll call please. Oh, cyclists? Yes. Nidder? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ripley? Yes. Okay, so we've given you 120 days, and hopefully that process will work out for you if it doesn't. As you may have heard earlier, I stated you may get another letter. Go before the special matter straight and you can ask for additional time. I would though try to get that resolved before it comes down. Yes, definitely. Okay, good luck with it, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. I have a very recent entry that is very good. One summer. Okay. Okay. Item number 69, property owner, Eliza, and Bergees, investigator, Tucker Hodges. Okay, ma'am. I'm Tucker Hodges co-investigated for the City of St. Petersburg testifying reference item 6-9 case 23-127-00. This regarding property located at 877-22nd Avenue South. I was sworn in at this meeting. Properties of single-family structure and is occupied by owner. It's a code-initiated case, property is first inspected on July 12, 2023. The evaluation noticed sent to the owner with the compliance date of July 28, 2023. Property is nicely inspected. August 24, 2024, and the following by the violations still exist. Areas of the exterior walls are in district pair. Broken wall tiles rotted window trim. Roof is in disrepair areas of sagging and sections that have fallen off. Areas of fascia and soft fit are in disrepair. One of four violations been corrected since this case began. Notice of herring was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, and was posted at the violation address in August 6, 2024, which is the least 10 days practice hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, book 22844, page 0666. During the course of my investigation, the last contact with the owner practice today was on June 10, 2024. Owners did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance. My dinner and evidence exhibit number one, funding rafts taken on 0824-700RTH. Front elevation of the structure. See the roof damage, softet damage. Some areas of water and disrepair. More areas of fascia and softwood that are rotted. Here is the real wall that's in disrepair. I'm going to go to the office. We're full to see more of the soft damage and face damage. The fact she didn't the evidence is exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Good morning. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Morning. My name is Eli's the birdish and I'm one of the owners at 87720 Second Avenue South and I've been having problem but now what a yard don't look like that no more the yard has been cut. But now, up the city, what a cold people told me I could fix my roof. Well you can fix your roof, okay? So I went out and applied for the permit, okay but the city of St. Petersburg told me something different. You can't fake your roof. You need an architecture engineer to fix your roof. Okay, I don't have money for architecture engineer. Here, and I'm disabled. And then, now, like I say, I'm not the only owner on this now I'm I am going through probate they're trying to remove these other people that's on here and and I just need a little more time I just need a little more time to get just need a little more time to get these, I'm going through pro-Bate now. So maybe I can get these people off here and something can be done. I'll read something. See if we can give you some more time. 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 Eliza Burgess, Desmond Burgess to correct the violations within 120 days or by December 26th 2024 if this order is not complied with A fine of $100 per day shall be imposed Second We'll call please a cyclist. Aseclis. Yes. Nidar. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Reblei. Yes. Okay. Thank you. 120 days and hopefully you can get that resolved. Thank you. Thanks, Dice. Item number 131, Property Honor Kristina Tucker, and Robert Tucker, investigator Eric Kervella. Good morning, Eric Kervella, Codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying into reference item 131, case 24-845, regarding property located at 8051, 26th Avenue North. I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. This property is a single family structure and is currently vacant. This is a code's initiated case. The property was first inspected on 514, 2024 and a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of 677, 2024. Property was I was inspected on 819, 2024 and the following violations still exist. There's no active building permit for window replacement, utility room exterior wall replacement, fascia board replacement and roof replacement. There's unfinished exterior wall at the utility room wall disrepair around windows and unpainted wood on the utility room exterior walls and unpainted walls around the window and unpainted facial board. Zero out of three violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, delivered certified mail, was posted at violation address on 899 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 22686, page 0954. During the course of my investigation, I have not had contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $150 a day thereafter for non-compliance. I'd like to enter into evidence, photographs 081924545ERH. Here's the exterior shot, elevation shot of the property. We can see where there's the unpainted wall area and damage wall area. Here is the open and exposed bariface. This is the enclosure of the utility room. There's a better shot of the enclosed utility room addition. I would like to enter into its faction and evidence and this concludes my presentation. I'm sorry there's one additional relevant fact. They do have a building permit that is on hold for notice of commencement. Okay. What was the genesis of this codes initiated? You're welcome. Okay, thank you. Good morning. Can you state your name and address for the record please? Robert Tucker it's 280 Monty Christo Boulevard and this is Mandi QSAC my contractor with Kinect Construction. Okay. Is she going to testify? Can you use your name and address for me? Mandy Qsick and the Business Address is 11,200, Seminole Boulevard, Largo, Florida. Okay. So we have applied for a permit. It is not just a notice of commencement. So after the application for the permit permit for the code's violations, it was deemed in plan review that it is actually a full addition, even though we didn't do any addition work or anything, the prior owner had an addition done 20, 30 years ago, and so it's being held up, so now we have to have architectural drawings. So we already hired an architect, it's in process, just waiting for us to come back to go back through plan review. So you're saying that the permit really isn't on hold for notice and commitment? Correct, it's not. It's been on hold because plan review deemed that there's been an addition done unpermitted prior to taking ownership. So we have to go through the lengthier process of getting the permit. Okay. Mr. Tucker, when did you buy this property? In January. I can't remember the exact date. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? I was like, you need time to resolve this. Is there a permit on file and are there any additional notes other than an NOC? There is a permit on file and the building department did request corrections in June, June 19th. There are no response from so far, Jan, our side we can't see the response from the applicants. But there are times that may have been the confusion where they the application status typically in the case that's being referenced right now It would be an in process status So it could have just been an error that there was that status of hold for notice a commencement But it it does look like that there's still quite a bit of work that needs to be done to get the permit across the finish line And if they're waiting on plans and then the plans have to be re-reviewed. Yeah I'm going to go to the meeting. I'm going to go to the meeting. I'm going to go to the meeting. I'm going to go to the meeting. I'm going to go to the meeting. I'm going to go to the meeting. I'm going to go to the meeting. I'm going to go to the meeting. I'm going to go to the meeting. I'm going to go to the meeting. I'm going to go of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Christina Jo Tucker and Robert Glenn Tucker to correct the violations within 90 days or by a date of November 26, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. I have a motion and second. Any other questions, comments? Roll call. Aseclis? Yes. Knighter? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Reble. Yes. Okay. We've given you additional 90 days. I'm hoping. Thank you very much. You can get that done. It'll look with that. Thank you. Thank you. Next case. Item 121, property owner 4527, Bayshore Boulevard, Northeast, LLC 4527, Bayshore Boulevard, Northeast land trust. Investigator Tim Howard. I'm Timothy Howard, codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg testing and reference to item number one, two, one, case number two, four, eight, zero, six, zero regarding property located at four, five, two, seven, Bayshore Boulevard Northeast. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a vacant lot and is vacant. This is a code's follow-up case. The property was first in spec- or first in spec- or first in spec- or first This property is a vacant lot and is vacant. This is a code's follow-up case. The property was first inspected on May 7, 2024, and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of June 2, 2024. The property was last reinpected on August 22, 2024, and the following violations still exists. The doc is in disrepair, leaning and not stable. Zero zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail and was posted up the violation address on August 8th, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records Book, 22518, page 04, 5-4. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today was on August 26, 2024, and the owner did not indicate when the violations would 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 photograph, so it's we're taking on August 22nd, 2024. Document 08224, 0602GH and photo numbers 1 and 2. So here is a photo of the dock that is clearly in disrepair. And an elevation shot of the vacant lot and you can see the dock there at the rear. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. I have a question. Sure. So you said this was a follow-up when was the case originally started? Do you have you have that? Case was started in May May of 24. Right. Here and in the case before it was from a junk on bacon property. That was also May 24. Okay. So it wasn't a follow-up. It was a code's initiation. So we likely were out there for the complaint about a junk or maybe we observed junk on the bacon property. But then while we were there, we noticed the dock as well. So that's why it's categorized as just a code's follow-up. Because that wasn't the initial reason that we were at the property. Thank you. Thank you. OK. All right. Good morning. Can you state your address for the record please? Yes. I'm Joe Dutmer's. I'm representing the owner who are my daughter and son-in-law. Paperwork here if you need that. Could you give us your address too please? Your address? Yeah, your home address, yes. My address is 815, live oak, terrace, Northeast St. Pete, 333703. Okay, thank you. We own the property for several months or earlier this year. The dock is obviously listing a little bit. And they've been working with engineers and architects since getting the house or getting the lot. I mean, the lot is fenced, locked. And at this point, we have a permit for the dock. Not a permit for the dock. I'm sorry. We have a permit in place for the in process for the dock. A contract for the dock. Signed contract. When they can finish the permitting, don't know and the dot company can't really start until that happens Right, and there's also some engineering work that I believe is now finished But they still they need to extend the sea wall bring the sea wall up 20 inches or or something So there's work being done, everything is being in process. All the contracts are signed. And it'll probably be, we're lucky by the end of the year before they actually get the doc, take it down and replace. There's only a few of these doc companies around to do this work. And that's where we are. So have they actually submitted their application and they actually submitted their application for permit? Yes the application is in for the permit for the building in for the home and for the hum doc. It's on process and the building department. Right so docs are a little bit unique so the permitting actually goes through the county so we don't obviously have access to their systems but it triggers a zoning review once it gets approved by the county for the structural components of it it triggers a zoning review which then we would see that you know they have a doc permit that's been approved by the county it's under review by the city to make sure it meets setbacks and design requirements and at that point if we saw that in place, you know, we would defer it like we normally would for an active. Okay, my understanding of the dock is that's obviously an ice sword of some people. Maybe that's the complaint I don't know, but it's gone through a couple of storms, so it's not going anywhere. I've been by it in a boat and it seems like it's going to stay where it is until the dot company takes it apart. I'm sorry, Mr. Wanda, do you say that the county has to approve the permit for the doc and then the city has to do a zoning assessment? Right, so that the permitting for the actual construction of the doc gets submitted to the county and then the county partners with the city to make sure that it meets our zoning requirements. We don't actually review it from a structural standpoint. We're just reviewing it from a design standards. So there's two different parties. Yeah, what I didn't understand is the county works with the city and then issues the permit. Once they get the sign off from the city saying yes, this needs all of our requirements. We're good with it. Yep. Okay. Okay. I'll try something. You want it? Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders, Bayshore Boulevard, any LLC, and Bayshore Boulevard, any land. Just a correction that the numbers are actually a part of the name so we need 4527 Bayshore Boulevard. Okay. The board orders 4527 Bayshore Boulevard any LLC and 4527 Bayshore Boulevard any land trust to correct the violations within 60 days or by October 27th 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. Second. We have a motion. I don't think it's enough time. My opinion. Yeah. Just because the county's involved, and then they have to get to the city, and then the city has to make sure all the components are in place on their end. Sure. I mean, I was thinking 91-20, but it's up to you. Pick a number. OK. All right, I'll amend it to the board orders. 4527 Bayshore Boulevard Northeast LLC and 4527 Bayshore Boulevard Northeast land trust To correct the violations within 90 days or by November 26, 2024 If this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day. She'll be imposed. Second. Have we have a motion to second? Any other comments? Real call, please. All set, Chris? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Riblay? Yes. OK, so you've got 90 days. And within that 90 days, you just need, if you get the permit issued, that kind of puts this case on hold. It doesn't, you don't have to have the dock removed and completed by 90 days, but get that permit. Okay, as long as the permit is. Yes. Yes. Great, thank you. Okay, thank you. Good luck. I'm like I'm cutting everybody short today. No. Next case. Item number 31, property owner Pacifica Mandalay LLC investigator Eric Kervella. Oh, no. Investigator Joseph Brunori. Good morning. I am Joseph Brunori, codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg. Testifying and reference to item number 31, case 24, 81, 43, regarding the property located at 11901 Fourth Street, North Unit 6202. I was sworn in at 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 May 16, 2024, and a violation noticed son to the owner with a compliance date of June 14, 2024, and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of June 14, 2024. The property was last reinpected on August 14, 2024, and the following violation still exists. HVAC unit is disassembled and not operable. Zero out of one violations have been corrected, since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, delivered certified mail, and was posted at the violation address on August 14th, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, book 15086, page 1295. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the property manager prior to today was August 14th, 2024, and the property manager did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. At that time this morning she did say that she had some a contractor secured for next Monday I think or tomorrow. The department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit one photographs which were taken on June 18th, 2024 document 061824143ERH and photo numbers 1-33. This is the building. The unit. And this is the HBIC unit. And this is the HBAC unit. This concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Well, they need a permit for the AC unit. They do. So the violation is there's no unit. Somebody living there? The tenant is not currently living there, but she's still under the lease. Okay. Okay. Okay. Can you state your name and address please further? Mark the Negron 119014 Street North. St. Pete 33716. Property manager? Yes, I am the property manager. The tenant is currently staying at the unit. She does have a portable. We have been trying to get the situation fixed. It is condos. So the unit over her is privately owned. We have not been able to get in contact with the owners to get into that unit to fix her line. The AC guy was there yesterday. They spoke to the HOA side to get approval to fix it a different way which they did get the approval finally so he'll be there Monday to fix it. They just brought it up to my attention that I need a permit so I text them that he's gonna have to get a permit. Okay. All right, thank you. We'll give you some time here. Someone will make a motion. I'll read something. Someone can eat too much time. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issue, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders, Pacifica, Mandalay, LLC to correct the violations within 60 days or by the date of October 27th, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $200 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion and second. Any questions? Roll call please. A sec list? Yes. Niter? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Okay, ma'am. Yes. Thank you. All right. 60 days. Thank you. All right, 60 days. Thank you. Next case. Item 127, property owner, currently acquisitions. LLC, investigator, Eric Kervella. Good morning, I'm Eric Kervella. Goods investigator for the city of St. Petersburg. Testifying into reference item 127. Case 24-7578 regarding property located at 625 Hampton Drive North. I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. This property is a single family structure that is currently vacant. This is a C click fix case. Property was first inspected on 599 2024. In a violation notice sent to the owner with a combined state of 62224. the last six cases. Property was first inspected on 5.9, 2024, and a violation noticed to the owner with a combined state of 6.2, 2024. Property was last reinpected on 8.19, 2024, and the following violation still exists. There's numerous areas of missing chipping and peeling paint, broken and cracked window seals, I think that and window seals, rotted wood around the door frame, missing gable vent, missing and broken fence slats. Zero out of four violations have been corrected since the case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, delivered certified mail, was posted at the violation address on 8, 9, 2024. Ownership was confirmed in County of Fushal Records, book 226-16, page 1343. I've not had contact with the owner prior to today. The department recommends 25 days and $150 a day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts are there's an in process permit on this case that was sent back for corrections on 7-2-2024. I'd like to enter into evidence, exhibit one photographs which were taken on 819 24 578 ERH. There's an elevation shot of the property. And yes, there is an of the facet image. There's the fencing. Then, see on the opposite side of the property. There's the door frames, the windows sales, the barifaccia, the door. And I'd like to enter this fact sheet and evidence and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Good morning. Can you say anything in the address for the record please? Yes, my name is Johnny Poole, the managing partner with Kirkland acquisitions. My address is 25, 54, 38, three south in St. Petersburg, 337-11. Okay. So basically, and I thank you for bringing this to my attention. The property, when we started it, it was a purchase to fix it and flip it. And we got into permits and so we're still working on the permits but the property has been vandalized people have been damaged in offense when we brought it it was in the status that it is in we should hopefully have the permits completed with the necessary changes they requested by the middle of next month. But we're just sitting waiting on permits to move forward. I don't want to violate anything else by working on the property and getting in trouble with it. But we'll get the yard for certain, clear it up. I'll do that this weekend. But the fence, it's just vandalism. I went out there and people are just, and a gable cover, when we had the roof redone, the gentleman was going to go back and put a new one, but he said that wouldn't fall under the roof and get the permit. So that's kind of where we are. I'll take a cut. I think you can probably temper our like that something up. It should be on the side of the ground when he took it down to cover that up. I'll just tell him to put it back up there until we get the new one. And you have responded to the corrections they sent to you? The general contractor is working on that. I met with Mr. thanks Terry Campbell in person about three weeks ago. I was out of town last week for a funeral in Rochester and presented that information to the GC to get all of that redone. Yeah, Terry Campbell, I think it is. He and I met personally. Okay, well until the city's satisfied with what you're correcting, they won't move forward. So the faster you can get it back to them, the sooner your permit will be issued. And once the permits issued, this goes on hold. And we'll be pestering you anymore. Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. I'll push that today with the general contractor. I'll read some. 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 Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders currently acquisitions LLC to correct the violations within 60 days or by October 27th, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in second. Any other questions? Roll call please. A cyclist? Yes. Snyder? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Riblay? Yes. Okay. There we've got 60 days. 60 days. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next case, please. Item number 43, property owner Joseph Beck and Raymond Fung, investigator, Kylie Nunean. I am Kylie Nunean, code supervisor for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying in reference to item number 43, case number 24, 5760, regarding property located at 1044 10th Avenue South. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a C-click fix case. The property was first inspected on April 18th, 2024, and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of May 12th, 2024. The property was last reinspected on August 19th, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Ares permit number 23-11-00000882 was never approved and work has been completed. Work included front porch renovation, rear steps renovation and interior work. Two out of three violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, and was posted at the violation address on August 7, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, Book 22452, page 0376. During the course of my investigation, the last contact with the owner prior to today was on August 20th, 2024. The owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are. The accessory structure which was in violation has been demolished with an approved demolition permit. The A-res permit remains in process with the last step being resubmital for plan review on August 21st, 2024. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on August 19th, 2024, document C-E-B, 08, 19, 24, 760, J-A-R, and photo numbers 1 through 2. So this first photo is showing the structure back in 2022 before the renovations were done. And this is a photo of the structure now after some of the renovations had been completed. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as Gazette number two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Good morning, my name is Raymond Fung. I live at 580 cross street township of Washington, New Jersey 07676. I co-in the property with Joseph Beck who's my father-in-law who resides in St. Petersburg and my wife. Thank you. So it sounds like you have a permanent in process? Correct it's a permanent issue. I am from the day that she had mentioned. It was resubmitted into the system in 821 and according to the, you know, to online, it says the estimated response will be September 11th. So currently, this is the second round of revisions. So I've spoken to the permitting reviewer and we had a meeting, we've had several phone calls. There are several requests that he wants that we're trying to kind of hash out, and I've disputed some of these things that he's asked for, and I've spoken to several contractors who have basically backed me up, and so the last time I spoke to him, he was understanding of certain requirements that we may be able to get by on. So that's why I had to wait a little bit to resubmit my second round of revisions because after the first round we had a meeting with him in person to try to hash out what the outstanding issues were. And since then, we've been communicating back and forth and there's still some, I don't want to say misunderstanding, but there's a little vagueness or lack of detail as to exactly what he wants and I don't want to get it, I don't want to submit it and have it kickback for a third round of revisions. So we submitted the package on 821 to the best of my knowledge as comprehensive as he wants it. And so we're just waiting for a response. It is an after the fact permit. So my hope is that this permit will be approved with this round of review. And then we can go ahead and call for the inspection to close out the case. But I don't know exactly how this second round will come back. Okay. Let's see if we can give you a little bit of different. So had the work already been done when you applied for the permit? Yes, so that it had been done. Yes, so it was an after the fact permit And so the permitting department knows and you know the closed department knows that you know that that's very clear Yes And that's work that you had done Some of it I had done and some of it we had a contractor done so it is Cons it is the permit was pulled by our contractor. Yes I'll make a motion. 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 Joseph Bach and Raymond Fung to correct the violation within 60 days or by a date of October 27th, 2024, if this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. We have a motion second. Roll call please. A sec list? Yes. Nighter? Wilson? Yes. Ribly. Yes. Okay. Sir, you've got 60 days. Hopefully you can. Okay. So within the 60 days, I have to obtain the permit and get the inspections or exactly the permit. Okay, just get that approved. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Item number 23 property owner Mark Regina and Rachel Regina and investigator Carl Corden. I'm Carl Gordon, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying in reference to item number 23, case number 24 dash 3927, regarding property located at 2319, or Rilloway South. