e e e stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you ladies and gentlemen the Municipal Code Enforcement board is charged with conducting hearings to determine whether an alleged violation of the city code has occurred decisions made by this quasi judicial board will be based on the evidence and facts presented this evening our meetings are conducted in accordance to Robert's Rules of Order in each case will begin with the city presenting its evidence of the alleged violation the respondent will then present his or her case both parties will have an opportunity to cross examine all Witnesses the board members May question any witness comments by both parties must be relevant to the case persons wishing to speak will be given an opportunity to do so by the chair and must address the board from the podium after giving their name and address upon request copies of material submitted by staff are available for review board members are reminded to obtain permission to speak from the chair and questions of the city should be directed to the attorney for the city this time I'll ask all persons who expect to give testimony tonight to please stand to be sworn by the city clerk do you spare affirm that the testimony or evidence you're about to give or present is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you he we will be taking cases slightly out of order tonight um our first case will be the first case our second second case will be the last case and then we'll go back to our regular schedule program so first case will be 158 second case will be 583 the expart communications at this time I'd like to ask the board members if they've had any expart Communications regarding any matters coming before the code enforcement board this evening if you've had verbal Communications please disclose the substance of the communications when and where the communications occurred and with whom it occurred if you receive any written Communications please disclose the nature of the communications and provide to the city clerk to be filed in record you I've had none I've had none had none I've had none I've had none I've had none I've had none very good thank you approve all the minutes uh minutes of the regular scheduled meeting held on June 12 2024 I assume all board members have had a chance to review if there are no edits additions or suggestions I wanted to ask uh I let me finish then we'll get to you okay um if there's no um edits additions or or suggestions for changes I'll entertain a motion uh was Bill uh pres I I thought did you fix it I fixed it oh okay I I last time I read it it had bill I caught it I fixed it that's all okay he's here in spirit huh here in spirit well it's good but you know always with us yeah very good good good point if there's no other changes I'll entertain a motion to approve motion to approve second Motion in a second all those in favor I opposed no days motion passes thank you ma'am B hello yes you um two things did you sign in oh no sorry okay sign in and then come on up to the podium real quick for me she didn't either now got to get her my pen doesn't work do you know what your case number is you know what your case number is my case number is 6292 6292 um 23 - 6292 oh yeah old business okay we're going to we're going to take care of you first okay yes so have a seat okay and then uh we'll get through some formalities and then we'll get right to you okay um we got to get her sworn in right yes would you mind please stand and get sworn in first need to get you sworn in to stand raise your right hand look at her you sare affirm if a testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth about the chair yes thank you okay so we did the uh the minutes I I told you we were going out of order we're going out of the order I just said so our first case is going to be under unfinished business and it's going to be case number 23 6292 then we'll go back then we'll do um second case that was the original second case we'll go back to the original order okay all right case number two 3 6292 case number 23 6292 under unfinished business City versus Chelsea Jenkins for the property located at 7510 gadston Drive the deadline for compliance is tonight at midnight hold up hi name and address first please okay my name is Chelsea Jenkins my address is 7510 Gaston Drive Temple Terrace um so I just need another extension unfortunately um we have tore down the the outside like I said it was more wood and more work than what we anticipated um more expensive than what I was able to budget for prior I'm going to ask you to back up a little bit and remind us what the original violation was what's what's going was was missing the post she was missing a post oh that's okay you were missing the post that's me the outside of now I'm with you okay thank you yeah sorry so we have all of like everything I have all the material everything's done um we've started putting the new wood back up it's just not finished yet so I believe originally I had until the 12th which was Friday but the meeting is today so um my granddad is the one who's helping me do it thankfully um he just needs a week literally just next week um if you want to send someone out just to make sure that you know everything's started it is um but we just need one more week so you're asking for an extension of week yes sir boy what's your pleasure I'm good oh go for it you have make a motion make a motion okay um I motion that we extend her for another 30 days 30 