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure and an occupy by tenants. This is a C-click fix case. The property was first inspected on March 6, 2024 and the violation noticed to the owner of the compliance date of April the 25, 2024. The property was last reinspected on August the 25th, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on August the 20th, 2024 and then following violations still exists. Evertisement and rental property for transient accommodation, occupancy less than a monthly term is prohibited, and neighborhood traditional single family zoning district. Zero all the one violations have been correct since this case began. Notice of hearing with St. First Class Mad posted at City Hall, St. Certified Mail, and with posted that the violation address on August 8, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Fisher Records Book 22070 page 1511. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with owner the day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts to this case are the property was observed for a six-night stay on Airbnb on August the 20th, 2024. Also available for two-night minimum stay on March 2025. As of today, it is still available for a two-night minimum stay. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one. As of today, it is still available for a two-night minimum stay. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one. Photograph truth is taken on August 20, 2024. Document C-E-B-2319 in photo numbers 1 through 6. Here is a front page showing the advertisement. Here, showing six-night minimum stay here. There is showing the minimum two nights day. Thank you. Thank you. And here's showing reviews as you can see there is in May you have four different reviews in the month of May and then you have a review in June and July. I would like to enter this fact she is an evidence as the exhibit number two and dis concludes my presentation. Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. to and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Mr. Gordon. Yes, ma'am. Did I hear correctly this case started in March? Back in March, yes, ma'am. Why are we just now seeing this? Basically, we were doing our research on the property and doing that timeframe. We was able to take it for after doing research that we needed to do. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Gordon, when was the first date that the property owner was notified? I wrote down April. Is that correct? March six. March six is when we did our first inspection. And that's when they were notified? No, they were in violation. No, they were notified back No, they were in violation. No, they were notified back and First April first. That's what I thought I wrote down. Yeah, their compliance is by me the violation April the first on April the first and then the compliance that I think was the 20 the 25th Okay, but they've known since April. Yes Okay, sir, can you state your name and address for the record? Hi, my name is Mark Rinega. I live at 2701 Bayside Drive or Bayshore Drive, St. Petersburg Okay, so you you've heard the testimony in the city Understand the violation. Yes, sir. I actually called Mr. Gordon a few months ago. I'm stating how everything has been sent to the wrong address. I actually moved here from California. And the notification all that was sent to that address. And I didn't get it. I revised it. You told me to revise it in the portal for my new address of which I got the hearing. notice of the hearing. As soon as we're notified, we actually move to monthly stays, of which that's what we have right now. We actually have it booked until May 1st. Or sorry, March 1st of next year. The reason why there's two night minimums is to my understanding we're allowed three. So we figured in March because that's our busy season, we would allow three people. And then we go back to monthly stays for the right remainder of the year So that way we're non-violation But as soon as we heard of it, I can show you our calendar. We have only month stays And I have a four-month stay coming in at the end of this month You're gonna continue to short-term rental beginning in the new year for three times. If we're allowed three times per year for a minimum of under 30 days, I would do that for March and then go back to monthly. Yes. We have a lot of people coming down to the hospital to stay for like seven days at a minimum, so their children can get medical treatment done and I actually feel very passionate about that so if we can do that during March, cool if not we have someone coming in for the next four months who's getting treatment done so that's okay. Chair just for clarification the 365 day period is a rolling period. So if you had short term, three short term stays in June and July, then that opportunity to capture those does not happen until the following year in June. That's what I thought. I'll be that, I'll turn it. Yeah, so it's not based on the calendar. And in addition to that, the city's position with this is simply having it advertised for less than a monthly term is the violation of the ordinance. Because there is no way for us to control whether or not they book more than the three that they're allowed to. We encourage owners to, they can place a note in their listing that says that they have the opportunity to rent a short term for three times and to reach out for the availability. But simply having it as a two-night minimum that five people could book at one single time because the advertisement platform doesn't allow them. Anybody that's looking for a weekly say if it's pushed out for a month, they're not going to see that as an option. But again, they can put a note in there that it could be available for those terms if it's within compliance. That's a fair point. Okay. All right. Yeah, my intention is not, when we bought the place, my wife and I, we did not know of the 30 day, we actually bought here because we've been living in California and wanted to get out of there and really enjoy St. Pete. Anyways, goal is to make everything above the board, is however you see it, and definitely want to be in compliance. Okay. All right. Good. Yeah. All right. It's finally evident to present it in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of the act 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 Mark Reninga and Rachel Reninga to correct the violations within five days or by the date of September 2nd, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $250 per day shall be imposed. Second. We have a motion in second. Any other comments? Roll call please. A secluded? Yes. Snyder? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Rebleu. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Next case. Item number 80 property on our Jennifer Wolf investigator Tucker Hodges. Moan on Tucker Hodges. Code's investigated for the city of St. Petersburg. Testifying a reference item 80. Case 24-4814. Property located at 2234. Fifth Street South. I was sworn into this meeting. Property is a single family structure. It's occupied by owner. This is C-Click Fixed Case. Property is first inspected. On May 9, 2024, an evaluation notice entity owner. With compliance data, the property is completed. The property is completed. structure, so occupied by owner. This is CClick Fix Case, property's first inspector on May 9, 2024 in evaluation, notice entity owner, with a compliance stated June 2nd, 2024. Properties last we inspect it. August 23rd, 2024, the following evaluation still exists. Avertime has been a rental of property for trans-election accommodations, is prohibited within the neighborhood traditional residential zone. Zero out of one, violations have been corrected since the case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, censorified mail. It was posted at the violation address on August 6, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records book 20890 page 0097. During, of course, the investigation has been no contact with the owner. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts as of August 23rd property was available for a seven-night minimum on VRBO. As of today, property is listed for a 30-day minimum on Airbnb. I'd like to enter an evidence exhibit one. Photographs take in on August 23rd, 2024. Document RTHCEB, Good landing page. With this cottage. Where reservation was booked for seven days. And reviews from July. A review from July. I'd like to enter this fact sheet in evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes presentation. Okay, thank you. I think your name and address for the record please. My name is Robert Abernathy. I live at 12055, Gandy Boulevard, St. Pete. And your relationship to Jennifer Wolf? I'm just a friend of hers. You have a... Yes, an authorization to represent property owner. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So the vote the for understand the violation is that it was advertised incorrectly. Is that right? the for understand the violation is that it was advertised incorrectly. Is that right? A little bit. I was able to book it for seven days. Okay. On the RBO. Yes. Okay. I was on air being. So when I look at air being be it shows 30 day minimum stay. It does it does now. But I was able to book it for seven days. When was that? Sorry. I didn't even know it date that was, but it does it. It believe it was August 22nd and then that was actually on VRBO. Yeah, that's me, I'm not Airbnb. Yes, so. So the VRBO was available last week for seven nights while the Airbnb was showing at a 30. That little is oversight on our part. We have no idea. We don't get bookings from the RBO. Okay. So I'm not certain how you book and it showed availability. That's what amazes me. All right, because it's booked a lot through December 15th right now to one person. So anyway. When you have to reach out to VRBO'd? Yeah, I just didn't even know it was on VRBO. And I'm certain, because we immediately changed it to 30 days, okay, on Airbnb, once we got the violation notice, all right. Because we didn't understand, we could only do it for three times a year. And the body of the previous listing, or the existing, the previous listing says in the body though, not in the, when you pull it up, it says there's the 30 day minimum stay per St. Petersburg rules for short stays. We had that in the body this entire time. We didn't understand it. It also had to be that you couldn't pull it up for that, because after we exercised the three times a year, then we would change it to 30 days. But never I ever got to three times a year under 30 days, because people take it for a month and two months at a time. But we'll change the VRBO immediately. Just didn't even know that existed. So the ending of the complaint that we got. Does it? I don't think it says it does it specify VRBO? It doesn't need to. It doesn't. It's responsible for your own listings. Okay, so it doesn't it didn't tell me that the problem. It sounds like yeah, you need to be looking at those, both of those. Right, well we got, we got the Airbnb fixed immediately, not a winner to that. When you go into the Samppe website, it doesn't say anything about, it just says you can't rent it. It didn't say you can't advertise it. All right, so if you go into St. P. doc or and you and it there's a question can you rent Airbnb and it tells it says vacation rental and it says you may not rent for less than 30 days except three times a year It doesn't say you cannot advertise All right Yes Yeah, but you can do it three times Yeah, but you can do it three times. Yeah, but you can do it three times So yeah, you can do it three times. So anyway, that that's just a moment of clarity There are probably a lot of people that have that same problem They think they're complying because they look at up on the same peak dot org And they realize that their advertisement is what's wrong and what's causing this problem Okay, because literally she doesn't rent more than three times a year for less than 30 days. Okay. So we're happy to comply with the VRBO. Okay we'll do that immediately. We're going to read this end. 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 been corrected. The board orders Jennifer Wolfe to correct the violations within five days or by September 2nd, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, motion and second. Questions? Rokall. Aseklis? Yes. Knighter? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Item number 133? That's fine. Next case. Item number 133, property owner, Alexander Courts and Stephanie Stephanie courts, investigator Eric Hervella. I'm Eric Hervella, the co-des investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, justifying a reference item 133, case 24-5040. Regarding property located at 6-7-6-1-15 street south. I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. This property is single-family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a C-Click fix case. The property was first inspected on 4-1-2024 and violation that is sent to the owner with a compliance date of 4-24-2024. The property was last reinstpected on 8-20, 2024, and the following violation still exists. Advertisement and rental of a property for transient accommodations occupancy less than a monthly term is prohibited within the neighborhood suburban single family NS1 zoning 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, sent certified mail, was posted at the violation address on 813 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership confirmed in County official records, book 22453, page 1374, during the course of my investigation, I have not had contact with the owner. The department recommends 10 days and $200 a day thereafter for non-compliance Additional relevant facts as of 823 property has been removed from VRBO and is available on Airbnb with a 39 minimum 4-night minimum was available on VRBO as recently as 820 2024ers stated short-term stay observed. Recently on the property, I would like to enter into evidence exhibit one. Photographs which were taken on 820, 2024. August Here's the landing page for the property. Booking from August 22 to September 2. Here's confirmation of the booking. For 11 nights. I would like to enter this fact sheet in evidence has exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Okay. Thank you. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Yes. My name is Alexander Courts. My name is 47 Tracy Wei in Meredith, New Hampshire. Okay, so you understand the violation? Yes, I understand the violation and we have not everything we can to remove the listings. There was some other evidence in there that showed Airbnb. Nobody's a technical issue. Maybe you could show that too because we have removed it. Like we weren't aware of the issue. We used the home ourselves over the winter time. And just, you know, we have other A-B-N-Bs in New Hampshire and had it listed, not being aware of the laws. Because we've sought tons of others, you know, available. We've stayed in the area before and really like it here. So we decided to have one of our own. Obviously got reported by someone that's not in the neighborhood, not directly affected by any of the Airbnb but anyways it's still all and we've complied with it, we've removed the listing, we don't have any other reviews since we've been made aware of it. Like I said we use the house ourselves, and we're just used it to kind of offset some of the cost. But yeah, I mean, if we're going to rent it it's three days or more, and maybe you could show that evidence that Airbnb had an issue. We use a software that sets the pricing on our other Airbnb that we have, and it kind of overrides some of the settings. And I believe that's why it was available for shorter term. Okay. I think again, it's just you need to make sure you're managing the website. I'm not quite sure. This is the message my wife sent to them noticing that it was available even though it shouldn't have been. And then the next picture is everybody may be responding saying, hey, there's a known tech issue. Okay. Do you have any any bookings still in the future for less than 30 days? No. Not even on VRBO. VRBO actually we never even renewed that listing so I guess you're right. It's our responsibility to care the listings but we haven't had any bookings and we're not listing it there anymore. Call to make sure some of us are trying to make money off your house. Yeah, I know we've had that actually happen in the past too. So we will follow up on that as well. Okay. But no, like I said, we use the house ourselves. We like St. Pete here and it's just a matter of, you know, sharing some of the costs. But we'll do it according to about the board. All right. sharing some of the costs but we'll do it according to above the board. All right. 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 code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Alexander courts and Stephanie courts to correct the violations within five days or by a date of September 2nd, 2024. This order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day. She'll be imposed. Second. Here we have a motion in second. Roll call please. Oh, cyclist? Yes. Niter? Yes. Wilson? Reble. Yes. OK. Do you have one more question? I mean, this says it's what am I supposed to do in the next five days because we have removed it and we have. You need to reach out to VRBO and get that. Yeah, it is. That listing in September off, because we'll still continue. Our departments will still continue to make sure. Listing in September. Short-term rentals continuing. Well, the city will be, you know, following up on that. Mm-hmm. Okay. You might want to reach out to VRBO and remove. Yeah. I thought that was already done, but I will check in on that. Okay. Thank you. We'll take one more case and then we'll take a break. All right. Next case. Item number 73, Justin Hoffman and Nanada Maslow-Carvik. Morning, I'm Tucker Hodges. Could investigate for the city of St. Petersburg to testify in a reference item 7-3, case 24-6614. So regarding property located at 2614, 6th Street South, I was sworn into this meeting. This property is a single family structure occupied by tenants. This is a secluded fixed case. Property is first inspected May 3rd, 2024, and evaluation noticed sent to the owner with the compliance date of May 26th, 2024. Property, when the property's last pre-inspected and found noncompliance with July 5th, 2024, and the following violations still exist, for residential properties within the city of St. Petersburg, short-term rentals, duration of less than 30 days may only be rented a maximum three times within any consecutive 365-day period. Short-term rentals exceeding this allowance must be operating three times within any consecutive 365 day period. Short-term rentals exceeding this allowance must be operating as a license hotel, a hotel or located within an approved resort facilities, overlay district. Effortizement rental property for transient accommodations and a neighborhood traditional residential single zoning district is prohibited. Zero out of one violation has been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, The first time I've seen this in the past year. Zero out of one violations being corrected since this case began. Notice the hearing was sent first class mail. Posted city hall certified mail. Posted the violation address in August 6, 2024. Which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed to county official records book 21941. Page 1312. During the course of my investigation, I'm not in any contact with the owner. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day there after a lot of compliance. Sorry, there was a lot. This one will relevant facts. Property was available for three night minimum as recently as July 5th. Multiple reviews for short term stays in June and July. Property is currently active on Airbnb with a 30-day minimum. Like the entered in the evidence, exhibit one, photographs taken on August 21st, so 08-2124-614-RTH. There's a landing page on Airbnb for property. Through view page, God willing. July, June, June, and three weeks ago. So, the shot of the calendar for August and September blocked out, but it does not I'm not sure if it's a 30 day minimum. I'm like the nurse actually didn't evidence is it number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Welcome. Okay. Could you state your name and address for the record? Justin Huffman 2614 6th Street, South St. Pete. Okay. So you understand violation? I don't I don't fully understand the violation. So whenever we purchase the property, we read Florida State Law, which says that municipalities are not allowed to have ordinances against short term rentals. But then once we got the notice, this notice in the certified mail, we did realize that I guess St. Peter's grandfathered in because the ordinance was administered in 2001. And so we just assumed that St. Pete followed state law, you know, and that's why we were in violation. So we've done it for about two years. We split time between the Mexico and here. So it helps us, you know, having a affordable place that we can come and enjoy about half the year. We have as soon as we got this notice, we moved it to 30 days, we only have one booking. You know, and I know this isn't a place where you guys are going to change any of the ordinances or anything, but there are 7,500 properties in Pinellas County. Good chunk of those are here in St. Pete. And at a 13.5% tax rate, that's a huge revenue stream for the county to have money coming back in. Additionally, you've got downstream providers, the people who clean, the people who manage the property, the people who do the maintenance. We will stay in compliance, but I sincerely hope at some point in the future that ordinance has changed because I think that it benefits the community overall. But yes, we are going to stay in compliance. questions. I'd love to tell them what I think about it. All right, I'll read something. Let's see. Based on 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 just in Hoffman and Neander Maselovic. I'm sure I got that wrong. It's a tough one. To correct the violations within five days or by September 2nd, 2024. If this order is not complied with the fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion and second. Any questions? We'll call. A sec, Liz? Yes. Sny list? Yes. Nighter? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Reblei. Yes. OK. Sir. I just don't understand how I'm in violation since this was delivered to my house and I signed for it. We that day, immediately, effective immediately removed it. So I believe the violation notice was issued back in May. I wrote down May. Yeah, and I believe it was shown that the reviews, the reviews from June, July. So again, the state statute allows us to bring these cases before you, even if it's in compliance right now, and especially with these types of cases where we've had people literally change the listing while they were waiting in the audience. Just because it's updated at that point in time doesn't mean it's been in compliance since the date that we issued the violation notice and your compliance time was up. So the board is determining that from the time you received your violation notice and that compliance date was up, there was evidence that was shown that it was either available or it was rented for less than a monthly term and you had already exceeded your three stays. So the board's providing that time now to make sure that based on that evidence that you stay in compliance and as we've referenced before we'll continue to monitor so we'll look at the listings we'll make sure it stays up to date and as long as you don't put it back to a five day minimum or you don't have evidence of other stays then you won't be coming back for a future hearing. Okay. then you won't be coming back for a future hearing. Okay, okay. And then just clarifying point on the three day, like we will in June or July, unless they July of next year, put it on for a three day again for that month. If you guys review that, then am I technically out of compliance? So again, we would encourage owners to note in their listing that they are stays available, just because that's something that can't be controlled. You may say that you're only going to book three but then there's five. And then you find yourself in a position where we have evidence that you've had exceeded your three bookings. So again, if you haven't captured them, obviously you have the right to do that. But it just opens up the door for opportunities to book beyond that, and that's what we've seen that's been happening in the past. And that's why we encourage owners again to put the monthly minimum, but advertise within there that you can do it for three times and they're available starting in this time so reach out to the host. Okay, well, we will know, for a three day stay and you know, it's in order to book on Airbnb the way it works as you put your timeframe that you're gonna be booking in. And so that, the area doesn't really work. And in my experience, there's plenty of properties that are at 30 a minimum that have short-term rentals occurring frequently. So I know that there's opportunities to book. Well, that's what we're hoping for. It's about 12% of the market right now. So hopefully we can get someone out. Thank you guys. Thank you. OK, we're going to take a short break. Let's come back at 10.35. Yep. OK. We're taking a quick 10 minute. you . . I'm going to go to the next one. . . you you you I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. . you 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 to the next one. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. you 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 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 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 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 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 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. Music 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 the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start 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. Yes. 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 you I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. you 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 Okay, next case please. Item number 85, property owner, we-slaw coach, investigator, Robert Hicks. Good morning, I'm Robert Hicks, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg. Testifying in reference to item 85, case 24-7241 regarding property located at 4,600, 17th 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. The property was first inspected on 424 of 2024. The violation notice was sent to the owner with the compliance date of 517 of 2024. The property was last inspected on 824 of 2024 and the following violation still exists. Missing pealing paint on window frames garage door, rear open porch, and very serious of the main structure. The open porch and the rear property has vegetation growing through the roof of the porch. There is furniture scrap metal, glass, boxes, toads, tools, buckets, bikes, lawn mowers, tree branches, dead vegetation, junk trash debris scattered throughout the entire rear of the property and there's also an inoperative motor motor vehicles in the rear of the property. Two out of six violations have been corrected since the case began. Notice of hearing was sent to the owner, posted at City Hall and sent first class mail. Also, posted on the violation address on 8-7 of 2024. Ownership was confirmed in county official records. Book 1-1-5-4-4, page 07-6-5. The department recommends 25 days and $100 that they're after for non-compliance. Additional relevant faxes. The majority of the painting has been completed at this time along with all the debris was removed from the actual front yard of the property. I wouldn't let to enter into evidence as exhibit one photographs which were taken on 814 of 2024 under document 08 08, 1, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 1, RSH. And this is just the front elevation shot of the property. And again, it was, it's all cleaned up at this time, and there was misimpiling paint on the garage door, and actually the main structure. Okay, so it's severely overgrown right now, but throughout the entire rear of the property there's various items. It should be a shot of the missing peeling paint on the open porch area, along with some of the various items stored in the open port cherry in the rear. This is some of the in and out of motor vehicles in the rear missing tags, one with a cover without displaying more of the debris in the rear of the property. And this should be the last shot of some of the debris overall in the rear. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir. Good morning. Can you state your name and address for the record? Yes, my name is Wysler-Corpich617, I've been in North, my neighbor like and my job. I'm still doing in a backyard, but I need more time. Because I'm doing by myself. I'm still working. And how much more time do you need? Maybe 120 days. 120. Yeah, yes. I need higher someone to help me and you know, just just a lot of work still. But it's everything is in progress. Yeah, I'm going to. Okay. I'll make a motion. 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 Weisslok Kapu to correct the violations within 60 days or by a date of October 27th 2024 if this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. Second, we have a motion in second, any other comments? So I did the 60 because it's been open since April and it was a citizen. And I have a motion in second. Any other comments? So I did the 60 because it's been open since April and it was a citizen. Can I have a minimum of 90 days? Well, how does everybody feel about my... Do we want to take it to voter? Would you like me to amend? I think we will. That was just my reasoning because it'll be seven months by the time. But I'm thinking he's doing it himself. And he's trying. He's trying. Okay. So I will... Okay. So I will amend the board orders Weisla Kapu to correct the violations Within 120 days or by December 26, 2024 if the order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed Second, okay, I have a motion of second any other? Oh, call please. A sec list. Yes. Schneider. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Reble. Yes. Thank you. How are you good day? You got your 120. XK, please. Item number 122, owner pkc property investments LLC investigator Andrea Brown. I'm Andrea Brown, Code's inspection coordinator for the City of St. Petersburg testifying and reference to case number 24-7700 regarding property located at 201 7th Avenue 4th. I was sworn in at the the case number 24-7700 regarding property located at 2.0174. I was born in at the start of this meeting. This property is a commercial structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a C-click fix case. The property was first inspected on May 3, 2024, and a violation of the sent to the owner with a compliance date of June 15th, 2024. The property was last reinspected on August 15th, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Permits may be required for interior renovations at commercial property to include, but not limited to plumbing, plumbing relocation, interior walls, doors. Zero out of one violation has been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, since certified mail, and was posted at the violation address on August 15, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records book 15279, page 0112. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the tenant prior to did day was on August 23rd, 2024, and the tenant did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case is a permit was applied for yesterday. Residential permit that does not include the scope of the work permit required. I would like to enter evidence into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on May 3rd and May 23rd, 2024 documents AUG 2024CEB photos number one through nine. And this is just showing working on the interior walls. This is the fixtures, the toilet, and the sink that have been replaced. This is showing like new doors and walls. This is the bathroom that has had the new fixtures installed. The more of the fixtures that have been installed. They also installed reset lighting in this area. And this some more of the area that has been redone. And this is just an elevation shot of the commercial business. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two, and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. So you said there was a permit, but it's not for this work. So they applied for a permit yesterday. It looks like it's just for the plumbing fixtures, but they have done like drywall replacement and recess lighting, and it's a commercial structure. Okay, thank you. Can you please state your name and address for the record? Good morning. My name is Philip Kraft. Address 229-176, terrorist drive-based Reddington Sholes. And your relationship to? I'm the owner of the building. You're the owner of the building and PKC property maintenance. Right. Investments, go, okay. Yeah. And is the other gentleman going to speak? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Hi, good morning, and thank you. My name is Mark Brindle, and I lease that space from Mr. Craft. Okay, so you're the tenant. In your address, please. My address is 645137 or so. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So you can ask more in the city. Good morning. Yeah, I shouldn't take too long. I hope. I was personally, I was not aware that we needed to have a permit to replace the toilet for a vanity. So, okay. Commercial property, you need a permit. I know. It's my fault. I did not know that. I was thinking of my residential type of thing. So I didn't know that was required, but we've applied for that permit. Yeah. So that's that one's in the works. As far as the walls, again, they're petitions. They're not load bearing walls or structures. They're more petitions for storage. Again, I didn't know a panel was required for that. I thought it was a new wall to the ceiling or load bearing than it required it. So we have, I think Mark, you're working with someone? Yeah, man, see something. So we put the pro-flow fixtures, I think fixtures as I switch it, but fixtures. So the toilets, one urinal, two toilets and three sinks. Commercial, it is a neighborhood tavern. The contractor that helped me with it is air quality control. That's to pull the permit yesterday or Monday. I thought I had plenty of time in my apologies, especially to the investigator that came by him and his supervisor were amazing and very informative. I thought I could just go down last minute and pull a permit after the fact, but because I'm attendant, I'm not the owner or the contractor, it got away from me. So, air quality control did, or yeah, I think air quality, is a company, did apply for permit, and we are closed down for renovations, been doing business, by the book for almost two decades. Never had a problem before. So I know a lot of people in the neighborhood, the contractor that helped me with the partition just to make some extra storage room. And we're cleaning the whole place up and I was awarded an SRX license to go full liquor. So we were just renovating after 20 years. I was considering it all cosmetic, but I want to follow the rules. I'm taking over. My business partner always took care of the administrative stuff. So off out of the gate, I'm failing. I apologize, but the permits are in work. I will make sure to call the company for the plumbing and the contractor that helped me because we're closed. I had a hard time finding them, but I did find them. And he would just like to know exactly where he needs to pull and he'll go pull it. It was just, it was a weekend job. Okay. I'll take a cut in some of you, Rick. So we're going to give you some time to get that settled, but you're going to probably I would recommend you go down the talk to the building department to make sure you know what they... Yeah, I've been down there handful times and now that I've found the contractor that will be a lot easier because I'm very limited as the tenant to what I can do and what I can pull. I can't pull from it. I try it. I tried, it's everything's online. And I went back down there when there was a whole list of all these different forms and just asking which one. And they asked me if I was a contractor. And I said no, and they said, you can't. Yeah. So my apologies for the ignorance, but I will, like I said, after 20 years, I will do whatever I have to. OK, well, we're going to give you some time to try to resolve this. I appreciate your question over here. Is you? Yeah, I guess I want to re-emphasize that while you're already here and you've already done part of your morning, I would strongly suggest that the two of you go over to the building department together and tell them that you have questions about whether you've even applied for the correct permit or not. And they should be able to help you. Okay. Okay. All right. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, the board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders PKC property investments LLC to correct the violations within 60 days or by October 27th, 2024. If this order is not complied with the fine of $200 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, I'm gonna motion and second. Any other questions? Roll call. A sec list? Yes. Schne second. Any other questions? Local. A checklist? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Replay. Yes. Okay, so you have 60 days. Once you pull, get the permit, pull that puts the case on hold. That's what you need to do. Thank you for your time. I think you have a good day. All right. Thank you. Next case. Item 101, property owner, Osbeni's Serrano Romero and Rinellis Pereira Rodriguez, investigator Tucker Hodgkin. Good morning, I'm Tucker Hodgkin. I just couldn't investigate it for the city of St. Petersburg. Testifying a reference to item 101. Case 24-6465, regarding property located at 2135, 24th Avenue North. I was sworn in at this meeting. Property to single family structure occupied by owner. This is a citizen complaint case to property to first inspect it on 412 of 24. An evaluation note since the owner of the compliance date of 513-24. Property to last screen inspected of 513-24. Properties last screen spec that 824-24 and the following violations still exist. We have permits required for construction and structures at the rear yard of the property. Permit should cover framing, plumbing, and electric. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at city hall since certified mail and was posted the violation address on 8 7204 which is least 10 days prior to this hearing Ownership was confirmed in county official records book 20581 page 09-07. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner practice today was 425-24. Owner did not indicate when the violation was be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts are the permits in process, permit number 2-4-08001243. I'll let that in the evidence exhibit one. Photographs taken on 82024, document 082024, 465RTH. So front elevation and a complaint from the citizen was a structure back here and several others where people are living in them. So they have electric and air conditioning as far as we know. We'll be closer shot. These shed type structures are oversized and they are, that's what they're getting the permit for. Like the interest of actually the nebidence, is the exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Mr. Hodges. Yes. So they've applied. They've applied for a permit or a shed? Well, there are several oversized structures in the backyard that I can only see from the right of a way, but you can see the rooftops. They've applied for that so that they can have electric and plumbing in them. But people are living there. That's the complaint. I cannot see. Right. And so then that's a complaint. I cannot see. Right. And so then that's not a shed anymore. Yeah. Correct. So that's what a permit's in process. So I think it's going to be for some time. Has it been returned for corrections? Do we know? Last I was a note, a notice of commencement. So it says ready for corrections from zoning and building as of August 26th. Yeah. Okay. So. Okay. Okay. Look at this. I'm warning you. I'll take your name and address for the record. I'm an MS for an Airquid on 2125, 24 on the north. I'm representing Osbane Serrana and Ronele Seraa for that language problem. Okay. So, hold on. Oh, I have an authorization to represent form from the... Yeah, she's over here. This Ronele Seraa, Osbane Seraana. But... If we could just confirm, get the name and address. We have, so we know we have the owner here, then we'll let the... Yeah, can she tell us her name and address we have so we know we have the owner here then we'll let the interpers can she tell us her name and address uh the twenty one thirty five twenty four having enough some people three three seven one three okay thank you you with so um 7 1 3. Okay, thank you. You were. So, we contract, I had to take an engineer for the structures, but they take a while more than what I expected to. There's a two month, even really like, almost three. They'll submit the papers to the permits. So if you want I can hand it to her. We get a permit. It's application going on. So we need more time they're working on it with a city for everything where it needs to be. You have a good environment for the police. Yeah, we work with our D.E. descendant builders. Okay, and so they're they're the ones pulling the permit. Yeah, they're doing all the papers for us. They do the working with the architect architects, engineers and the other paper for us. Okay, said, I guess it's already in process. So it sounds like we need to give them some more time to the other members. Okay. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code, as stated by the Code's investigator, have not been corrected. The board orders Ovanis, Serrano Romero, and Rinellis, Herrera Rodriguez to correct the violations within 90 days or by the date of November 26th, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. Second. I've got a motion second. Any other questions? Rokal. Aseklis? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Okay, so you've got 90 days in order To get the permit pulled once you get the permit pulled this puts a case on hold Okay, thank you so much I Thank you so much appreciate it. I'll go to the together I'm in The permit I mean So what about if we complete the 90 days and they don't have... If they don't get the permit within 90 days, you're going to get another letter from the spec...to appear before the special magistrate. Okay. Which in turn you can go before...before...them and ask them for additional time. Okay, possibly. But I would hope within the 90 days you should be able. Yeah, I hope that too. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you. Ex-case. Item number 30, property owner, Alan Kaufman and Kelly Serenzen, investigator Joseph Brunori. I'm Joseph Brunori, codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying in reference to item number 30, case 24, 65, 92, regarding property located at 94, 82, Sun, Iled, Drive, Northeast. I was sworn in at this meeting. Property is a single family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a C-Click fix case. The property was first inspected on April 24th, 2024, and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of May 17th, 2024. The property was last reinpected on August 22nd, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Advertisement and rental of a property for transient accommodations, occupancy for less than monthly term, is prohibited within neighborhood suburban single family zoning districts. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail delivered certified mail and was posted at the violation address on August 14th, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 2-0023, page 0865. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner and the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are future bookings were captured for October 12th to the 16th would like to enter into evidence as the Example Number One photographs which were taken on August 22nd, 2024. Documents AUG202VOR CEB and Photos 1-5. This is the landing gauge on VRBO. This is evidence of a stay in October from the 12th ending the 17th Another stay future stay December 19th to January 1st So there's some of the reviews. Well, less than a month. And more reviews. Stage six nights, three nights. I would like to answer the spec sheet into evidence as exhibit number two, and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Good morning. Can you state your name and address, please? Yes. Good morning, Kelly Sorenson, 80009 Piney Branch. Sober Spring, Maryland. Okay. So you understand the violations? I do. So I reached out after I got the first letter and I didn't receive it for about probably a month. I travel internationally for work. I called the office and asked to speak to the inspector. I wasn't able to speak to them. I asked for them to call me back. To my knowledge, I did not get a call back. I did not cancel the bookings that I had that were soon because it would have destroyed people's travel plans. And, but I did take it off of the 30, I took it off for less than 30 day rentals. I don't know what the December booking is it's not booked for December I did have a request to book for December and I declined it. The people that are booked for October I have asked to cancel if they don't cancel I will cancel on them but it's better that they cancel. If they don't cancel, I will cancel on them. But it's better that they cancel and it's far enough out that I expect them to, but they haven't gotten back to me yet. I'll cancel if I need to. And I've removed it from Airbnb. It is on VRBO, but it is for a 30-day minimum. And I did, as soon as I was aware of the problem, changed the listing to a 30 day minimum. The platform that I was using, I did it twice, and then realized it hadn't been changed. So I called them and they were able to do it for me, but something in the system was overriding it. OK. OK. Any questions? So you'll need to reach out to VRBL since we show that December is booked. Yeah and I couldn't see clearly what the details were for that. It doesn't like have a guest name or something? Like it was hard for me to see it on the screen. I don't know how to invest in your afterwards. Guest names. I'm sorry. I couldn't. You can see the code's investigator after the hearing and he will help you. OK. Also, you will need to cancel that October booking today. OK. OK. Well, within five days. What was that? Within five days. Within five days. OK, I appreciate that. Yeah. Thank you. Within five days. Within if okay, I appreciate that yeah, thank you I soon did we gonna give her five days and All right, so okay Are we good? 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 has stated by the Codes investigator have not been corrected the board orders Allen Kaufman and Kelly Sorenson to correct the violations within five days or by September 2nd, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we got a motion. Second, any other questions? Roll call please. A secluded? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Reblei? Yes. So again you've got five days I would cancel that and not wait. Yeah sure. So you're in compliance? Okay and is there something I need to send or you'll just go. No there's's nothing. They're gonna, you know, obviously as it's been stated earlier, they're monitoring that. So. Right. Well, yeah, once you do cancel, if you want to provide proof of cancellation to Mr. Bernoulli, then that way we have it on file. That'll be okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next case. Item number 139 property owner Beverly Shaw and Emily Kay Akrig investigator Eric Kerbella. Good afternoon. I'm Eric Kerbella, goodsigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying into reference item 139, case 24-699 regarding property located at 686519th Street South. I was wondering at the start of this meeting. This family is a single family structure and is occupied by the owner. This is a code's follow-up case. Property was first inspected on 5, 3, 2020, 24, and violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of 5, 27, 2024. Property was last reinpected on 8, 2020, 2024, and the following violation still exists. There's a truck with an expired tag on the property, multiple areas of fish and soft hit with rotted wood, and missing shutter at the front of the structure. Zero out of three violations have been corrected sufficient soft hit with rotted wood and missing shutter at the front of the structure. Zero out of three 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 813 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, 17711 page 1046. During the course of my investigation, I have not had contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days, $100 a day thereafter for non-compcience. I'd like to enter into evidence, exhibit one, photographs which were taken on 8, 2020, 24, entitled August CEB. There's a photo elevation shot of the property. You can see here where the missing shutter is. Again the missing shutter. There's a 2021 tag on the vehicle in the driveway. here's some of the soft damage and here's some of the face of damage in the corner I'd like to enter this fact sheet and evidence and this concludes my presentation Thank you Good morning I'm Beverly Shaw at 686565, 19th Street South, St. Pete Florida, the These 712. I'd like to ask the board if they could give me 120 days. I can guarantee that I'll be able to comply with all three of my violations. So you've had 90 so far what you've been doing. Well I have the shutters but I don't have, I've had a handyman die on me. I have two, I'm trying to, I have been able to get two soft-fit fascia estimates. And one, it's hard for me to find people. One is he's actually in Zephyr Hills, but he has crews here in St. Pete. Did I say I do have the shatters? I just can't personally hang them. But probably the biggest delay is I'm a widow. I live on social security, so I have a limited income. The car I guess I've just decided I'll sell it because I basically, I don't drive it. I basically keep it there as a, like a security anti-thephing. I did not know that I knew it couldn't be driven because it's not, the tag is expired, but I didn't know that I couldn't keep it in my yard. That was my yard. That was my ignorant. So I don't know how long it tasted sale at 2006, silver, submarine. I'd put it my garage, but the darn thing is too long. So I think the only thing to do is sell it. So that's where I met. Well, to I'm not a licensed driver. So it's hard to find. I thought you could just tag a car. I thought you could get insurance on a sitting car. It's a little bit harder. So I haven't been twilling my thumbs, board members. It's just, I never thought when I got the thing that it would, I'd be running into something that seemed so easy, which the shatters were. I do have those. Turned out to be a lot more complicated. So I'm sorry to be wasting your time here. Okay. I'll read something. Okay. We'll see we'll give you some time. 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. The board orders Beverly Shaw and Emily A. Craig REM to correct the violations within 90 days or by a date of November 26, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. Second. Second. And motion and second. Any other questions? Roll call please. A sec list? Yes. Siner? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Reble. Yes. Thank you very much. Yeah, you've given 90 days. If you can't get this resolved, you've given 90 days if you can't get this resolved you I'll go before the magistrate. Yes. Thank you very much Thank you the next case item 112 Property owner JMMC holdings LLC investigator Tim Howard I'm Timothy Howard codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying in reference to item number 1-1-2, case number 2-4-8064 regarding property located at 1-2-8 Ricardo Way Northeast. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a multi-family structure and is vacant. This is a code's follow-up case. The property was first inspected on May 7, 2024, and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of June 2nd, 2024. The property was last reinspected on August 22nd, 2024, and the following violations still exists. Permit number 21091563 for demolition of a duplex expired on May 7, 2022 without approved final inspections. And permit number 211001420 for demo of all other building slash structures expired on June 13th, 2022 without approved final inspections. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on August 8th, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 21249, page 1341. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner prior to today. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photograph, so it's we're taking on August 22, 2024, document 08224064 TGH and photo numbers one and two. So this is the duplex that stood on the property previously, which has since been demolished. And the new structure being built on that property. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you. So again, the permit was for demolition? There were two permits, one for the demolition of the duplex and one for the demolition of all other structures, and they both expired without final inspections. Oh, without final inspection. Okay. So how do you inspect something that's gone and the concrete's on top? Yeah. Yeah. There was an oversight. Hold on one second. OK. OK. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record. My name's Rachel DeBrakens. My address is 215 37th Avenue, Northeast St. Petersburg, Florida, 33704. I was sworn in at the beginning, and I'm the Omer representative of JMMC Holdings. Okay. Okay. Back in 2021, we acquired this lot. There were code violations on the duplex. We were not going to upgrade the duplex because We were demolishing splitting the lot and building two houses on it It was a lengthy process. You know, we had to come in front of the board So I was told this was kind of an oversight because technically the Splitting of the lot in the building of the properties should not have been granted unless those permits were closed out. Those permits to be closed out, final inspection is given based on new grass being laid. Obviously we were building two houses, we were not going to do that. I worked with city zoning. They were under the impression that once the approved permit to build to split the lot and build the two homes, those permits would be closed out because on our architectural drawings it stated remove all properties on structure. I have sense called the city it was kind of like oversight. We didn't know what to do. We all thought that this was going to be taken care of once the new permit was approved. I'm waiting from a call from Tom Gentini. He is the codes, not codes. He's the Inspector, lead inspector, to see what I can do about calling and getting these closed out. What inspection needs to be done since there's houses now on the property. Yeah, thank you. I mean, typically they are looking to make sure that the plumbing was capped off correctly, the site's clear, and then they've either seated or they've sorted the vacant lot. So I would imagine that this is really just going to be an administrative process to review it, see that there's active construction going on, understanding that the connections obviously have been inspected through the new construction and they'll just administratively close those demo permits out. Okay. And you say you're already in touch with the lead inspector? Yes, I made a call to Tom because like he said, I'd probably need an override because I don't really know what to call in to get these closed out. Has he called you back? He has not. Could I make a suggestion that you do have yourself ever to MSC and talk to somebody at the counter and see if you can get someone in charge. Absolutely. Because it will take them about 10 days to administratively close it. Mm-hmm. Then you're at a trouble. Correct. Okay. Motion? I'll read some. 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 on the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected the board orders JMMC holdings LLC to correct the violations within 25 days or by September 22nd 2024 if this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day she'll be imposed. Second. Do we have a motion? Second, any comments, questions? You think 25 is? Sounds like she's already working. And if it's, I mean, we just heard if she can... It's just somebody today, or even this week. OK. It'll be week. Okay. It'll be closed. Okay. Roll call. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ridley? Yes. Okay. Man, you get 25 days. Thank you. Okay. Welcome. Next case. Item number nine, property owner Francisco Pinto or June Pinto investigator Bonnie Green. Would you scroll the list please? Yes. You refresh it. Good morning. I'm Bonnie Green, Coates Investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item 9. Case number 24-9582 regarding property located at 5824 Fifth Avenue North. I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a code initiated case. The property was first inspected on June 3, 2024, and a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of June 17, 2024. The property was last reinpected on August 20th, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Sorry. Permit required for large oak tree removed on the west side of the structure. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first mail. First class mail posted at City Hall and sent certified mail was posted at the violation address on August 7th, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 128, page 2397. During the course of my investigation, I have not had contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case, there is a tree permit application in process at this time as of 813-2024. I would like to enter into evidence is exhibit one photos which were taken on August 20th, 2024 and also a Google screenshot document 082024582BG photos 1 and 2. It's the front of the structure here, the oak tree prior to being removed. This is the screenshot. It's kind of hard to see. There's a tree behind it as well, but it's the one that is right there. I'm going to go to the office. And then after the fact missing there, I would like to enter this evidence fact sheet and evidence is to this concludes my presentation. Thank you. I can't vote on this. It's from my house. She can't vote on this one. So I've only leaves this for three. It's for three. Yeah, I'm in soft to re-schedule the case, because we have to have the form for each. Unfortunately, on these meetings, we only have four. If someone has a conflict, we have to bring the case back at a later date. Sorry. It's in my neighborhood. We have to bring the case back at a later date. Sorry. It's in my neighborhood. It's locked. Because we need to explain that to them. Okay. You want to do that? Yeah. Before we go there, let me ask about the permit. Is, when was it applied for? On, it was applied for on August 13th, 2024, is what I show. And the trees are already been removed. Yes, ma'am. And you have to. It probably won't take long. They'll probably have to. It has to be reviewed by our city arborist to then either be active or if there's a replant requirements that type of thing that our city arborist goes out. Yeah. Yeah. So good morning. Unfortunately, because one of our board members has a conflict because of how close they live to your property, they have to recuse themselves. And we have to have a minimum of four members to rule on each case. So we're not going to be able to hear the case today. What will happen from this point is we would reschedule you for a future hearing, but since you have that permit and process already, hopefully this will even be resolved before, so it's almost like the board's giving you some time, even though we can't hear it today. So I'll just have a misscreen, you know, work with you. I'll make sure you continue to follow through with the permitting process. And if that gets resolved before your case, gets rescheduled for the next hearing, then you won't have to come back again. All right, and I apologize for the inconvenience. Can we just say something? The tenant never forwarded the letter to us. Okay. And since then, you know, when we had, it texted us the second letter. And since then we went to whatever we had to. By license. And we got the code. I mean, we got the permit. Or it's in process. That's right. And I didn't know of any other violations. So that's the same. No, that was the only one at this time. But if you want to get with Miss Green, she can exchange contact information that way we can stay in touch. OK, perfect. It's a change of that same day. We didn't know he was keeping on mail. And you also need to change the address on the property appraisers website so that you didn't. We did. We did on that day. So we get everything. But, okay. It goes down. Did you have a professional tree service? We removed that. We did, but he was just, I mean, he was, I don't know if he was a professional or not. He quoted me a price and I said, okay, because it was struck by lightning before. But everything that was falling on that house was that branches and leaves is okay but that branches are just afraid for the tenants. Yeah just unfortunately yes yeah. Yeah. It's like they're supposed to. We don't know. Okay. We don't know. So if you have another tree you know what to do. Oh yes, yes, yes. Certain trees, yes. Sudden. Are we going to get a letter then telling us we have to come back? Yes, so when we reschedule this, you would get a notice for the next hearing. But like I said, I'm hopeful that you'll be able to get it resolved before we even have to come back to that next one. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next case. Item 108 property owner Judith Piles and Chantelle Zendee, investigator Jeff Summers. I'm Jeff Summers, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying reference to item number 108, case number 24-424. Starting the property located at 2150, Cornotto Way South. I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. It's a single family structure and is occupied by the owner. This is a citizens complaint case. The property was first inspected on 38, 2024, 2024 and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance state of 4, 3, 2024. The property was last reinspected on 8, 15, 2024, and the following violations still exist. The violation text there on the first one, the majority of that violation has been corrected. The only thing that remains is the containment border to prevent the wash out mulch, which is still required. The other violation is any objects, including plants, rocks, or decorative landscaping material, over two feet within the first four feet of the right away, must be removed. So zero out of two of the violations have been corrected since the case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, was posted on the violation address at 8.6.2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records Book 22035, page 0267. The last contact with the owner prior today was on 5.15.2024, and really did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance. The additional irrelevant facts are we spoke today, we spoke a couple times, they're working on getting the border at the street there. Zoning had recommended a timber border, and they are going to go down and speak with zoning and see what their options are actually of doing that. The big rock they do have plans of moving it back. It needs to go back like a foot so they are working on that. I would like81524JDSCEB. Here's a photograph of the front of the house where they have these rocks. But they're going to have to put some back a little bit further and there's the front of the house view. This is just another photograph of the road here where they need to come up with the border. I would like to enter into evidence, this fact sheet, as evidence, as exhibit number two, and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. I could you state your name and address for the record, please. My name is Chantelle Zendial of it, 2150 Coronato A. South, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33712. Thank you. So you understand it sounds like you're working on it. Yes, sir. Work time. Do you think you need? Um, maybe like 60 days. We run a full time landscaping business entry service and we're first responders. So just giving us like 60 days in between that jobs and storm season. Just give us a little bit more time, but we'll get it done. I'll go down to zoning and talk to him. Take care of it. All right. Do you want to make a motion? Okay. You guys ready? Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue, the following findings affect 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 Judith Piles and Chantelle Zandee to correct the violations within 60 days or by October 27th, 2024. If this order is not complied with the fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Hey, we had a motion in second. Roll call, please. A checklist? Yes. Schneider? Yes Yes Wilson? Yes. Rebleign? Yes. Okay. Thank you sir. Got your six days. Thank you. Next case item number 97 property owner Jackie Durin investigator Tucker Hodges. The morning on Tucker Hodges could investigate it for the City of St. Petersburg. Testifying a reference to item 97, case 24-6341 regarding property located at 2842. 24 street north, I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure occupied by owner. This is a C-Click fix case, property's first inspectant on 411, 2024. And the violation noticed sent to the owner with the compliance date of 5-4 of 2024. Properties last screen spec that 824, 24 and the following violations still exist. Items outdoor storage and fence disrepair. Four out of six violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first last mail posted at City Hall's and certified mail. And was posted at the violation address on 8, 7, 24, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 1, 3, 3, 5, 5, page 1, 0, 3, 0. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today was on 5, 7, 24 and had been numerous phone calls since. Owner did not indicate when the violation was be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. This one has relevant facts. I'd say it's been working very hard to clear this off. They've had quite a bit of debris to get rid of. Like the evidence, exhibit one, photographs taken on 820, 24. Document 082024, 341, RTH. So this photo is pretty much sums it up. We've got lots of debris in the yard. They're trying to get rid of. Document 0 82024 341 RTH So this photo pretty much sums it up. We got lots of debris in the yard. They're trying to get rid of the damaged fence And that kind of covers everything in this this photo the house is in very back of this property So let's just take them from the right away Like the energy is fact sheet and evidence is exhibit number two, and this concludes presentation. Okay, thank you. Good morning, can you state your name and address for the record please? My wife has a hard hearing. Okay. My name's Lee Yamasalus. I live at 28, 42, 24 street north. I am not on the, the deed. She is at it's under her maiden name. Jackie. Jackie drew on 28 42 24 street North St. Pete Florida 337 1 30. Great. Thank you. Sounds like you need to need some more time. Yes, sir. She just got off a graveyard. She's been up since yesterday afternoon. Yes, I'm doing it every other weekend because I have so many hours of work I have to do and I'm pretty much taking care of myself. I am burning it to the dump, the scrapped yards and everything else. Oh, I much do you need some more time? 120 would be great. If that's possible. Okay. Well, let's see what we can. I'll read something. 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 Jackie drew in to correct the violations within 120 days or by a date of December 26, 2024. If this order is not complied with with a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. Second. Here we get a motion second. Any questions? That's roll call please. A checklist? Yes. Nidah? Wilson? Yes. Rubley. Yes. Okay. Thank you sir. You're under 20 days. Chair if I may quickly. So sir. I know you're working on this by yourself. You're running stuff to the dump every time. So would it be helpful if we could potentially get a dumpster out there for you? No because there's a, there's actually a urban nomad encampment down the road from me and they would probably use it as a dump site. Okay, yeah, I would just say in some of these situations we're able to work with a neighborhood team to have a dumpster dropped at the location if it helps facilitate the cleanup. So if you wanna speak to Mr. Hodges and explore that possibility, I just wanted to put it out there to see if it would be helpful to help get the cleanup done. I have a talk with him. Okay, thank you. Next case. Item number seven, property owner MPK Group LLC, six, two, three, one, first avenue North Blanned Trust investigator Bonnie Green. I'm Bonnie Green, codes investigator for the city of St. Petersburg testifying reference to item seven, case number 24-3797 regarding property located at 62-31. First Avenue North, I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. The property is a single family structure and appears vacant. This is a Seeklic fix case. The property was first inspected on March 7th, 2024, and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of April 8th, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on August 26th, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Avertisement and rental of a property for transient accommodations occupancy for less than a month's term is prohibited within a neighborhood traditional mixed residential NTM 1 zoning district. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this 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 August 7th, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in a county official records, book 216-06, page 2477. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts on June 13th, 2024 was able to book on Airbnb a three-night stay, which is after the compliance date of April 8th, 2024. August 23rd, 2024, viewed on Airbnb three reviews. One was in June, two were in July. And as of this morning, August 28th, 2024, Airbnb website has it listed as a 39 minimum. I would like to enter, I'm sorry, I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit one, photos which were taken on June 13th, August 28th, August 26th, and August 28th. Documents, 082624797BG. Photos 1 through 5. This is the front of the structure. This is the listing that was in June 13th where I was able to book three nights. This is some reviews as recent as two in July and one in June there, which is after the compliance date. This is just showing the website on Airbnb. I'm sorry. And this is now showing that it's a minimum of 30 days when you try to put a date in. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Spati and youolanda Kastrati. Property address, six to three one, first to have a new north. Is that your residence? You want our primary residence? 102 Silver Maslein, Tarpen Springs, Florida. Okay, thank you. And if the lady with you is going to speak, we need her name and address, too. Yolanda. Are you going to speak me? I'm on you. You're on the gastrathi and how my dress is 102 Siller Mosley and Tarpen Springs Florida 3468. I thank you. And how are you related to MPK group? We on the LLC. So I think you understand violation. I do, but I do want to clarify a couple of things if I could please. So first of all, we're part of this in famous complainant that made over a hundred and some complaints over Airbnb's. Immediately when we received the letter I try to get in contact with Mr. Anthony Rivers. I have an email that I sent to him on April 1st and then we've got a response back. I kind of understand why because over a hundred cases were dropped on his desk. I made multiple calls to the city to try to address this. At that time that the complaint was filed, we had this property on a 44-day lease, which I have it here, and I send a copy to him by email. If the property was changed to a 30-day minimum rental, and it is a 30-day minimum rental, it is also assigned to a real turn now for long-term rentals. So it's active on the market. They're more than welcome to check. And we just wanted to get this case closed ever since, and just comply with a 30-day minimum rentals. Or hopefully we can get it rented for long-term. It's pretty busy as we are with everything also. We don't want to have to deal with this ongoing. But we did make attempts to communicate. I mean, there's all that proof there. So it's been trying to get resolved ever since the first notice came. So. Well, it sounds like then you're in compliance from that standpoint. So will we be able to get it closed as of we are right now? We're going to make a motion here and as long as you stay in compliance you're okay. It is. You want any proof of this documentation? No, I don't think we need anything, do it unless... They checked on you online. Yeah, I mean, okay. If there's a lease that was there, you said 40 something day lease, when you first got the notice. Yes. Right, but then again, this is where monitoring the property in June and July, there were additional stays that were less than a monthly term. So while that's sufficient for the time that they were there, there was still additional activity that in our indication anyways appears to be the fact that it was a rented short term. So again, like we've expressed before, the board is ruling on the fact that this property was out of compliance after the date that we provided you with the initial violation notice. A lot of property owners decide that they want to continue to capture their bookings and continue to rent. And then they show up at the hearing and they say, I'm in compliance now. So they're making that ruling that within that period you were out of compliance, and they're giving you additional time to remain in compliance. And then if we see after the five days that they provide you, or 10, whatever the case may be, then you would be scheduled back for a future hearing. So as long as you're in compliance or fine, but if you go back to renting short term, it's advertised for short term, then you would have to come back to a hearing at a future date. So I paid close attention to all the other cases that were here, so that pretty much explained it to me. I don't disagree with you. And we did not deny that there was a couple of bookings that were pre-booked earlier that went through after that time and then there was no new bookings on there. But even that being said, we're still in compliance because it's the three bookings per year, which I'm not sure exactly because you said they're on goal by calendar year. They go by 365 days from the previous comment. So I'm not sure if that's technically the case. But anyways, my concern is I want to be able to close this case and not be having to come back down here and you know waste our day. I think you said you're going to longer term rentals. It is, Liz, that on long term. You're fine. You're fine. Just to be transparent that the case will not be closed. So we'll continue to monitor the activity at the property and on the listings. But you will not have to come back as long as we don't have evidence to support that you've gone back out of compliance. Do I get an notification that this is closed or we don't have to worry about it? Just... No, we will continue to monitor, like I said. And then once we've gone through 60, 90 days where we haven't seen that there's been any activity, then that case would be closed. But obviously, if we see activity again after that point, you'd be right back in the same seat. Unfortunately, the city has been put in a position because of, I'm not saying that this is you, but other operators where they appear before the board, they say that they're in compliance, and then as soon as they walk out the door, the properties back listed at less than a monthly term. So this is our way of ensuring that compliance continues to stay in or else there's a threat of a future hearing where there's a potential fine that could be levied against the property. So it's monitoring as long as you don't go back to being out of compliance, you would not have to come back to a future hearing. And then after a certain amount of time, when we feel comfortable that, you know, that hasn't happened, the case will get closed out. Okay. But any future hearing, if you did have to come back, you would absolutely get notification just like you did for this one. Okay, perfect. Okay. All right. So we're gonna, yes. Ready? case I moved that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law the board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected the board orders MPK group LLC 6231 First Avenue North land trust to correct the violations within five days or by September the second 2024. If this order is not complied with, the fine of $250 per day shall be imposed. Second. Emotion second. No call please. A sec was? Yes, Snyder? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ridley? Yes. OK. So last thing, so it is 30 days or more now. We don't do anything else just leave it as is right correct Okay perfect. Thank you. Have a good day Excuse Item 119 property owner wall Brecker or Teresa wall Brecker investigator Tim Howard. Co-ed is investigated for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying in reference to item number 119, case number 247875 regarding property located at 4218 Huntington Street, Northeast. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by owner. This is a seek-like fix case. The property was first inspected on May 7th, 2024, and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of May 31st, 2024. The property was last reinpected on August 23rd, 2024, and the following violation still exists. Advertisement and rental of a property for transient accommodations occupancy for less than a monthly term is prohibited within the neighborhood suburban single family and S1 zoning district. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on August 7th, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 2 2 0 0, page 2125. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photograph, so it's on May 7, 2024 and August 23, 2024. Document AUG 2024 CEB and photo numbers 1 through 8. So this is the landing page for the property on Airbnb. Here are a handful of reviews. You can see some of them say a state of few nights. You more than three in that are short-term within a calendar year. These are future bookings for less than a monthly term in January 2025 going into February. Additional future bookings for March 2025 and April 2025 on less than a monthly term. And here are some additional future bookings less than a monthly term for September and October of this year. An additional future bookings for November of this year, Lesslet of Monthly Term. And more reviews kind of highlighting the fact that this property has been rented on a short-term basis more than the allowable three times in a calendar year. And this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. three times in a calendar year. And this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Good morning board, my name's Teresa Willebrecker. I'm at eight credit lake drive, quorum, New York, and also four, two, one, eight, Huntington Street, North East, St. Petersburg. I have to correct you, sir. Those listings that you say are future bookings are my stay. I come every month and I block them out of the calendar. So by Gus going to the calendar and saying these are blocked out, therefore it's a rental, it's not the case. I complied immediately from after speaking with Andrea Brown. I originally got a license from the state of Florida to run a short term rental because I believed they trumped the county. But later after reading up on that and that DeSantis on July 1st was going to be doing this legislation, it was vetoed. And that was going to maybe put it in the hands of the state instead of the county. That's not the case, but May 31st, Andrea, Brown and I had conversations. I emailed her this information. She told me that you guys are grandfathered. Therefore you have the compliance. I have to comply with your rules instead of the state. And I did that May 31st. It is not available for less than 30 days. And the last rental that was there, booked it February 26th for the grandmother's 90th birthday. And you told me to shut it down my May 31st. They were booked since four months earlier for the third week of June, for three days. I shut it down May 31st and allowed these people to come three weeks later because they booked it so far. I didn't have the heart to tell somebody. You can come to your 90th grandmother's birthday. And I also asked Andrea Brown how to apply for a zoning clearance. And I'm trying to follow up with that if you can direct me to the right department because I have the form and I also know there's like seven different billboard application habitat permit permit application MMA each application right of way utilization state application short-term rental site plan. So- What do you mean zoning clearance? So chair- I was pursued information that if I apply for hearing, you possibly would give me special permission to allow to run an Airbnb more than three times a year for short term rentals. I purchased this home to be near my children and my grandchildren. I intend to retire here. I can't do that yet. So I need this extra money to help. I've helped neighbors in the hurricane live in my house because my house didn't get flooded. I had floodgates. They did their air condition, who's it out. My neighbors would never complain about me, where friends we care about each other, and we take care of each other. We understand, okay. Okay, so I just would like help finding the path to get to this zoning clearance. If there is such a thing, because I have read up on it. Okay, hold on, ma'am. So the only way to continue to operate a short-term rental in neighborhood where it's not allowed is to get a resort overlay, which is a very complicated process, obviously because you're essentially wanting to operate a hotel within a residential neighborhood. So there's a lot of details that have to be checked off and it goes for approval. There have been other properties that have pursued that have not been approved that were probably better situated than this property. So I'm not saying that, you know, that's not an option for them to pursue, but historically that has not ever been approved. And again, there's a very high threshold to meet the requirements because of the type of use that would be occurring within a residential neighborhood. And even though there was no complaints and people would give me care. And that's something that I'd like to make clear. It doesn't, right, it doesn't matter about the complaints, where the complaint came from. It's a violation of the city code. And there was an ordinance that was created back in 2001, obviously, probably prior to any thought that Airbnb or VRBO would be in existence. And the intent of that was to preserve our neighborhood so there was not trains and accommodations occurring in a single family house. So, you know, again, I can understand maybe the frustrations with where the complaint came from or what I, but we've heard that regularly. And to us, that is not something to take in a consideration. It's whether or not a violation exists at the property and in this case. I expect that, Joe. I miss, sir. I do respect that, Joe. I do respect that. I thought I was in compliance by having the state license. And when Andrea Brown and this gentleman let me know that that is not the case, I did ask specific questions and provided this information and did shut it down. And it was only that one person in June who I couldn't, I didn't have the heart to say you can't come three weeks from now. That was one, all those other ones are me because I come every month to see my grandkids. Mr. Wong, I'm just curious how you would monitor this. Are you giving advice to this person to say, listen, do not put your stays on there because we're gonna check. And if we see less than 30 days, how do we know it's me, her versus a tenant? Yeah, so we have had plenty of owners. When we, we have told them, hey, these are the days that we have, evidence that the calendars blocked out, that have sent us an email with a capture of Airbnb that shows that it's blocked out for them personally. Because on the Airbnb side it shows the guess it shows how much they paid so we've had plenty of property owners who said hey that's me I'm coming down okay so yeah so you you have that cover correct yeah yeah yeah it's something that we've addressed you because it's mine and I have plain tickets for those days to prove it they're just me I'm glad if I read something okay based on 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 Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders the RISO wallbreaker to correct the violations within five days or by the date of September 2nd, 2024? If this order is not complied with, a fine of $250 per day shall be imposed. Second. I have a motion and second. Any other questions? Roca. A sec, Liz? Yes. Schneider? A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ripley? Yes. OK. Thank you. Can I at least apply to try to get the? Yeah, that's absolutely an option for you. But that does not allow you the opportunity to get the. Oh, I'm not. Yeah, OK. It's no, it's been down since you asked me 31st. You said that one and it's just me coming all the time. So you can reach out to the zoning department. They would be the ones that- They're a building nearby that I can go to? They closed at 12 o'clock on Wednesdays, but it's at the Municipal Services Center, which is at one four street north. And on the first floor, they have the zoning counter where they can assist you with that process. Or you can send an email, it's pretty easy. It's dev, rev, d-e-v-r-e-v at St. Pete.org. Thank you, sir. Okay. Thank you, Debas. Thank you. Next case. Item number 124, property owner, whoa, v, investigator, Andrea Brown. Here real quick, before we start this case, I apologize. I want to do a dress this after. So how many do we have left? We have 10 left. Yeah. So it's 12 o'clock, I mean, I think we could push through and get those done and take a late lunch that way we don't Yeah, keep everybody here Yeah, and then we can go or launch and then start our lean release hearing after that if you all are comfortable with pushing through Okay, all right Okay I'm Andrea Brown code inspection coordinator for the city of St. Petersburg testifying and reference to Case number 24-9303 regarding property located at 80824th Avenue North. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a multi-family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a C-click fix case. The property was first inspected on May 30, 2024 and a violation noticed to the owner with a compliance date of June 22, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on August 15, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Appartizement and rental of property for transient accommodations, occupancy for less than a monthly term is prohibited within the neighborhood traditional single family and T2 zoning districts. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall since certified mail and was posted at the violation address on August 15th, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 21422 page 1517. During the course of my investigation I have not had any contact with the owner. The Department recommends 10 days at $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are 12 future bookings are captured with no proof of cancellation received. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on August 15th, 2024 documents AUG2024 CEB photos number one through nine This is the landing page for the Airbnb site. time you're able to capture a one night minimum stay. This is a calendar of future bookings. It's showing a future booking for August 31st through September 1st on this calendar. This calendar is for December 24th through January 25th and it's showing bookings from December 23rd to the 25th and also January 24th through the 25th. This is the October calendar, it's showing bookings from the 16th through the 19th, from the 26th through the 28th, from October 31st through the 2nd of November, and from November 8th and 9th and November 15th. And this is February 2025 and March 2025. It's showing bookings from February 17th through the 22nd. And the first and March 14 done on the 15th of August that showed someone stayed a few nights one week ago. This is a Google map showing the property, the exterior of the property. And this is the Airbnb also showing the exterior of the property. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Good afternoon. My name is Justin Bab. My address is 11233 Wheeling Drive, Tampa Florida. Any new relationship to? A close friend. Do you have the authorization? Yes, I do. Please. Thank you. To begin with, I know for a fact that Hua has taken the property off of Airbnb. She had had a few friends write a review just to make it look a little better. But since this whole ordeal, she's actually written a letter if I may just go ahead and send this to whom it may concern. I am writing regarding the Code Compliance Violation a good job. I'm doing a good job. I'm doing a good job. I'm doing a good job. I'm doing a good job. I'm doing a good job. I'm doing a good job. I'm doing a good job. I'm doing a good job. I'm doing a good job. I'm doing a good job. I'm doing a good job. I have appointed my friend Justin Bat. Please note that I own a multi-family property, and the back is fully, excuse me, please note that I own a multi-family property, and the back is fully rented long term. I would like to provide some context and explanation regarding my situation in the front house that I used to live in and assure you that I fully intend to comply with the city's code. It speaks to her move to California. I moved to California at the end of January 2024 due to a job opportunity that required a quick relocation. At the time I left my house in St. Petersburg, vacant. I'm sure whether the move would be permanent. I have attached a work verification letter, including the start date. It's my proof and that would be January 22nd, 2024. Since my move, my house has primarily been left vacant as I needed a place to return to in case the job in California did not work out. Additionally, due to the flexibility of my work schedule, which requires me to be in the office only 40% of the time, I have left the house unattended to them. My family and I can return periodically to clean up and prepare the property for long term rental. I've already made a trip in June to clean up some of my belongings and I've attached a travel receipt as evidence. That's here as well. Short term rental decision, my job in California turned out to be really well so I decided to stay there permanently. I tried to rent the house out short term to help cover a portion of the mortgage while I made certain arrangements to return and clean out the rest of my belongings. However, managing the property remotely proved too complicated. So I've since decided to remove the listing and rent it out long-term instead. Listing in current status. I have listed the house on Zillow for long-term rental multiple times and have already received interest from prospective tenants. I've attached Zillow, you know, a list link here. So it is currently on Zillow. This is applied August 21st. And, uh, okay. So, I think we get to just a bit. I think the first, so she wants to, she's turning it to long term. I think you just need to make sure she understands. She needs to make sure that Airbnb, and if it's on VRBO, that it's corrected there, it doesn't show that. And the last thing that I understood from her was that it is down, it might still be able to be viewed, but booking is actually not possible anymore. So I don't know if it in the system is taking a while to update, or maybe she took it down a little. Well, as you probably heard in the previous, it sounds like sometimes there's issues with the site and they may not update. So it's her responsibility just to confirm that. Very well. And just as the final piece of her statement she going forward I have no intention of renting the property out for less than 30 days my full time job is an engineer takes up most of my time and I do not have the resources to manage short term rentals basically just the last part explains how it's now on Zillow and these are to lease agreements. Yeah, that's fine. We that's okay. Yeah, we don't need that so let's we'll make a motion here and Based upon 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 Saints Petersberg city code as stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders, Hoau, Vu, to correct the violations within five days or by September 2nd. 2024, this order is not complied with the fine of $250 per day shall be imposed. Second, I can't. Second. I have a roll call please. A sec, Liz. Yes. Schneider. Yes. Second. A real call please. A sec list. Yes. Schneider. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Reble. Yes. So that's five days from today that it just needs to be completely. Yeah, she just needs to reconfirm that it's all, it's down in that it says if she's going to have it listed, it needs to say minimum of 30 days. Absolutely. So thank you. She's going to have it listed. It needs to say minimum of 30 days. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Oh, next case. Oh, there you go. Item 115, property owner Walter R. Jr. Talley, investigator Tim Howard. I'm Timothy Howard, Codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg testifying in reference to item number 115, case number 248355 regarding property located at 920, 43rd Avenue, North East. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by owner. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on May 14, 2024 and a violation noticed sent to the owner with the compliance date of June 9, 2024. The property was last reinspected on August 22, 2024 and the following violation still exists. The fence on the property is in disrepair. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first-class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, and was posted at the violation address on August 7th, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records book 18960, page 0491. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on August 22, 2022, document 08222455 TGH and photo numbers 1 and 2. This is the portion of the fence that remains in disrepair with the gate detaching from the post and leaning. This is an elevation shot of the structure. There was some further disrepair on this end of the home here, but there were some slats replaced. So it is just the gate now and that is the issue. And this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, sir. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Andrews. Your name and address, please? Name and address? Walter Talley, 92043rd address, please. Name and address. Walter Talley, 92043rd Avenue, Northeast, 33703. Thank you. So, the understanding, do you need more time to fix that? Yes, I need more time. It needs to be replaced. I started repairing it and realized it's 30 years old. So I got to get it replaced as simple as that. OK. How much time do you need to get that done, sir? I don't know, month. Depends on what I have. I'm going to have, I made my friends put that up 30 years ago. It was a 30-year-old fence. And I've repaired it all along. Bob Miz is worn out and I don't have enough help to do it by myself so I got to pay somebody and I got to get another estimate because the first one I got was way out there. Okay. Does that require a permit? No. I'll read something. I started repairing the the East Side Gate. I mean the West Side Gate but the East side that you showed is a double gate and it just needs to be replaced. Okay sir let's see if we can give you some time to do that. 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 a date of October 27th, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. Second. Thank you. We have a motion. Second. Roll call. A sec list. Yes. Nighter., Niter. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Reble. Yes. Okay, so we're giving you 60 days. So hopefully you can get that accomplished. No, no, no, I'll get right on it. Okay, thank you, sir. Okay, thank you. Next case. Item 41 property owner, FARCAT, Al-Chamis, investigator, Kylie Noonin. I am Kylie Noonin, Code Supervisor for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and referenced item number 41, case number 24, 5691, regarding property located at 1-333, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street South. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a commercial structure and is vacant. This is a C-Click fix case. The property was first inspected on May 3rd, 2024, and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of May 26th, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on August 21st, 2024, and the following violation still exists. Repair all areas of paved area at east side of property in disrepair. Various areas of cracks, voids, and holes and area needs to be resurfaced. Six out of seven violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, censored a file and was posted at the violation address on August 8th, 2024. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 19639, page 0915. During the course of my investigation, the last contact with the owner prior to today was on August 21st, 2024. The owner did not indicate when the violation would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one, photographs which were taken on August 19th, 2024, document CEB 081924691JAR and photo numbers 133. This is an exterior shot of the property. You can see some of the paved area and disrepair here. This is another shot of the parking lot and another view of some of areas that need to be repaired. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. afternoon can you state your name and address for the record? Good afternoon. For Kat Alcamas, 92, 46, Halt-Hall drive, Newport, Trichy, Florida. Okay. So how much time do you think you need to get this? I actually contacted a few people that do this kind of work. A lot of them busy, a lot of them, they don't get back to me. They promised to call back, never. But finally, I got somewhat reasonable. I have an appointment with him on second week of October. So I don't know how much time he's going to need to do there, it's here. So I don't know. Because he's going to seal it, fix, patch the whole seal it, whatever, re-draw the lines. I don't know how much time that takes. So I could get maybe 90 days, 60 days, I don't know. Is the pave is the paving the only thing left? You said six of seven have been taken care. Okay that's the only one left and that's a permanent yeah if they're gonna completely repay and restripe it and it's a permitted and I don't see any way out of them repay it yeah yeah it's too far gone did you hear that yeah there's no resealing it seems as though you're gonna need a permit to do this work a permit so whoever does the work for you, they want to have that conversation with them. Well, resealing the patching and resealing requires. There are too many areas of asphalt that are completely gone. Yeah, I think it's going to need to be repaved. Yeah. And not patched. Okay. Well, this is probably going to take you a little bit more time to apply for permits or whatever. So if you, okay. Once, once you apply for a permit and the permit is issued, it puts this case on hold. Okay. So you need to get with your contractor and get a permit rolling. Yes. That'll get you out of this trouble. Okay. Okay. You want to read here? 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, correct, al-Khamus. Sorry if I got that wrong. That's fine. Close enough. To correct the violations within 90 days or by November 26, 2024, this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day. She'll be imposed. Second. Yeah, motion in second. Rokal. A sec list. Yes. Schneider. Wilson. Reble. Yes. Okay. You've got 90 days. Thank you. And if you don't have that permit in hand by then, you'll get another letter and you can go before the special matter. I'll follow you. We'll get it done before that. Thank you. Yeah. Good luck. Next case. Item 120, property on a Robert Martin Wheeler, investigator Tim Howard. I'm Timothy Howard, codes investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying in reference to item number 120, case number 247518, regarding property located at 5663, 6, 3, Qannis Place, Northeast. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by owner. This is a code-initiated case. The property was first inspected on May 7, 2024, and a violation notice sent to the owner with the compliance date of June the process. The process was expected on August 22, 2022 and the following violations still exist. The rear accessory structure is over a permissible height and the accessory structure is unpermitted, oversized, and in disrepair. structure is over a permissible height and the accessory structure is unpermitted, oversized and in disrepair. Zero 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 and was posted of the violation address at least 10 days prior to this hearing. During the course of our investigation, the department's last contact with the owner prior to today was on June 12th, 2024, and the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on August 22, 2024. Document 082224518TGH and photo numbers 1 through 2. This is an elevation shot of the property. And this is the accessory structure that is over height, unpermitted, and in disrepair. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you. afternoon, can you state your name and address for the record please? Robert Martin Wheeler, 5663, Cuon is placed northeast on the owner. Okay, can you understand violation here? Well, there's a couple things. It's a 10 by 10 shed less than 10 by 10. It's got the side cut off. And I was just a bit confused because every time when I'm looking at the violation text, it would state 10 by 10, not by 10. And I didn't know that it was a height thing until just recently. So it looks like I'm gonna need to get a permit and a variance to us well. But it's not in disrespares. It's just I have an chance to start back up after my father-in-law died because he was helping me out with it. Okay, so you were building it? Is it? I'm sorry? You were building it? Yes, sir. Yes. I was... To my knowledge, it was under a 10 by 10 and it still is. It's just... it's going to be a height thing. So I'm going to have to get the permit for that and possibly a variance. Okay. It was much time as possible to do that would be. What is the purpose of this structure? Storage. That's your shed. Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. And I got pictures too to show that, you know, that I'm using the proper stuff for it and all that. It's just, as soon as I got this note, it said stuff, you know, it said there would be a guinea cell wall for me to do anything right now. So I was kind of like... Sorry, my name is Christina Wheeler. And it's a confusing way this form is. My wife. The reason why it looks higher, because we get flooded in the backyard so it's two feet up off the ground. Did you show that? That shows on their computer. Yeah, we just need the time to do it. We can give you some time to try to resolve this whether you can get a variance or not. We can't, we don't know that, but we'll give you some time to try to sort that out. I'll read 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, as stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Robert Martin Wheeler, the second, to correct the violations within 90 days, or by November 26, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay, we've got a motion second. Any other questions, comments? Rokal. A seculus? Yes. Any other questions? Comments? Roll call. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Reblei? Yes. Okay, so you've got 90 days to try to sort through that and good luck with it. Thank you, Board. Thank you. Appreciate it. Next case. Item 45, Property Owner, and Tuan Evans, Invest investigator Kylie Nunean. I am Kylie Nunean, Code Supervisor for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and referenced item number 45, case number 24, 8630, regarding property located at 1021 James Avenue Self. 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 May 16th, 2024, and a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of June 10th, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on August 19th, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Remove all junk, trash, and debris, and outdoor storage items. Inoperable vehicles are prohibited on property unless stored in a fully enclosed structure. Vehicle at the rear of the property is missing parts. Fence is in disrepair in various areas. One out of four violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, censored a file and was posted at the violation address on August 7th, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, Book 10669, page 2201. During the course of my investigation, the last contact with the owner's son, prior to today, was on August 7th, 2024, and his son did not indicate when the evaluations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day thereafter for noncompliance. I would like to enter into evidence of Exhibit Number 1, photographs which were taken on August 19, 2024, document C-E-B-0-8-1924, 630-J-A-R, and photo numbers one through six. This is an exterior shot of the front of the property. These next few photos are showcasing some of the junk and outdoor storage items that are located in the rear of the property. You can also see the inoperable vehicle as well. Some more junk items. This is just a closer shot of the inoperable vehicle. And then this is a photo of the fence that is in disrepair. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two. And this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the... Antoine, Evan, and Julia. 1021, James, Avenue Sal. Um... A lot of that stuff has been removed. I've seen some recent photos that Yard was worse than that. I cleaned it up personally myself. I didn't know my car couldn't be in a backyard like that. As far as the cans tried junk, I cleaned all that up. Front yard. I wish it would have been a previous, I mean, a recent photo of that so you could see it. But the front yard is clear. The back yard, I have to get the car towed out. I told to a tow person, they said it's a liability to tow it. So I'm just going to get the trail end just get it removed but other than that what I see it has been really removed so I'm not too much worried and if you give me a little time that's cool but I know I could just have it done within a couple days because I've been basically doing it all by myself it's no problem I'm getting it done. So... Are you living in the house, sir? Uh, it's my address. I'm not staying there, but I'm there every day. Almost several hours a day, so I'm there. It's not least out to somebody else. It's not. It's my dad's house. He passed away October, so... So are you still in probate with your dad's estate? Uh, I don't know too much about the probate but we just paid it off. So we're waiting on paperwork. OK. OK. OK. So would 60 days or 90 days help you? I honestly don't think I need that much time but 30 days, 60 would be cool. All right, so. 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 Code's investigator have not been corrected. The Board orders Antoine Evans estate to correct the violations within 60 days or by the date of October 27th 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. Hey, I'm sorry last question. You hold on one second. Okay. Okay. Okay. Any other comments, can I roll call? On Seckless? Yes. Snyder? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ridley? Yes. Okay, sir. So I said all of this has been removed. So what's left just like the car? The car and the fixing the fence. Okay, okay, right, right, right, okay looks like you just need to replace some slats You right right right. Okay. All right. I appreciate it. You're unsure. Yeah Well, I talked to Mr. Rodriguez Okay, okay, yeah, all right. I appreciate it. Okay. Good luck. Thank you. Next case item 87 property owner Michael Loep Brenda. Investigator Robert Hicks. Good afternoon. I'm Robert Hicks co Coz Investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, Testifying and Reference to Item 87, Case 24-8337 regarding property located at 4629-1200 in North. I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. The property is a single-family structure and is vacant. This is a code's initiated case. The property was first inspected on 518 of 2024 and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of 611, 2024. Property was last re-inspected on 824 of 2024 and the following violations still exist. The exterior wall is in disrepair along the east side of the main structure. Wall is rotted and consists of plywood and various materials not constructed in a workman-like manner. There's mis-impealing paint, along the east exterior wall of main structure and in various areas. There are broken windows along both the west, east and north side of the main structure. Exterior light fixtures missing protective globe cover and a permit is required for installation of a large window installed along the west side of the structure. Zero out of five violations have been corrected since the case began. Nose of hearing was sent. First class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail delivered by Certified Mail mail and was posted at the violation address on 8 7 of 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing ownership was confirmed in county official records book 227 75 page 2166. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance. I'd like to enter into evidence as exhibit one photographs which were taken on 817, 2024, under a document 081724337RSH. First would be the front elevation side of the property. The wall is severely rot and disrepair. And there's missing peeling paint. This is the west side where there's broken windows. This is the window in question. It's been recised as required a permit for the change. Missing peeling paint. Sorry. The last shot should be the rear of the property. There is some work being done, but it just shows some of the more than Missing Pealing Paint. There's a globe cover under here missing an exterior protective covering. Yeah. And I would like to mention this fact sheet into evidence is exhibit two when this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Dr. Noon, can you state your name and address for the record please? No, the first time. Michael O'Loporina, 675, Caterpillar Run, Winter Garden, Florida. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. June, it looked just the way it looks right now. We had some personal issues during the summer with our kids and we don't live in the area. So we recently hired our GC after getting several quotes for out here. And so from our understanding, permits have been put in from the GC. So I guess at this time we're just needing extra time. So you're gonna apply for a permit to do so? We hired a contractor so they'll do all the permitting. Yeah we're definitely as you can see from that the condition of the home that is not a project we're taking on. So we are getting a GC. Well we have a GC. I don't say we're getting we have a GC working on it. And he did say that they pulled permits on the project. I guess something came back and then he had to redo it. So he's applied but he doesn't have the permit yet. Correct, correct. Okay. What's the intent of use of the house? So we're just fixing it up. As you see, the house was really, really bad. We purchased it. So we're just going to eventually fix it up and then get it rented out for a long term. Rent it, okay. Long term rental long term rental. Yeah, yeah after sitting in here today. We will never do not just kidding Okay, so you need some time If I may yeah, what's the name of the contract that you're using currently? His name is Raul, but he the nature coast living yeah No, no, no, we had nature coast. Okay. And then unfortunately we had to let them go because nothing was getting done. And once we, I think we received a notice on the lawn. That was the first time like all of this had been brought to our attention. When we purchased it, the agent had told us about the whole the window, I guess, in the front, which we later on found out, I guess, was just a window unit that they cut like through the center block so we ended up having to let go of that contractor the new one though you don't see anything on that no that's why I wanted to clarify because then yeah those permits were were avoided so the new contractor hasn't submitted anything yet so one okay so we will get on that then I'll make a motion 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 Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Michael Loperenna. All right. To correct the violations within 90 days No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no We had a motion second. Rokal. A sec list? Yes. Nidah? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Reble. Yes. Okay. Can I just clarify? Yes. I just want to make sure. So the 90 days means like the contractor gets all the permits in and then this all. Okay. Cool. Yes. Once you get the permit. Is issued. you continue to make progress on the house. You'll be all right. All right, awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Next case. Item 25 property owner, Russell Ruiz, investigator Carl Gordon. Good, American. I'm Carl Gordon, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying in reference to item number 25, case number 24, that's 8150 regarding property located at 2556 20th Street South. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and in his vacant. This is the cold initiated case. The property was first inspected on April 26, 2024, and the violation of the Senate on a compliance date of June 3, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on August 15, 2024, and in fall-in violations still exist. Cracks located on the exterior walls, holes located in the soft screens, open crawl space located on the exterior walls, holes located in the softest screens, open cross-based located on the structure. Four out of seven violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing with St. First Class Mad Post of that City Hall St. Certified Mail, and was posted out of violation address on August 8, 2024, which at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Fisher Record Book 209-06 page 2086. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day their out of the phone non-compliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photo grassroots to is taken on August 15, 2024. Documents, document 081524150 CBG and photos numbers 1 through 7. Here is the front view on the exterior walls. More cracking on the exterior walls. Here is a soft screen that has a hole in it. Another soft screen that holds in it. This is the cross base. There's not a proper cover for the cross base and it's not even covering it up all the way here. And here it's not properly secured on the exterior, covering the crawl space. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Sir, good afternoon. State your name and address for the record. Russell Reese 192126 Avenue, South St. Petersburg, Florida. Okay. So how much more time do you need to... Well, I was doing some stuff on the inside because they had some add a tenant and they move out So I get that fix up and on the outside I thought was the screen by the windows. I didn't know the screen on the top So I'm gonna get all that Like a month 30 days or 60 days would be fine Okay, let's see what we can We are on 25, right? 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 Russell Ruiz to correct the violations within 60 days or by October 27th, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of 150 dollars per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Hey, we have a motion second. Any questions? Roll call please. Oh, checklist? Yes, Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ripley? Yes. Okay,? Wilson? Yes. Reble. Yes. Okay, Sherry, you got 60 days. Good luck. Thanks. Next case. Item 67, Property Owner 4, Seasons Roofing and Lawn Care Investigator Petrina Miller. I am Petrina Miller, Co-invest investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference item number 67 case 24-8211 regarding property located at 24-6516 Avenue, South. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is vacant. This is a co-sinitiated case. The property was first inspected on May 9th, 2024, and a violation noted sent to the owner with a compliance date of May 31st, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on August 21st, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Soffit has missing and or loose areas. Fencing has broken areas and is an enleening position. Permits are needed for the addition at the northwest side of the structure. Two out of five violations have been corrected since the 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 August 8, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book number 226962582507. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts are there has been an Eris permit that was voided on March 11, 2024. A demo permit that was also voided on June 11, 2024. And another Eris permit that was voided on June 14, 2024. And another Ares permit that was voided on June 14, 2024. I would like to enter into Evidence's Exhibits One photographs which were taken on April 5, 2024, on August 23, 2024. Document 0405-215-2PM, and 08-2324-211PM. Photos 1.07. Here's the front elevation of the property. And here's damage to the soft fit. Here's some more damage to the soft We see that fencing is missing on this side. And in this photograph, in this area is where the addition was. I'll show a picture of that in a moment, but there was an addition here. And it has since been removed. And here's a photo from when I initially started the case and this is where I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibits soon, this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Did he need, was the permit needed to take down that addition? Yes. So he needs an take down that addition? Yes. So we need to know after the fact that. Yes. Mm-hmm. Okay, good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the record? Good afternoon. My name is Charlie Morales. I live at 5635 Mallorca Street, New Porici. In your relationship to four seasons roofing and lawn care? I'm the owner. Okay. So what's going on with this property? So I just haven't had the time to fix it. You know, I try to fix it myself, but I just haven't had the time. And then I'm in the process of getting a new loan to get this property fixed. Okay. What do you plan on doing with the property? Um, compliance. Probably sell it. Okay, so it looks like you need some permits. Yes. Also, so you're aware of that. Yes. Okay. How much time do you think you need? I would need three months because I know permits take approval of a month and so I need at least three months, but I could have a permit applied for within the next two days. Anybody? I'll read something. Would you like to read? 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 four seasons roofing and lawn care to correct the violations within 90 days or by a date of November 26, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. We have a motion second. Any other questions? Roll call please. A sec, Les. Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Rebleess? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Your play. Yes. OK. You've got 90 days to try to get this, you know, get your permits going. And that's some wood to work on as soon as possible. OK. Good luck with it. All right. Thank you. Thank you. A unique business roofing and lawn care. Next case item number 75 property owner luxury housing property LLC investigator Tucker Hodges. The afternoon I'm Tucker Hodges could investigate it for the city of St. Petersburg. Testifying the reference item 75 case 24-3148 Guardian property located at 366 26 Avenue southeast. I was sworn in at this meeting Properties a single family structure occupied by tenants. This is a citizen complaint case Preprepare first inspect on March 14, 2024 An evaluation noticed sent to the owner of the compliance date of April 26, 2024. Properly, as last we inspect the August 21st, 2024, and the following evaluation still exists. The rare yard is covered with tile and does not meet green space requirements. And a permeable portion of yard is only allowed to be 45% of total yard and remaining 55% must be maintained with as permeable landscape, vegetable green space. No permative tain for addition of concrete and tile to seawall at the rear of property. This repair of tile, yard and rear property tiles not level and sinking result in accumulation of water and debris along neighboring property. Zero out of three violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first last mail posted at City Hall since certified mail and was posted to violation address on August 6, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records book 20915 page 0614. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Like the under-independence exhibit one, photographs taken August 7, 2024. Document 090724, RACB. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to. Those were the tiles syncing in the rear of the property. The seawall that where these tiles have been added to the top of the seawall. You can see it closer here. It's actually the whole top sea wall's cover with this tile. Another area where it's leaking. the the So I have this question. So when it comes to, is it the overall property that has to be, or is it the backyard and the front yarders considered separate? Yeah, so there is, I think what we cited was honestly just for the, that section of code is only applicable to the front yard. But there is an overall percentage that can be impervious. I'm looking up to see what zoning district it's in. If it's NS, then it's 60%. So only, yes, it is NS1. So 60% of the overall property could be impervious. So in this case, I think it would still exceed it. So the issue is, you know, the fact that the entire rear yard is covered with tiles. Obviously, there's also some other issues that are going on that's causing the ground to settle in that area, whether it may be the seawall. I know that there's also stormwater infrastructure that goes through there. But the issue with that is our city team, even though there's a utility easement over that, they're not going to go in there and remove all of those tiles and everything because we're not, or the pavers, because we're not going to go back and place it back there. That those should not be within a utility easement. So as soon as that area gets cleared, we can go in to make sure it's not the city infrastructure that's causing the depressions. But then generally the rest of it would need to be, remember, portions of it would need to be removed and turned back to permeable green space. And then as far as the seawall goes, I believe engineering confirmed that adding that additional top to the seawall would have required an alteration permit from them because they've changed, you know, the makeup of the seawall from what it was originally constructed as. So, okay. And there is no county permit. The seawall is a city, the seawall is a city the sea wall is a city permit docs are the only thing that go through the county Yeah, did you state your name and address for the record please? My name is madey bubble On the luxury housing LLC Address 366 267 use out theseita, but Florida 337.05. Okay, sir, are you going to testify? Yes. Your name and name? Trevor Mallory, 4501, 63 South, St. Petersburg, 337.05. Okay. So you understand what the violations here and what needs to be done? Yeah, really I need to be done. I'm waiting for that, that travel came from the storm, what is called? The flood storm water come from the pipe that is broken. So I have some pictures and you see, have some pictures. We don't need to see that. Yeah, we don't need to see it. We just need to know so if if if city going to fix that pipe, they can fix it until you move the tiles. Yes, we just found that information out today. We've already spoken to the engineering department and they were going to send somebody out. So we were waiting on the response back from them. And I'm glad that Mr. Walsh just gave us the information we needed. Okay. And we've already been to the zoning department to understand the zone that we're in and that it does need to be 60% of the green space. We just didn't want to remove or replace anything because this would be the third time. It was grass and not knowing that that drain pipe was broken is just kept wipe, wipe shouldn't all the grass out. He replaced it once. It washed it out again. He replaced it again. It washed it out again. Then he came back with the tile. They can he needed something more heavier. But and we do also understand that needed to be a permit for the sea wall. We've already done to do diligence on those simple things. And things the tile can be removed tomorrow for the city to come in and do what they need to do. We just didn't know the response back from the engine and department until Mr. Walsh just let us know. Okay, so how much time do you think you need? To remove the tile for them to, well, I guess if we remove the town in 10 days maybe, and then we don't know what happens from there. Yeah, how long it takes to fix that? How much? Yeah, I mean, that's kind of a separate issue from this, right? So obviously for the property owner, as well as the city, we would like that to be done as soon as possible so the crews can go in there and make the repairs that they need to. And then from that point on, I think that there's on the board side, understanding that work has to be completed, that's going to interrupt them, you know, conducting work on the rest of the property. But once that gets taken care of, then they can work towards, you know, whether they're replacing a grass, aeroskeleton, whatever they want to do with the other portion of the rear yard, giving them time to make that happen and get the permit for the sea wall. Yeah, but I mean, do we even have a clue as to how long it's gonna take the city to get in there and fix this drain pipe, but whatever it is? No, I mean, that's difficult to say. You know, we have not been able to confirm that that was the issue. Yeah, we don't even know if that's the issue, right? Right, because the condition of the seawall could contribute to that if it's the backwash. That may not be the case here. It complicates it with the storm monitoring running right through there as well, determining what is the actual cause. So the immediate, like I said, is to get the area over the easement like I said, is to get the area over the easement removed, that way the city can get in there and then understand that that may take some time. So giving some additional time to get the rest of it taken care of. Yeah, I mean, but the time that we give them is to get in compliance, which is after all this stuff happens. Right. I mean, I would think 60 and 90 days would be reasonable in order to get that. And the permit to, right, for the... Yeah. Let me read this and you see what we're doing. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The Board orders luxury housing property LLC to correct the violations within 120 days, or by the date of December 26, 2024. If this order is not complied with, find up $150 per day show being posed. Second. Your motion. I picked 120 because the whole thing is like that. Yeah, no, I couldn't agree more. Okay. Roll call please. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Reblei. Yes. Okay, so we've given you 120 days and hopefully you can get this all resolved and and taken care of Absolutely quick one quick question. This may be for Mr. Wall So if the city finds out that it was the damage was caused by the Storm drain pipe Does that give any type of What's right on looking for. It did. Tensions for the owner to repair the, to replace the sign or no. So that is something that you could pursue through risk management. Risk and file a claim through risk management. If they find that that was the issue. Okay, thank you. I'm sure I think I'll do all of you. Next case case please. Item 42 property owner all in NOVA transitions LLC investigator Kylie Newton. Thank you. I am Kylie Newton code supervisor for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 42, case number 24, 7108, regarding property located at 935 9th Avenue South. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure and is vacant. This is a C-Click-Fick case, fix case. The property was first inspected on May 23, 2024, and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of June 21, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on August 19, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Areas of exterior walls are in disrepair and siding is missing on secondary structure. Paint all areas of structure where paint is chipping, peeling, missing, and where bare wood is present, including the doors and window frames. Repair and or replace all damaged and missing window screens. Remove all junk, trash, and debris on the property. Remove and prevent mold and mildew types of substance from window seals beneath window AC units. One out of six violations have been inactivated since this case began. A notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, and was posted at the violation address on August 7th, 2024. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 18, 677, page 0503. During the course of my investigation, the last contact with the owner prior to today was on August 7th, 2024. The owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are ARA's permit number 18-0400-1342 was reissued on August 2nd, 2024, and will expire on September 2nd, 2024. This is the violation that was inactivated. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number 1, photographs which were taken on August 19th, 2024, document CEP, 081924, 108JAR, and photo numbers 1 through 5. This first photo is showing the exterior of the property as well as missing window screens. There are no window screens on any of these windows. The second photo is showing some of the sighting that is missing on this ADU structure in the rear. This is part of what that permit is for is the construction of this structure. This photo is showing some chipping and peeling paint and an area with a hole on the main structure. This is some junk that is in the rear of the property. And this is some of the mildew that was being caused by the window AC units. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Afternoon, can you state your name and address for this? My name is Michael Jalazzo my personal address is 1 1 0 Ricardo way Northeast in St. Petersburg 3 3 7 0 4 and your relationship to Alinova is So I am the executive director of Park the panelists X offender rantric coalition Are doing business as people empowering, restoring communities. In fact, our team has gone in, and we spoke to, we left a message with Officer Rodriguez, that everything but one of the windows that was broken has been repaired. They've cleaned the yard. So I'm under the impression. We're hopefully going to finish. We re-did the permit so that we can get back to work on it. We're going to extend it again. Hopefully have that done before the end of the year and reactivate the property. We're working with Operation New Hope that we're going to use for their program where we'll have people at least for three to six months who are living there. We use this as a transitional house and the person that we had running that died, unfortunately. And it went into some disrepair and we have cruised actively working to fix it. I mean to us, again, we had called because we had done everything but we couldn't replace the one window. So, and I got a message from officer Rodriguez, he said he's supposed to a supervisor that I should be here today to ask for more time. We're going to be continually renovating the house until we put clients back in the house, which we hope to do probably in 60 to 90 days. We own the Welsh Plaza on 16th Street and we have to finish a project there by September 30th that we're doing in partnership with economic development with workforce with economic development, with workforce and economic development as a CRA project. And then we're gonna go back to finish the stairs. We had to pull that siding down so that we, because we have to redo the stairs, we're working with the building department downstairs, we're gonna be seeking an additional permit, or a permit extension, because they only gave 30 days, and we're probably looking at 60 to 90 days to finish that but we want to get that. We don't want the house vacant and my guys have cleaned up the yard as well. Okay, so I can take a cut at something. All right, you ready? Yep. 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, as stated by the codes investigator, have not been corrected. The board orders Alli Nova transitions, LLC to correct the violations within 90 days, or by November 26, 2024. If this order is not complied with the fine of $150 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. I've got a motion second. Any other questions? Roll call, please. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ribblei? Yes. OK, sir, you've got 90 days. OK. Good luck with it. OK. 90 days. Okay. Good luck with it. Okay. So can I ask a question because we're going to extend the permit if we get closer to the 90 days and we're not done with the back ABU on the original permit. This is a project that has never ended. Do we have to request an additional hearing or a request additional time or if we have an active permit or we have the permit, you're good right if they if the permit covers the scope of work to repair the violations Then and you're actively working will continue to defer Okay, Ross these the permits. Okay. Thank you Okay, this closes August 2024 code oh wait, we gotta do re yeah We're gonna do it after lunch, so don't close out this hearing. We're gonna. We're gonna go reek yeah we're gonna do it after lunch so don't close out this hearing we're gonna we're gonna go eat and then we're gonna go eat and then oh you want to eat and then yes take a break for lunch okay I don't want any hangers people at 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. and . I'm you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . I'm going to put the you you you you . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to 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. . you you . I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same 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. Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to 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. Yes. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. 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. you and I'm gonna go back to the next one. I'm gonna go back to the next one. I'm gonna go back to the next one. I'm gonna go back to the next one. I'm gonna go back to the next one. I'm gonna go back to the next one. I'm gonna go back to the next one. I'm gonna go back to the next one. I'm gonna go back to the next one. 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. and 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. Oh . . . . the Rrrr! Hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm the the . 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. to 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. . . . . I'm gonna go ahead and do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. . and the Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. you you I Music 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 home. baby I'm gonna go home. Me. Oh. Me. Me. Me. Baby, help me. I love you. Baby. Baby. Baby. Baby. Baby. Baby. Baby. Baby. Baby. and I love you. and yeah and I'm not wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I and I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Thank you. . . . . . to Thanks. and . 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 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 make a little bit of the you you you you . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to 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 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. you 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 food. I'm going to get some food. I'm going to get some food. I'm going to get some food. I'm going to get some food. I'm going to get some food. I'm going to get some food. I'm going to get some food. I'm going to get some food. I'm going to get some food. I'm going to get some food. I'm going to get some food. Is it in the CEV folder or the end of folder? I don't know. Are we live? Yes, we're live. Yeah, we're up. I started it. Item, item number one has been removed. Item number two. Julie and Hinson and Rekula were two. I am Margie Nichols, Codes Compliance Supervisor for the City of St. Petersburg, Testifying in reference to Case 245016. Addresses 7716, Dartmouth Avenue, North, and the Department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. Item number three has been closed. Item number four has been removed. Item number five, Erica Martinez, Maria and Jelica Lupus. Case two four, 7140, 5340, 4th Avenue South. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence. Item number six has been removed. Item number eight, Neptune property group LLC. Case two, four, five, six, five, three, addresses five, nine, eight, five, third avenue north. And the department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Fact sheet evidence. Item number nine is removed. Item number 10, Gary Prasak. I have number nine. Not being removed. So. I have number nine. Not being removed. So you you have number nine to read in. We couldn't vote on number nine. Is this the one that someone recuse themselves? Yeah, they were in my name. We're not going to read it in. No, it needs to be removed. We need to it's removed. Okay, I'm sorry. Okay. Item number 10, Gary Prasak. Case 236-566, the address is 280-61street south. The department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet nevidence. And number 11, Clive A in in rendez-e fletcher. Case 2435-63, the address is 326, 51st Avenue North, and the Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. Item number 12, REM, properties incorporated. Case 222, 235, 0, 0, the address is 320, 62nd Avenue North, and the Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. Number 13 has been removed. I don't remember 14 has been closed. I don't remember 15 has been removed. I don't remember 16 has been removed. I don't remember 17 has been closed. I don't remember 18 has been closed. I don't remember 18. I don't remember 20 has been closed. I don't remember 21. 24 is when we moved to number 25 AVB H Belair LLC. I don't have 25. It's 27. Case 24, 8392, the address is 1,200, 100 second Avenue North and the department recommends 25 days and $200 per day. They're after for noncompliance fact sheet navigance. I don't know number 28 has been closed and number 29 has been closed. I'm a 29 has been closed. I don't know. 32 Peter Femme in Thy Lie Hong. ACE 247484 the address is 245 78th Avenue north. And the department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence. I remember 33 has been removed. I don't know 33 has been removed. There are 34s to close. There are 35 has been removed. There are 36 has been closed. There are 37s removed. There are 38s being closed. Item number 39, Mary Beth Solano. Ace 24, 8032, 1 416, 40th Avenue North and the Department recommends $25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet evidence. I don't know if our 40 has been removed. That was the last case we heard. That was Allie never transitioned. 42. 42? Yes we heard that one. I don't know if our 44 has been closed. I don't know if our 46 has been closed. I don't know if our 47 has been closed. I don has been closed and 47 has been closed and 48 has been removed and 49 golf town homes incorporated. 824-5048 the address is 2918 Dartmouth Avenue North and the Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence. 50-Cathy-A-Mollany. Item number 50, Kathy, a mole. Any? A's 249042 2536, second avenue north. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance, 15 evidence. Item number 51 has been removed. Item number 52, Roblin, Rental, CLC. A's 248736 350, fourth avenue south. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet evidence. Number 53 has been closed, number 54, and 55, and 56 has been closed, and 57 has been removed, and 58 has been closed, and 59 has been closed. Number 60, real 26 LLC. Case 24, 7258, 1326 street south, and the Department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet evidence And number 61's been removed our 62 has been closed number 63 has been closed number 64 has been removed Our 65's been removed number 66 2415th Avenue South LLC 249108 the address is 2415th Avenue South, and the department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence. No number 68 has been removed. No number 70's been removed. No number 71. No number 72 has been removed. No number 74 has been closed. No number 77. No number 78's been closed. No number 79. What's that? Jeanette Wells? and the address is 2735 6th Street South in the Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence. I don't know. Number 81, Kelly Elizabeth Brinn in Egan. Case 2 4 363, the address is 5047, Third Avenue North in the Department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence. I don't know. Number 81, Kelly Elizabeth Brinn in Egan. 824-3663, the address is 5047, 3rd Avenue North, and the Department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet nevidence. 