days okay okay U need a date certain please oh um August 14th till August 14th 2024 we have a motion do we have a second second motion second any further discussion see none all those in favor all right oppose no Nays so you actually have another 30 days hopefully it won't take that long um if something should happen that you need yet another extension you know where we are okay question once everything is done who do I call to come out and verify Lor Smith okay okay okay yes all right right good luck yes thank you hopefully all you need is next week that's that who you want to get it done too so yes sir thank you all right you have a good night well okay next case is 24583 good evening Mr chairman and members of the code board my name is Becky zerella and I am the fire inspector assigned to this case I'm here to provide testimony regarding the property located at 705 Aberdine Circle which entered the rental housing program on March 29th 2023 the property was due for renewal on March 29th 2024 but we have been able to communicate with the homeowner despite multiple attempts the following is a detailed timeline of our efforts to contact the homeowner February 1st of 2024 risk reduction sent the first renewal notice informing that the renewal was due March 1st the second renewal notice was sent to the owner and April 1st 2024 the third and final renewal notice was sent to the owner as well May 23rd 2024 a case was opened and a notice of violation was prepared and sent out by certified and first class mail to the property owner with a compliance date of June 5th the notice was also posted at the property June 18th 2024 the property uh remained out of compliance therefore I requested this violation to be presented at tonight hearing June 21st 2024 the notice of hearing was posted at the property and as of July 5th risk reduction received the completed renewal application but no payment at this time I would like to submit into evidence the completed application and email correspondents from our office thank you case stands now as you have they have completed the application they just need to pay the the fee the renewal fee yes sir and has someone try to let them know that that's what's that's what's holding things up yes repeatedly and then as of July 28th I spoke with a representative from Darwin property managers uh who took my information say that they would pass my message along and as of today's date we have not received payment the property is not in compliance so I am seeking a ruling any other questions for the officer yes um I just wanted a little bit explanation why the fire department is involved in a rental property because they have the different that because the that's safety safety issu safety ISS assign to the fire dep departmental with life safy issues yeah once a year they they do an inspection the rental housing program resides in the risk reduction Department within the fire department just that for education for me sure thank you and it wouldn't make sense to have them do the inspections and have the program ran by a different department correct because they're the ones that have to go in the application fees is high $200 so we just haven't been able to get a hold of them did um when you spoke to the representative did they give you any sort of idea of when that you know we have something next week or they just no and uh in the emails you will see our Administrative Assistant who um sends these emails out to try to correspond to get the payment in there's no response so um she and I have both spoken with someone from Darwin property managers but they just say we'll get your message to the owners and that's as far as we've been able to get all right any other questions for the for the officer as far as you could tell were there any issues with the house like we have not had an inspection oh we have not been into the home okay is that is that once they pay will you be doing an inspection or yes okay yes so so what happens if they if they don't pay if you know if tonight if they're found in violation of of the ordinance and they're out of compliance they're in violation of the rental housing code so as far as the consequence I'm seeking a ruling for that I understand that but let you know let's say 30 days goes by and they still haven't paid they they are now no longer officially in the rental housing program because they haven't paid for their permit correct according to code I know that a lean could be put against the property um and then that we would start that whole process with but what about the tenants that are there or could the city evict the tenants if for our rental housing code um if I'm not mistaken if they are not in compliance with the rental housing code I don't believe they can have a tenant in the home okay so we would start that process which which I don't believe we've ever had we don't have ten tenants right now do they have the house does have a tenant and according to the tenant they've never been able to get to the homeowner either they go through Darwin property managers and they just take messages and okay so the owner and not the property management company is responsible for paying yeah correct okay so uh David this is probably for the attorney uh how we we can do it like a violation no it's it's the same violation it's just we still be making the motion as if it were any other violation correct because it seems to me they're not getting the attention and and that you know she tried and tried and tried it's it's treated just like any other viation higher higher U that's up to you but Tre like any other violation just to get their attention so in the past several years we've had uh inspector Valente here uh for the same violation and what we do is we do a lump sum of $250 that's would be the maximum for the violation so it's a one-time fee of $250 so the total cost would become $450 because they still got to pay the 200 that's correct that's correct one other question so you said the permit was submitted but they haven't paid right so one of the violations is in compliance correct so the application has been submitted not the permit the application oh okay okay okay so so both all the the both of the um and I think they need expect both of the sections are still in violation because until they pay they they're not comply so they can go and insect too right exactly that's that's very urgent any other questions see not I'll entertain a motion thank you ma'am TR good job by the way you go for it all right okay so uh just before we continue it seems to me going to make the make the motion then we'll discuss it okay all right I'll this is a unique one like any other violation yes in case number 24- 583 I move that the city has proven by the great weight of evidence the following the following violation of the city of tble uh Terrace city code exist on the property located at 705 circle with the applicable section uh violation 8- 137 subsection e and section -136 subsection C this motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code uh the fire department officer along with any other evidence including photos Avid DAV and notice of violation of which is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing I further move that the Sid violation be corrected on or before August 14 2024 if the respondent does not comply with this order on or before the day that day they are ordered to pay a fine for each and every day the violation continue past the date set for compliance upon considering the following factors the gravity of the violation any actions taken by the Violator to correct the violation and any previous violations committed by The Violator I move that the fine be $150 per day okay um wow um we just had a recommendation from staff that it be a lump sum 250 so I think that's that's why I I was can we have discussion okay I'll second after after the second we have a second okay we have a second now we can discuss okay my no I I understand however we have no contact with the owner we have no discussion with them and we need to inspect the rental property to make sure it's safe for people I'm not opposed to that like I understand the 250 lump Su but there's been no if if there's been discussion they're like okay we we'll figure it out whatever but there's been no discussion I I wanted to give some time and also give their attention that's going to be $150 per day um maximum 250 that's I I don't want to put I want him to pay that 200 get the the property inspected and taking care of this whole thing without having more complex how would you feel about $100 a day instead I mean it you know for me it's a round number it's it's a if they now aware of it the um well I guess what are they the management company they're aware of it um they've got 30 you we're going to give them 30 days 30 days um so whether it's $100 a day or $150 today I don't know that that that matters much um it's just that long as long as everybody on long as you guys that are voting are okay with $150 a day versus a lum sum and we're not in any kind of earning is that is that that motion acceptable or is it okay I was going to go for 200 to get more ATT I see it I saw see it in your eyes how you guys want to proceed I know that it sounds like in the past it's been just a lump sum are you guys with a daily F then yeah it's a review of the board F sure okay all right okay um if there's no other discussion all those in favor I I opposed no n motion carries okay next case start right back at the beginning at the beginning yep thank you case number is 24-1 158 City versus Prime storage Temple Terrace LLC for the properly located at 5311 East Bush Boulevard the cas is before the board based on a violation of section 12-1 047 Landscape Maintenance and section 12-10 43 plant material and design the case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance director Tom Bron city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served good evening Tom Bron Cod compliance this case this evening originated by Lori Smith and I on April 9th 2024 when we observed overgrown conditions debris accumulations outside of the dumpster area dead Hedges substandard Mulch and an irrigation system not functional along the front property line that same day Lori did leave two door hangers with a reinspection date of April 12 2024 Lor's inspection on April 19 2024 noted no change therefore a notice of violation was prepared with the compliance date of May 6 2024 the notice lce was hand delivered hand delivered to Amanda Harrison to obtain service when May 3rd 2024 Lori did receive a phone call stating that the grass and debris are now in compliance and the plants will and mulch will be done within the next two weeks inspection on June 24th 2024 noted no change so therefore the case was forwarded to the July code Board hearing at this time I would like to submit photographic evidence taken by me on June 24th 2024 exhibit number one and two notes the dead Hedges and the