980-283, 84 has been closed, the number 86 has been removed, and the number 88 is per-girdly placed. 824-3836, the address is 4935, 2nd Avenue North, Department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet nevidence. Number 89 skyway machinery LLC. Case 244686, the address is 5032 Dartmouth Avenue North. The Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet nevidence. Number 90's been closed and number 91. Best dip trustee, 4453 second, Avenue Trust two four three eight two one the address is four four five three second Avenue North The Department recommends 10 days and two hundred dollars per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet evidence Number 93 has been closed. There were 94 Larry B Smith Two four nine three nine four the address is one two five, 39th Street North and the Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence. Number 95 has been closed and number 96, Thomas K. Carney. Case 247614, the address is 2928, 39th Avenue North, the Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence. I don't remember 98 has been removed. I remember 99 REM properties incorporated. Peace to 48885. The address is 2829 38th Avenue North and the Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence. Number 100 has been closed and number 102 has been closed. Number 103 has been removed and one zero four has been closed. Number 105 has been closed and number 102 has been closed and number 103 has been removed and number 104 has been closed and number 105 has been removed and number 106 has been removed. Item number 107, Genet, Bossenant, Dugai and Christian Dugai. Case 245218, the address is 77032, Avenue South, Unit 412. The department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet evidence. I don't number 109 has been closed number 110 Jason Alexander. A247283 the address is 3901 13th way North East and the department recommends 10 days and 200 dollars per day thereafter for a non-compliance fact sheet evidence. Remember, 1-11 has been closed. Remember, 1-13, Remember, 1-14 has been removed. I remember, 1-16 has been closed. Remember, 1-17 has been removed. Remember, 1-18 has been closed. Remember, 1-23 has been removed. Remember, 1-25, Remember, 1-26 has been closed. Remember, 1-28 has been removed. The address is 885, 24th Avenue North and the Department recommends 10 days and 200 dollars per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet evidence. I'm number 130, Janice Samos. Case 2457, 47, the address is 63, 10, 21st Avenue North and the Department recommends 10 days and 200 dollars per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet nevidence. 132 has been closed and 134 why it or when? Case 248343 2861, Penales Point Drive South and the Department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet nevidence. And number 135 has been closed and 136 has been removed and 138 has been removed. And number 140 and number 141 has been closed and 142 and 143 has been removed. Number 140, number 141 has been closed, number 142, and number 143 has been closed. Number 144 has been removed. I remember 145 Pacifica MRO Bay LLC. It's 244401, the address is 3901, 38th Avenue South, and the Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet nevidence. Number 146, US Home Services LLC, Trustee Trust Number 220933711. Case 248395, the address is 2209 Quincy Street South and the department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet nevidence. 1147s removed and 1148 and 1149s removed. Number 150 and 151s been closed. And number 152, true list, LLC. Ace 246085, the address is 4120, 11th Avenue, South, and the Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet nevidence. 1153, U.S. Home Services, LLCO.C. Trustee, trust number 2, 2, 9, 3, 3, 7, 1, 1. Case 24, 8, 9, 7, 8, 2, 2, 9, Quincy Street, South, and the Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet evidence. Number 154, Tamara L. Eastburn. in the spring. Case 2 4, 10129, address is 1991, 59th Street North, and the Department recommends five days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet I move that the board make the findings of fact and conclusions of law is 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. Here we have it. Motion in a second. We'll call. A sec list? Yes. Schneider. Wilson? Yes. Riblay. Yes. Okay. That concludes August 2024 Code Enforcement Board hearing. Now, ready to move on to the end release. Okay, welcome to the August, to any 24 Code Enforcement Board hearing. At this time, we will hear lean release requests. These are cases where a Code Enforcement lean has been certified in the property owner or their agent is now seeking release of the lien. We have received a written report regarding each of these requests. These cases will be heard as follows. The city code compliance department will now teach case with the address, applicant, case number, and applicable leans. We will hear testimony from the applicant regarding the request. We may ask questions of either the applicant or the staff. After hearing testimony, it answers to any questions we may do any of the following. Take no action which will leave the leans in place or take affirmative action to request staff to release the leans in its entirety or release the leans in consideration of a payment of a specific amount of the lean within a specific period of time. Once heard by the Code Enforcement Board or special matterstreet, the lean request will not be reconsidered by either entity for 180 days and less the property ownership changes. Roe call, please. Roll call please. Wilson, here. Schneider. Here. Hensler. Running. Wait, I'll seclace. Here, riblay. Here. Okay. We ready for... Yeah, when you do a swearing in and then... Head up. Do a swearing in for everybody for this. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that for... Yeah, when you do a swearing in and then... Yeah, we have to have this. Do a swearing in for everybody for this. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. That's... Yeah. So if you're going to be testifying today, just please stand so you can be sworn in. That's right, man. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? You may be seated. All right. And we're just going to go in the order as it appears on the screen. So we're going to start with LR1. This is for the property located at 5198 40th Street South. Current owner is B Brothers Homes Incorporated. South, current owners, B brothers, homes incorporated, the Leans stem from case number 22-16138 and is for a permit violation. There were permits that were required for new windows and interior renovations including the removal of walls, electrical and plumbing upgrades and all of the trades associated with the repairs. Total mentally and certified in this case are $64,050. A brief history of the case in November 28th of 2022. Notice of hearing was posted at the violation address. And the notice of hearing that was addressed to the owner was returned as unclaimed. There was no representation at that December hearing, and the board provided the recommended 25 days. Once again, the order of the board that was mailed out was returned as unclaimed. The next hearing was on January 24th, special magistrate. There was no attendance, and a lien was certified in the amount of $2,400. There was attendance at the February hearing. The magistrate extended the case by 45 days. At the following hearing, April, it was again extended by 30 days. On May 26, we had an email that we sent to the owner regarding the remaining violations. At the June special matter straight hearing, there was representation and the matter straight provided another 25 day extension. That brought it back to the August hearing. There was no attendance and Aline was certified in the amount of $31,500. The following month, there was representation again.. Again it was extended by 30 days. November hearing staff recommended deferral to permits and in January we had emailed the owner to inform that the case was going to be heard the following month and that they needed to make sure that they were in attendance. And then at the January, February and March hearings, there was no attendance. Leans were certified in the amount of 23,100, 5,250, and 4,200. And then the April hearing, there was representation. The lien was extended by 25 or excuseth for $2,400 was paid and full by the owner. Any questions? Any questions? Okay. Good afternoon. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. Any questions? Okay. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the record? Neil Bulk assume 863779th place, Semerald Florida 33777. And your... President. President of the company? President of the company. Okay, thank you. So you heard the testimony in the city. Yes. What? So you've come here. So to release those lanes, can you give us some explanation of what happened here? So in the beginning, I didn't get any of the mail like they said it was returned. We closed down during COVID and we my fault because I didn't pour the mail to my house address. So I take 100% responsibility on that. But there's a lot of things going on then. So ever since then, though, it first started out with the driveway and the wasp. And since then, just to let you know, I've talked to Miss Newman over 60 times in emails in the year, which I have right here. So that's five times a month. I've been going back and forth to Miss Newman. And I was, I got a permit. They said, then after I got the driveway in September and they said, I needed a permit for windows. And I said, after I got the driveway in September, they said I needed a permit for windows. I said, well, we only replaced a few windows and it doesn't matter. You have to have a certain amount or percentage to not do that. I said, okay. She just said, then they said that I had to do interior permit. I was like, why? I changed the kitchen cabinets. I did the kitchen cabinets, the vinyl flooring, upgraded the tile and he said it's a theme I talked to Tom, the supervisor over there and he said you can do cosmetics up without a permit but not in a theme of flood zone and I didn't know that. So I got the permit I went through, went work with the contractor, got the permitting done. And I was told by the city I had the permit, and apparently the permit had to be picked up, because Ms. Newman emailed me that night, so knew you have to be at the hearing. The next day I said, I can't, I got the permit, the city told me the permit was all done. And apparently the NOC, you have to file the NOC and then pick up the permit. The city says yes, you have the permit, but it's not picked up until you have the NOC. So that's why I missed that hearing. I mean, I diligently worked on this project with her for a year. And then, none of that, I had to meet with Tom at the property to walk the property and go over to different things that had to be done with the property. Because normally, you don't have to pull permits for tile, like I said, in cabinets and all that stuff. So then he made me get engineer letters and stuff for the cabinets, and we had to do that. And they failed the inspection. I don't know how many times, eight, 10 times, because apparently home depots sold me windows that weren't impact. I bought three or four of the windows weren't impact, even though they were marked impact. The inspector goes and knocks on the windows and says, look, this is not impact. It's stunning differently. I'm like, yeah, but there's a sticker on it that says, in fact, he said, I'm not passing it. And so they made me change all the windows out. And that was like, whoa. So I mean, I literally failed inspection. I don't know if you guys can see that, like, six to eight times on this going back and forth with the different windows and the different things on it. So, I mean, I truly have been diligently working on the project. I don't know. Like I said, I missed the date because I thought I had the permit. And I can't, the other ones I can't make any excuse for, because I don't know how I missed those dates, but because honestly, I've been in touch with Miss Newman. Like I said, five, I have all, every email from this Newman five times, I'm on talking with there about the different things that have to be done. So, you know, I really can't afford $65,000, like a, you know, single debt for kids, so 70% of the time, but at your mercy. This house on 40th Street South is a rental property. Yes, sir. Okay. And it says here you have five other properties in the county. Three. Three. Yep. And none of them had, none of them have the leans. She said I had a co-inforcement about grass, which I took care of already. That was just an active case, not only. We did take care of it. That was just an active case, not only. We did it to care of it for the... So the property at 51,9840th Street South, is it a rental or do you live there? No, ma'am, I don't live there. It's a rental, you're correct. I'm actually gonna put it up for sale. It's up for sale. So I was going to, but I can't afford to hold it right now. Is it vacant or do you have a vacant man there? OK. What is the what's the action asking price for the property? Five right now. So instead of five 50 but nobody's even came and budgeted and looked at it. So it's going to get dropped for quite a bit more unless the interest rate go down sooner than later. So. quite a bit more unless the interest rate go down sooner than later. And these other properties are rentals as well. 40th Avenue South, 54th Way North and 4th Street North. 54th Way North, I don't have any longer ma'am. And which other one I'm sorry? That's Street North, 1-1-1. 4th Street North is my rental property. That's a condo. How about 51, 21, 40? That's up for sale. Okay. I only keep a select few of them. We have to... I'll make a movie. I'm sorry. You're company. It's not a construction company. I actually did get my GC license now. I do have a GC license now. I have to go through all this anymore. I can make sure I take care of myself and get it done because it was a nightmare. OK. I just wanted to know if he was a contractor. I am a contractor now, just recently within the last 30 days. Did you make a motion? You want to make a motion? OK. I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to have a motion in a second. Any questions, comments? Roll call, please. A sec list? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ribbley? Yes. Okay, sir. So, for a payment of $4,200 within 60 days, the rest of the lanes will be released. Thank you. I appreciate that. Pretty much. You guys. She'll have some paperwork for you. Thank you. All right. Next we have LR2. This is the property located at 3037, 18th Avenue South. Current owners are Sarah May Bryant, Dolores Pennywell, Lucas Bryant and Jerome Smith. The Leans in this case are associated with case number 24-2170. And again, this is for a permit violation. Total amount of leans in this case are $7,400. Summary of the case history. On April 5th of 2024, we posted the notice of hearing at the violation address. At the April public hearing, there was no representation to the board provided. The recommended 25 days. The order of the board was signed and returned on May 13th but it was not legible. And then at the June special magistrate hearing there was no representation so the lien in the amount of $7,400 was certified. And then the following month on July 22nd, the case was closed. Okay. Um, just the permit in the application here, it says permit for fencing. You know what this, you give it a little more lighten, lighten us on this permit. Yeah, give me one moment. It was 50 linear feet of a wood fence along Dayton Street South. And they needed a. So I imagine it's probably a commercial property. It is. OK, commercial property. OK, OK. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the record please? Jerome Smith, my resident address, 2565 to 9th Avenue, South, St. Petersburg, 33712. And sir, if you're going to testify, please give your name and address to please. Anthony Harrell, 325th 30, south, Edwards construction group. Okay. Can you give us a little information here on this? All right, first of all, I started the project of re-finsing the property and it started out basically as an upgrade but as it was upgrading a already existing fence there and I was putting this fence on more as a supportive fact fence but I was informed that I was in violation of a recognize fence and at that time I started seeking permitting which was not, but finally I found a contractor that was willing to pull that permit for me. In the interim of all that, that's when I got notifications of hearings. I did show up at the first hearing, but I had to leave on an urgent call. I do have the contractor that's doing the permitting and he can maybe explain the duration and the timeframe. It took to get the proper permitting for this fence. Sir, can you tell me what kind of property this is? The property itself, Brian property, it's the landscaping property. Where we have a land saving equipment, we have the equipment on there. You're leasing it out to somebody? What was that? Do you lease it to someone else or do you operate this business? No, no, I based the operator myself. It's a family property. Yeah. The name that was called out of the owner's property owners. Thank you. Do you own one other property? Is it a rental or do you live there? The other property that you own. The other property that you own. The other property that you own? Is it a house? It's a house. I have my resident property. That's what I stated earlier. Oh, OK. I'll read something. You ready for any more questions? I move that in this matter, the leans be released in consideration of a payment of $500 within 90 days. Second. We have a motion second. Rhoco. A sec this? Thank you. Nidah. Great. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Riblay. Yes. Okay. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ripley. Yes. Okay, sir. So for $500, if you pay within 90 days, the rest of the lanes will be released. All right. Okay. All right. The labids here will have paperware before you sell them. They'll get you some paperwork and it can be on your way. Okay, all right. Move right along. Next up we have LR3. Property Address is 108-00 Brighton Bay Boulevard North East. Current owners are Bria MF Brighton Bay, LLC. Leans in this case associated with 22-70-01 and it's for electric disrepair on safe. Total amount of leans are $20,000. A brief rundown, the July notice of hearing that was addressed to the owner was returned, indicating that it was not deliverable as addressed. Therefore, we posted the notice appearing at the violation address. At the July public hearing, there was representation and the board provided 10 days. And the August 15th, the order of the board was returned. It was attempted and not known why. On August 23rd was an ex-special magistrate meeting and an extension of 45 days was provided. That brought it back to the October 25th hearing. There was no representation that's when the lien in the amount of $20,000 was certified. November 15th was the next meeting. There was representation and the magistrate provided 45 days. That brought it back to January, but the case was deferred because there was the active permit in place to correct the violation. And then the case was closed on May 2nd of this year. New questions on the scene. Okay, good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the scene? Okay, good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the record? It's my name is Kristen Johnson. My address is 4965 Huntington Street, Northeast. St. Petersburg, Florida, 33703. Okay. Sunny Funk, FUNCK 117 West Christina Boulevard. Lake Lynn, Florida, 3313. And your relationship to the Brighton Bay LLC? I'm the regional manager, Kristen's the property manager. OK, so can you give us a little information? It looks like you attended several of the meetings, and we're giving additional time. What's the history here of? Sure, just in general, when we were first made aware of the violation, we immediately contacted the contractors, had some bid leveling going on, immediately cut them a check, paid them in full, and then it was just delays of getting in parts from them ever since. We've got constant follow up with them. We've tried to come to every meeting that we've had here. Continue to just communicate with the vendors. We even attempted to change vendors at one point to see if we could get someone to get this to us a little sooner, but the boxes needed to be individually fabricated. It wasn't a cookie cutter item that could be purchased. And we continue to just hear that it was shipping delays, part delays, until just recently in May, when they were able to get us taken care of. What kind of boxes are we talking about here? What were they doing? For a meter bank. We've got some photos actually in case that would be helpful. but if you're looking at the outside of an apartment building where the wires go into the building, ours you can see are what looked to be in pristine condition. We had the property painted probably a year or so ago and this is like some rusting that's happening underneath the box so we were just unaware of it until this physically came to our tension. The wiring, everything was safe, nothing was in harm's way, everything was working properly. So we wouldn't have known without that inspection taking place. But it's just it's an exterior meter, meter bank box, I'm not sure if you could see. See the box. But it's underneath that that had some resting areas. And this is a rental community. Yes, correct So how many units are in this property? There's 381 there's 381 total units on property and I guess Your contractor didn't pull a permit. I can understand if they're waiting on supplies But they they still could have pulled the permit so believe there was some miscommunication there where they pulled a permit, but they were supposed to pull one individually for each building, and that's where a mistake came at that time. We thought that it was the one permit. I went and I had the NSE notarize. I gave them everything that we asked for, and then found out that they needed one per building. Is my understanding? Yep. Mr. Chair, looks like you guys were doing good. You were attending all the meetings and getting all, and then you missed one meeting in October of 22 and bam, $20,000 showed up. Somehow, I mean, we have both given each other a lot of heartache about it because we're not sure how that happened. We just had no record of that meeting being scheduled. We have so much documentation through this whole process of everything that we've tried to do to expedite, you know, repairs as timely as humanly possible and we're not sure how that one slipped past, but. Okay. Yes, it's my turn. Go ahead. Okay. I move that in this matter, the leans be released in consideration of payment of $3,000 within 60 days. Second. Okay, we have a motion in second. Any other questions? Roll call. A checklist? Yes. Schneider? Wilson? Yes. Riblay. Yes. Okay, so for a payment of $3,000 within 60 days, the remaining lanes will be released. Thank you. for a payment of $3,000 within 60 days. Remaining lanes will be released. Thank you. I'd like to do that. Okay. Is the information to pay that on the paperwork? She's going to give you some paperwork here for that. Thank you guys so much. Thank you. Thank you. That's it. I have no chance that you can also come down and be sitting here where it's down here at the first floor. Or take a question. All right. Next up we have LR4. This is for property located at 2350 38th Avenue North. Current owners are Quinn Ty Lee and Viong Crock-Don. This is associated with case number 18-11710. Violation, I'm sorry, there's two cases here. And 19-18313. Violations for facial and soft and disrepair. Drug rubber shower storage and exterior wall disrepair. Pohle Manalines and these cases are $11,250 in a summary of each case. So for the first case, we posted the notice of hearing at the violation address in July. And then the subsequent hearing, there was no attendance, so the board provided the city's recommendation of 25 days. The notice of hearing was then returned as unclaimed but the order of the board that was sent to the owner was signed and returned by the owner. That brought it back to the September special magistrate hearing, excuse me, September, October and November, so all three back to back. There was no representation at any of those hearings. And that's when, leasing the amount of 1,400 and 1,750 were certified. And then the case was closed on December 12th. And then for the 2019 case, the posting for the notice of hearing was done on November 5th. The notice of hearing addressed to the owner was returned as unclaimed, and then the public hearing that occurred in November, there was no representation, and so the board provided the city's recommendation of 25 days. In this case, the order of the board that was addressed to the owner was returned as unclaimed. The next hearing was in January. No representation was at that hearing and Aileen was certified in the amount of $1,900 on January 26th. There was representation and the magistrate extended it by 45 days. This was during COVID so we did not restart our hearings until November. So even though there's 45 days provided, that's why you don't see it coming back until November, eight months later. So at that hearing, there was representation. Aniline was certified for $5,000. And then a couple weeks later, on December 3rd, the case was closed. Okay. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Yeah, just to my name is Queen Lee. And my address is 233-530. I have a new North San Pileball Florida, 237-1-2-1. And my inlet not very well and just my friend, he's just laying for me. My name is Don Tran. I live in 1864, 6-day, Avenue North, Saint Petersburg, Florida, 3, 3, 7, 0, 2. I will help her to translate what happened to you today. Okay, yeah, because all right. Can you give us that kind of an explanation? Because it looks like, I guess first of all, these, these lanes are back from, you know, 18. What, why are you coming today for the... I'm not going to say this, I'm going to stay for the lived in the house. The kid had moved in with her, but her ex-husband still lived there and he neglects everything. So that's what happened today. She sold the house somewhere in the Pinellas County. And the lien is they say, you own the money. So she paid that money already to the title company. And they realized that $5,000 in here. I think the city will tellone Teller that's legal reduced. They sold a different property in the money's being held in escrow because it's attaching to their property, they sold. That's correct. Because Arlene's attached to everything. There's a second property involved. Okay, just so I understand. But they sold a different property. But the month they can't receive any of the funds because of these leans Yeah, so if I'm understanding correctly They sold another property these leans were attached to that property as well So in order to get a closing done they put that money and the title company put the full amount of outstanding leans that we're hearing today in escrow. So essentially if a reduction was done or removal was done that would be money that would go back to the owner or the owner in this case who sold the property rather than it all going through and being paying off the leans. That's being held in escrow. So, yes, so the house it was just sold was that just in her name? For... The house is the house of my wife. The house of my wife. The house of my wife. The house is the house of my wife. My wife is my wife. My wife is my new wife. No, you're the one who's the wife. My wife is my wife. I'm a Tangoai. Tango Ba Chung Mai. How far? Look, I'm bangin' the daughter. Look, I'm bangin' the daughter. Look, I'm bangin' the daughter. Yes, it's in her name. I'm sorry. It's in her name. It was just in her name. Yes. Ex-husband's name. No. Just her name. And then this, this, this, I'm going to see the money. I'm going to see the money. I'm going to see the cat and we'll log it. We have to do it. And this property here is like she said is the ex husband still living there and her name is still on the deed. That's correct. Okay. And his name is not. His name is still on there. His name's on here too. Yes. Still on here. Okay. So the problem is is because her name's attached to both properties. God, God. She's, that's why I wanted to know if he was on the other property. Okay. And the answer was no, right now. Okay. Mr. Was. So if there's money in like an XS scroll or being held by the title company, whatever we determine here today, for a fine, that money will come from the will pay the city okay very good and then the balance goes to her okay I just wanted to figure out how the city gets their money if the money is in a and the title comes what she had plans to remove her name from this deed. I told you, I am not going to be able to do that. She told me because the house is not heard in her watch anymore, but her husband has been an electric property, it's been fine, it's been cut in grass and all that stuff, it's been going on. She eventually, she cleaned it up and it's put up for herself so probably going to be not the last time she won. Her name is not going to be on the title. So she's selling this home? She goes to sell this home. She asks her husband to move out. Right now they still dispute. So what is my share and some share to that reason. My concern here is that if we release leans on this and the property's not being taken care of, we're going to be right back here doing something else. I love that we're doing new and we're not going to get the gang of men in this house. I'm going to get the gang, but I don't think we're going to get the gang of men in this house. They're not going to get the gang of men in this house. I'm just going to get the okay, right? See, he talked to husband. See no that concern. We'd be swayed to husband. We'll sound the house. See, right now, we're not to clean out the house. Yes. Okay. The amount in escrow is this amount? Is the $11,000? Okay. I would assume. So yes. I would assume. There could be something else out there. Yeah, there could be other things. Oh, okay. Things that they're holding in Escobar from the city's, yes, in order to satisfy all of our lanes, this would be them. I'll make a motion. That's a better one, okay. Thank you. I move in this matter. The lanes be released in consideration of payment of $3,800 within 90 days. Why, me and my second. No, no. Okay, we have a motion and second any other comments It's just a portion or both Wow Open Okay, so come back Cyclists yes Schneider yes, motion yes, good night Oh yes 3800 within 90 days like oh yeah I think we'll be able to dive 3800 within 90 days so um if you're willing to pay 3800 dollars within 90 days the remaining amount of leans will be released um I think it's a little less than the last one. Look, it's really good. It's a little less than the last one. Look, it's really good. It's a little less than the last one. Look, it's really good. It's really good. It's really good. It's really good. It's really good. It's really good. It's really good. It's really good. It's really good. It's really good. I don't know. We're trying to know the bank in the bank. We're trying to know the bank in the bank. We'll be getting that. We'll get that. Seven grand. A little look. We're young. We're young. We're young. We're young. We're young. We're young. We're young. We're young. We're young. We're young. We'll receive paperwork and then if he can decide whether she pays that within 90 days, buying and buying. The rest of the lease can be legally. It doesn't pay the entire amount stays in a new month. She can provide that to the title company that way they see that it's been reduced and then they can pay out the appropriate portion. I don't think he was listening, but Lonnie can explain it to him. All right, we are going to move into LR5. This is for the property located at 5520. Ninth Avenue North. Current owner is the Angelo Petrazello estate. The case number associated with this is 19-31026. And the violations are for roof disrepair and exterior wall disrepair. Toll of Madeline's in this case are $7,850. A brief summary of the case back in February of 21, the notice of hearing was posted at the violation address. There was no representation at the February hearing, so the board provided the 25 days that the city recommended. The notice of hearing that was addressed to the owner prior to that was finally returned to the city as unclaimed and in a subsequent order of the board that was sent to the owner was also returned as unclaimed. On April 28th there was a special magistrate meeting and there was no attendance. Aline was certified in the amount of $1,900. The following month in May, there was a staff recommended deferral for medical reason, so that was deferred from that hearing which brought it back to July. At that point, there was no representation. A lien in the amount of $4,550 was certified, and then the following month in August. Again, there was no representation, so there was a lien certifying the amount of $1,400. The next month in September, the case was removed from the Code of Force and Foreign Special Administrative Process, and then there was two municipal ordinance violations, excuse me, that were issued one in October and one in February, and then the case was voided in July to a change of ownership. Well, it just went to the estate. It went from the owner into the estate. Yeah. Okay. Do we know if the conditions were ever fixed? Yes. Yes, they were, yeah. They couldn't be here. They couldn't be here if they couldn't be here if they could. Well, yeah, but it doesn't really say that. Yeah, and we will go out and upon the application, we go out and check to make sure that there wasn't an error or something didn't happen. Yes. Thank you. I was good after. No, that's good. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Mohsen Shekker. That's my wife Hannah. And my address is 5529th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33710. That property belongs to Andrew Petrizello. He was working with me and a good friend. And at 2002 he endorsed the house two, my three kids at that time and he died from a couple years and I was here last year because he has a problem. The city has a problem with the property that the roof have to be changed and the subject have to be fixed and the windows have to be changed and all that stuff and I came here and I promised that I'm going to do as much as I can. I did all my best. I borrowed some money and I did the whole thing. I have a son, his name is Muhammad and he's on the property now. He lives in the property. He is a veteran. And because really he cannot be with us. So he's staying at house for right now. I have some letters and stuff like that from the city, for him because he has a water, I put the water and the light by his name. We don't know that there is any lean on the house at that time and we found out that soon and I'm still really struggling from the suffered and the whole thing, it costs around maybe $25,000 and I have to borrow that money just to keep him in that house because really he cannot live with us when he gets really sometimes nervous nobody can stop him but he is now saying God he's doing good He lives alone sometimes one of his friends come and say with him for a little bit, that's good for me and for his mom. But we didn't know that there is any more money coming really out. I mean, that was stunned. And he's a veteran. I have here some papers can show that. You said that this was signed over to your kids in what year? 2002, he didn't know. He did that on 2002. He was still living there? And he was living there. He's the one who did anything bad to this house, really, he's a friend. I mean, I don't talk about him bad, but he doesn't care. And he was going from jail to jail, from problem to another problem. And he doesn't care. He's now, you said he's deceased. He's deceased, yeah, from a couple years here. But he stills, but there was a state still the owner of the property. Yeah, that's what we're changing that now. I mean, we are in, are you in probate? Are you in probate? Yes. Okay, yeah, that's what I was trying to say. probate. A big appointment? Yes. Okay. Yeah. That's what I was trying to say. When did you enter probate on the property? When did you start that process? Hold on a second. Hold on. Yes. So it looks like they changed ownership two weeks ago, August 12th. They put it into the name of Los Enchicare. So, I mean, at this point, they would have to go through a separate process. We could not handle it here because that's for current owners or at the time that the leans were certified. We do have another lean waiver stipulated lean waiver program that they could go through to get the leans resolved but you say are you telling us that these aren't the owners of the property test up today. It went out of the estate into his name individually. Yeah. And oh, OK. So it's now just him versus the estate of the other individuals. Right. Got it. Right. And when the leans were placed under the previous owner or under did the estate. So you're saying we can't adjudicate this today? No. We can only delineally screw for current or the current for the current owners, but we do have a different process for subsequent owners. I guess we'll someone explain this to them. Yes, I'm not sure I understand it. Let me look at one thing real quick. about one moment. Bear with us just a moment. Oh yeah. Yeah, I mean. So the good news here is that the probate did work. Yes. Yes. You think? Well, that's what I'm looking to see. Fortunately, it was just the ownership having changed now. That no longer makes them eligible for this process, but we can have a discussion with them about other options that are available. So Lonnie, can you... Can we get that to them? Lonnie here, just... I got it. I got it. No, no, no. Of course she does. Of course she does. Yes. So we're done with this one. Right. Yes, so for the sake of today, we can't rule on it right now. Got it. We can't rule on it right. Got it. We can't rule. Is there a problem for me? Just hold on. We're sorry to keep you waiting. That's OK. No. This is only going to solve the problem. I think they're going to solve your problem, but it's going to be in another way, not here. But they're figuring out what's going to be. OK. Thank you. And they'll explain it to you. I promise. Thank you. And then maybe they'll explain it to me. OK. So just for further clarification, this process is only available to owners at the time that the leans were certified. So because that ownership changed just a week or two ago, that no longer makes them eligible for this process. But we do have another one that they can go through. Okay, they're gonna have a lot of fun. Thank you. Good luck. Okay, on to the next. Okay. Right. This is not even supposed to be. Okay. On to the next. Okay. All right. This is not even supposed to be. Correct. Next up we have LR6, probably located at 710, 35th Avenue South. Current owner is a Chairs and Ventures. The leans in this case are associated with case number 17-216-3, toll amount is $5,300, and it was for an exterior wall and a facia soffit disrepair. The March notice of hearing that was addressed to the owner was signed, but it was not legible. There was, excuse me, representation at that April hearing and the board provided 90 days. The, or the board that was addressed to the owner was signed in return but once again it was not legible. That brought it back to the August 22nd hearing. There was attendance and despite the attendance there was a lien certified and the amount of $1,500. The following month in September, there was once again representation and a 90 day extension was provided. January of 2019, the case was removed from the Code Enforcement Board Special Administrative Process and then several months later in October. There was a telephone conversation where we notified the owner that the case was going to be moving forward in December. And just explained the fact that it was being taken back to the Code Enforcement Board process. That way the owner had the opportunity to explain the situation to the board. And it actually brought it back to the November hearing and the owner was in attendance and they accepted the recommendation of 25 days. That brought it back to the January 2020 hearing. There was no attendance and then the other lean the amount of $3,800 was certified and the case was closed on February 4th of 2020. Good afternoon, can you state your name and address for the record? Good afternoon, sir. My name is Ty Will Boyer, 535198 Avenue Avenue Circle East, Paris, Florida 34219. In your relationship to the President of the company. Okay, so can you give us, I mean this is going back now to 17? Yeah, but first and foremost, I would like to impress it on this gathering that, aside the time, these events were taking place, I was a real estate business new fight. I didn't understand the process at all. We had to go to zoning on few occasions and ultimately after the decision that was made where we had the lane of 5,100 zoning, the instructors do not... I think we ultimately decided to demolish the building because the previous owner had done a lot of funny things there that we thought we wouldn't like to continue that line. When we saw some of those disrepairs, we ultimately decided to demolish. But then Zoni instructed me that if you're going to demolish it, you'd need to let Zoni conclude their own process. All along, I updated Mr. Johnson about what was going on. So that was why we did able to do that. I was going to be able to do that. I was going to be able to do that. I was going to be able to do that. I was going to be able to do that. I was going to be able to do that. I was going to be able to do that. I was going to be able to do that. I was going to be never knew about that. I never received the letter to that effect. So when I did not receive that letter, I thought, OK, maybe the process was holding for us to complete the zoning case. And when the zoning case was ultimately concluded, then we proceeded to demolish the property. And the property was demolished, I think, some time in February or March or there about 2020. And eight. So you're saying you, so this house has been demolished? Sir? This house, you demolished this house? Yes. The house was demolished in 2020 and 2020 and I'm not sure I understand what zoning had to do with this. Yeah, so that's what I was looking into It looks like the use of that property was grandfathered with the number of dwelling units and so if they did not get it reinstated Prior to doing the demolition it would they would not have been able to maintain that. So the redevelopment opportunity would have just simply been a single family home. They wanted to maintain the density that they had previously grandfathered, so they needed to get that reinstated before they knocked the house down. I'd have to, these are tricky to look at in the system, but I do see in 2018, there was a reinstatement of one dwelling unit for a total of two dwelling units, and then a redevelopment plan and variance to the Rear Yard setback. Well, it looks like that might have been a separate project. So it looks like in 2018 they did pursue that. I assume they did. What's currently on the property now? It's just a vacant. It's vacant. No, it's frustrating. It's nothing on the property. What are your plans for it? Now, when we ultimately re-drrew the plans, you know, like I said, I was a new type, so I lived in on the so I went back to Parmin with the plan that we drew after the red development plan was made, then Parmin said, well, we needed to go back to Zoni again. So when to Zoni, then Zoni then said the variance or whatever that we were given had expired. So we had to start from the beginning. Then we went through was it letter of I can remember. So you're in the process of reapplying? Well, free applying. So we just withdrew the plans now. So you're gonna go you're gonna build something on the path? Definitely. We will. And what you going to do with it once you build it or are you going to hold on to it and rent it out I'm rented out you're going to rent it out okay so obviously I'm sure he didn't want to do any repairs if you're going to knock it down why would you do repairs right right part of why that stayed open? So, um, okay. I'll go something. Oh, go ahead. No, sorry, I'll see. Okay. I moved it in this matter. The leans be released in consideration of a payment of $1,500 within 90 days. Second. Okay, we have a motion in second. Any other questions coming? Roll call. A. Seclus? Yes. Knighter? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Riblay? Yes. Okay, sir. For a payment of $1,500, the remaining lien will be released. 90 days. Within 90 days. It's just going to be a conflict release. She has. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. complete release. Okay thank you very much. Okay and she has some paper. All right and last but not least. Okay we have LR7 property address 3429 37th street north current owner is 3429 rebuildbuild Land Trust, right line home is one LLC as the trustee. The leans in this case are associated with case number 2311827. This was also a permit violation. Toll amount of leans in this case are $19,200 brief summary. Our September notice of hearing that was addressed to the owner was signed but it was not legible. We also posted the notice of hearing at the violation address on September 5th. At the September 27th public hearing there was no representation the board provided the 25 days that City recommended. That brought it back to the November 14th special magistrate hearing. There was no attendance. Aileen was certified for $3,450. The order of the board that was addressed to the owner was returned after that. And it was signed, but it was not legible once again. The subsequent December, January and February specialiterate meetings were not attended, leans in the amount of 4,200, 6,305,250 were certified at those hearings. That brought it back to the March 26th hearing. There was representation finally at that meeting and the mediterate provided a 60 day extension. And then the case was subsequently closed on June 13th of this year. Okay. Sir, can you please state your name and address for the record please? Yes, it's Brian McMillan. My address is 3360, 15th Avenue Southwest Naples, Florida. Okay. And so, so you, this property is, I assume it's a rental? It was going to be a rental at this point as vacant. It's listed for sale. It's listed for sale? Yes. So that's why they're here. You want to get the, you want to get the leans taken care of before you get to a contract to try to sell it, right? I think that's inconsequential to my customer. I think the issue with the leans, it came my attention because I finalized my contract and my payment schedule with this client at which time, which was just a week and a half, two weeks ago, at which time they said, okay, well, we have this $20,000 worth of leans on the property and that's what leans. And they said, well, leans for not adhering to the permitting. And just a little bit of a background, I'm a state general contractor. And this client hired me after they got the red tag notice on this property. They had done extensive renovation work on the property. Got red tag for not having permits. So I came out into the scene and I do a lot of these for investors in the state of Florida. And I came out into the scene and immediately started the permitting process with my permitting team and my engineering team. And in my experience all over the state, once we start the process of applying for the permit in the building department system, that stays the stop work order to the point where the building department in the code enforcement office know that we're working on this problem. In St. Pete it's a little bit different. There's a two-part system which I wasn't aware of and that my permitting department had a work through it. They have a preliminary group that looks at your application before you can actually submit it to the building department. I didn't know that. And so there was a four-month period between the time that the stock work order was issued on the property. And my permit actually was applied for in the building department system. There was this four-month period of time where we were actively working on cleaning up the property because it was complete disrepair outside. There was vagrants living there. It was a total mess. So we were working on some other violations. I know that we're only hearing this one, but there were some other ones too with the outside of the home that we had to deal with as well. And so we work immediately on these issues. That's not reflected in the report that you see because every time that the inspection was done by the city, they would look in the system and see that no permit had been applied for. And that was the case technically, but it wasn't the case in reality because we were working on that. A couple of big issues that did delay me being able to satisfy the pre-submission requirements for the application was that they had done, the owners had done extensive electrical work inside of this house and trying to find a licensed electrician to come in to certify the work, to correct some of the work that wasn't right, and then to put their name on the permit is not always easy after the fact. And the, if I could stop you right there. Yes, ma'am. I have some questions that I think are more germane to the issue right now. Okay. And the issue before us is why you didn't come to the hearings. And ultimately who is going to be on the hook for this money if we decide not to reduce the rates? Sure. And that's where it falls on me why nobody came to the hearings. So those letters went to the owner's office in West Palm Beach, which is a conglomerate. The owner, the representative of the owner that was assigned to this property that was my liaison with the client had asked me, what do we do with these code violations? And I said, listen, once we apply for the application, it's gonna pause those, because in my experience in other municipalities, that's almost always been the case. That was an error on my part. That's not the case here in St. Petersburg. I've come to find out. And that was an error on my part that I passed to the owner. So the liaison simply took the letters sign form and put them in the file. And at the end of the day, it is the owner's responsibility, but they made those determinations based on what I conveyed to them as a professional in the building field. OK, so who would pay this $19,200? It would be the owner. And of course, I would be culpable for some reimbursement to the owner. OK. And I'm having a little problem understanding the difference. You're just managing this property for the owners. Is that what I'm looking at here? To some degree, yes, ma'am. I'm in the general contractor that was hired to take over the work that was done, complete the work, permit the work. I get that part. But over here, it says that you're the manager of Brightline. I am not, no ma'am. You're the manager of Brightline. I am not, no ma'am. You're the owner of Brightline. No ma'am, I am not. I do represent them in this area. The right representative. Yeah, they put me on as authorized to represent them in this hearing. So, okay. You see some author. Are you an attorney? I miss red. No, he's a con. I'm not a practicing attorney no man. Okay. So the permits, the original permit was to correct this, I guess, the work and you said that was mainly electrical work. I did point out the electrical component of it, but no, it was a full renovation. Full renovation. They'd read the windows, and this house was in great disrepair when they purchased it. It's a beautiful home now on St. Petersburg. But the work that they had done when they got the red tag order was really shotty work. And the inspectors from the city came out, put the red tag on it. I think it was there within 48 hours, and it was just disturbing. We literally undid all the work that was done, brought the engineers in, put our permit packet together, and then rebuilt it the right way. So is it an extensive renovation? And I think the customer ultimately was penalized by the cost of having to do it the right way in this particular. The first work I do not know. And that was part of the challenge was I could tell like the HVAC system was done by a professional. You can tell when you look at the work. But I could never find out who that guy was to come in attached to my permit. And I had to find somebody that was willing to do it. I had to go to Tampa to find a guy that was willing to come down and certify the work and go on the permit. And so typically, me being able to apply for a permit, my team would have that permit application in in a week in a building department. But it took a lot longer here because of these circumstances. And I erroneously gave the customer the wrong information, and I can tell you that I've stood in front of this board a few other times on other properties in this area for this particular owner. If I didn't understand the permitting process, I would have been here for every single one of those hearings. I just didn't know about them. And that's my fault because if I would have told the customers, if I would have told them the appropriate information, they would have notified me every time they got one of those notifications. OK, but I think what you said was the person who was getting these notices for these meetings was early A's on and he was just signed and you had said don't worry about it because we've applied for the project. Correct. All right. Make understand. OK. Not trouble to do with it, but I understand. Yeah. And how many properties does your customer own? In St. Petersburg, I believe they currently have four properties left here. Okay. And statewide? and statewide. Several hundred. I'll do something. I'll try. I move that in this matter the leans be released in consideration of payment of $5,000 within 60 days. In a motion? Wow, second. Here we have a second. We have to have a second to talk about it. Yeah, second. I don't think it's enough. I don't either. No. I don't either. No. I don't either. These are corporat entities. They should be better than us. If I might interject, they do have a corporation that employs. I'm sorry, but I can't get her. I got to hold that on one second. I apologize. That's right. Yeah. I think he's admitted it was an error on his part, assuming. And I don't know is, I guess Mr. Waldo, you know is that really the case in other jurisdictions within Florida is it a different process where it's just supplying for a permit? I mean, I can't speak to what other just I'm not knowledgeable about it. I will tell you that the reason that we do things differently is because we found here that that was just a stall tactic and that that people had no intention of actually doing repairs and we would see you know houses that had a permit applied for six months goes by absolutely nothing happened and then they never even finished the permitting process. So now we're a year down the road, which is why we changed, I want to say it was probably 2015, 2016, where we changed our process to where, unless it was an approved permit, we were moving forward with the cases. So that was the previous policy within even city? Because that's a reform, I tell you. Right, or if there was outstanding violation so let's say that there was disrepair that permit you know the permits were needed for those cases would move forward so we didn't have a structure sitting in this state that was just being held up because we were going to play the long game with oh I'm going to submit permits and then pull them and put them back in and yeah okay okay we're just curious if that's We can I have a counter yeah, go ahead I'll meet we need to vote this out and have a new motion if you want to suggest an amendment to I I suggest an amendment For you okay For 10,000 repayment to the city That's my number. Nothing less. Okay, and I'd go for 30 days. Okay. Okay. All right, I'll amend to say the motion to be I move that in this matter the leans be released in consideration of payment of $10,000 within 30 days. Second. Okay. You have a motion, we have a second. Oh, call. A sec less? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Riblay. Yes. Okay, sir. Thank you. $10,000 within 30 days. Okay. Thank you. That concludes our... I mean, I... Dean relates very much. That's it. Right. Well, no. Next time we want to... I think the kicker was when he said that. Well, I think the YouTube's date for a hamburger tour. Is there one of these in the past? If you could put it in the meeting. you