substandard mulch along the property line I'd like to minut at this time we'll accept those thank you as of today's inspection new Hedges and have been installed uh it also has new Mulch and a working irrigation so therefore all three violations are in compliance there's actually two violations in compliance and i' like to submit an after they of the compliance at this time cly accept that thank you any any additional questions for the code officer seeing n I'll entertain a motion thank you in case number sorry 24158 I move that the city has proven by a greater weight of evidence the following violations of the city of code did exist on the property located at 5311 East Bush Boulevard uh section 12-11 047 motion is based on this warant testimony this Bo is received from code ement officer along with any other evidence including photos affidavits and the notice violation all which are received there as part of the hearing further move there be no fin post because violations compliance before the DAT is before we go for a second if you would mind amending and including section 12-1 043 in your motion I'm sorry I also like to include section 12-10 43 thank you we now have a motion do we have a second second motion and second any further discussion see none all those in favor all right oppos motion carries next case please next case is going to be case number 24624 City versus UDC Urena for the property located at 115 Ridgedale Road the cas is before the board based on alleged violation of section 8- 10213 C roof maintained in good repair the case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Doug dou Allen the city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served good evening Mr chairman and board members Doug Allen code compliance officer this case was originated by me on April 15 2024 for a tarp on a roof which is indicative of the roof not being maintained in a sound condition which may admit rain or cause dampness in the interior portion of the building I left the door hanger with a reinspection datee of April 30th 2024 my reinspection on May 31st showed no change so gener ated a notice of violation on that date with a reinspection datee of June 17th posted the notice at the front door and a copy was posted at City Hall for the 10-day requirement and copies were mailed both regular and certified mail to the owner of record our reinspection on June 21st showed no change I prepared a notice of hearing and scheduled the case for the July Municipal Code board meeting I'd like to submit photographic evidence taken by me on May 31st and June 21st 2024 accept those thank you okay the site is in compliance on also like to submit an Affidavit of compliance and I'm seeking a a finding thank you any questions for the code officer seeing none I'll entertain a motion oh yes one okay uh in case number 24-1 1624 I move the city is proven by greater way of evidence the following violations of the city of temple terce code did exist on the property located at 115 Ridgedale Road with the applicable code section 8102 subsection 13 subsection C this motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from Code Enforcement Officers along with any other evidence including photos affidavits and notice of violation all of which is received and entered as part of this hearing I further move that there be no fine imposed because the violations were brought into compliance prior to the date of this hearing we have a motion do we have a second second motion a second any further discussion see none all those in favor I opposed no Nays motion carries next case please cases 24- 1758 City vers for the property located at 5602 East f Avenue the cases before the board based on alleged violation of section 12-10 49 Landscaping perimeter section 12 d1047 Landscape Maintenance and section 12-10 43 plant material design the case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Shan Robinson the city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing rep properly served than okay good evening Mr chairman and board members Sean Robinson cool compliance officer this case was originated by me on April 23rd 2024 for insufficient Landscaping where the Landscaping had little or no mulch lack the required 3-ft solid landscape perimeter and lacked functional irrigation system I left a door hanger with a reinspection date of May 24th 2024 my reinspection on May 28th 2024 showed no change so a notice of violation was prepared on that date with a reinspection date of June 12th 2024 Affidavit of service was obtained by hand delivery to store manager if the car rule is long at this time I would like to submit photographic evidence of the violation taken by myself on July 3rd 2024 we accept those thank you all right exhibit one shows front of sight lacking three- foot required hedge buffer exhibit two shows non-functional irrigation system exhibit three shows little or no mulch exhibit four shows Eide plant lacking Mulch and this site is in compliance and I would like to submit an Affidavit of compliance I'm seeking a finding we accept that thank you all right any questions for the code officer the compliance on all three violations yes any other questions see none I'll entertain a motion I'll do thank you in case number 24758 I mooved it the city's proven by a greater weight of the evidence the following violations of the city excuse me sorry city of Temple Terrace city code did exist on the property located at 5602 East Fowler Avenue applicable code section 12-10 49 section 12 d1047 and section 12-10 43 the motion is based on the SW testimony this boort has received from the code enforcement officer Shan Robinson including photos along with any other evidence including photos affidavits and the notice of violation all of which is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing I further move that there be no fine imposed because the violations were brought into compliance prior to the date of this hearing we have a motion do we have a second second motion a second any further discussion see none all those in favor opposed no nay motion carries next case please next case is 24-1 1910 City verse Joe James vigil for the property located at 8704 coralon Court the cas is before the board based on alleged violation of section 8-28 A1 permit application required the case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Doug Allen the city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served thank you good evening Mr chairman and board members Doug Allen code compliance officer this case was originated by Community Development from a citizen complaint on April 30th 2024 for construction of an accessory structure without a permit I went directly to a notice of violation on that date with a reinspection date of May 6 I posted a notice at the site and the notice was also posted at City Hall for the 10-day requirement and copies were mailed both certified in regular mail to the address of the owner of record on June 14th 2024 my Comm communication with Community Development showed no change so I prepared a notice of hearing on that date and the case was scheduled for the July Municipal Code board meeting the property owner has contacted me and I suggest that they contact Community Development to resolve the lack of a permanent concern this time I'd like to submit photographic evidence of the site taken by myself on April 30th and June 20th 2024 the site is in compliance for building official Dallas Foss and I am seeking a finding and submitting an Affidavit of compliance we'll accept all that thank you that's awesome any questions for the code officer see not I'll entertain a motion do this thank you in case number 24-9 1910 I move that the city has proven by the greater weight of evidence the following violation of the city of timble terce city code ex did exist on the property located at 8404 Carl Dawn Court with the applicable section violation 8-28 subsection a subsection 1 this motion is based on the Swarm testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer Doug Allen along with uh along with any other Witnesses along with uh evidence including photos Avid and a notice of violation of which receiv received and entered as part of the record of this hearing I further move that there be no fine imposed because the violations were brought into compliance prior to the date of this hearing we have a motion do we have a second second second than thank you okay we have motion second any further discussion seeing none all those in favor I oppos no Nays motion carries next case please P 24270 City vers James Everett for the property located at 5206 senica Avenue the cas is before the board based on alleged violation of section 828 A1 permit application required the case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Doug Allen city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served good evening Mr chairman and board members Doug Allen code compliance officer this case was initiated from Community Development on May 9th 2024 as they had placed a red tag for a shed being constructed without a permit I prepared a notice a violation on May 9th 2024 with a reinspection datee of May 16th I posted a copy of the notice of violation at the front door and a copy was posted at City Hall for the 10-day requirement and copies were mailed both certified and regular mail to the address of the owner of record my communication with Community Development show no permit had been acquired so a notice of hearing was prepared on June 14th and the case was scheduled for the July Municipal Code board meeting this time I'd like to submit photographic evidence taken by me on May 9th and a screenshot of the stock stop work order the site is in compliance and I'd like to submit an Affidavit of compliance and I'm seeking a finding accept all that thank you any questions for the code officer seeing none I'll entertain a motion got this one thank you in case number 2 42070 I move that the city has proven by greater weight of the evidence the following violation of the city of Temple Terrace code did did EX list on the property located at 5206 Sena Avenue this motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforce uh code enforcement officer along with other evidence including photos affidavits and the notice of violation all of which is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing I further moveed that there be no fine imposed because the violations were brought into compliance prior to the date of this hearing we have a motion do we have a second motion a second any further discussion seeing none all those in favor I I opposed no Nays motion carries next case please next case is 24299 City versus 5400 Bush Boulevard LLC for the property located at 5400 East Bush Boulevard cases before the board based on alleged violation of section 12- 234b 48b outdoor seating restaurant the case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance director Tom Bron the city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served thank you good evening Tom Bron Cod compliance this case this evening originated on May 5th 2024 when I observed outdoor seating in a public parking lot that requires a safety barrier I had spoken to the food truck vendor and the property manager of the Tampa Outlets about the potential hazards of the violation if not addressed on May 15 2024 I noted again the table set up in the parking lot without a safety barrier I notified inspector Doug Allen of my findings and requested that he address the violation that same day Mr Allen prepared a notice a violation with the compliance date of May 20th 2024 he hand delivered the notice of to the property manager at the tamper allet Mr Allen's inspection noted no outdoor seating therefore the case was closed on May 29th 2024 on June 21st 2024 I observed the tables and chairs set up again in the parking lot once again without a safety barrier and I spoke to the food truck vendor the violation fell out of compliance within the 45 days of compliance therefore the violation was set for the MCB hearing tonight at this time I'd like to submit photographic evidence that was taken by me exhibit number one shows on May 15 2024 that the tables and chairs were set up in the parking lot with with this without the required safety barrier exhibit number two shows on June 21st 2024 shows no safety barrier to a table and chair set up in the parking lot at this time I'd like to submit photographic evidence one and two at this time we accept that thank you so this is a new violation that was put together probably about two years ago two and a half years ago um there is um when a person wants to have outdoor seating they have to have plans and submit them to the city but they also need to have a safety barrier where people can sit safely and not inside a parking lot so about a year ago uh the governor allowed food trucks to be uh on private property as long as they got permission from the property owner so these food trucks that are down in this Outlet area have permission from the owner but they don't have a required safety barrier to prevent a uh a tragedy from happening okay so that's why they're being presented tonight so as of today's inspection and I've been inspecting this area every day I haven't seen this anymore so I'm going to put it in compliance okay and I'd like to submit an acate of compliance we'll certainly step that thank you yes sir go ahead sir question just a minute question for the code officer probably think of the same thing soe well um the the safety barriers uh would be like those they use on the streets sometimes uh for construction the concrete like a concrete concrete barrier or plastic barrier or sometimes be with water or with they could be filled with water or something but it has to be a barrier from the being kned over yeah once they Smit the plans to the city then we determine whether that barrier is it looks like they had cones no I'm that's what I'm saying and that's not going to stop a vehicle yeah that's going toop you know so so it's it's I know but they they they should know that they they know that the Tampa outlets and all these people cuz it seems to me like they'll take him out and bring him back up they take him out and yeah it's a little bit of a game but um tired of playing that game so I'm trying to prevent something from happening because they're always there right the vendors yeah the vendors are always there that's correct so they can have some kind of temporary barriers that's safe to can't be a temporary it's got to be a good barrier to where people can sit and feel comfortable sitting there there has to be something strong enough to stop a car that's correct that's correct and this process has been explained to numerous times to the vendor and the property manager they need permits with that do they need permits one at a time one at a time they need a they need a sketch of where they're going to have this in the park lot and show the city that it's a safety area and they have not submitted anything nor have they provided a safety battera but as of as of right now that's not an issue because they they've taken it they' removed it that's correct there's no tables one of the pictures I saw they just folded up the tables and moved them next to the food truck yep is is that still I mean are the table still there well they could be there but I have to catch them actually set up right that's correct so if they they can go and get the food go to their car and it's that's correct okay that's what I recommend one more question sure if you catch them again would that be repeated yes it would be a repeat it be a repeat because you're already ifu up no you know well as long as I get a finding tonight from the the board they could it'll be a repeat violation once you get the finding from us right yes go ahead dat is it the property owner that would be in violation or the food truck the property owner because they have to give permission correct that's correct have a lot of questions of this oh it's okay it's it's a new violation so that's why that's why I'm explaining trying to explain it to yourself it' be no different than somebody renting a house the owner is responsible for it yep right any other questions great okay I do have a question sure in addition to a concrete barrier is there any other options that they could consider um as long as uh they can sit in their vehicle and have the food inside their vehicle talking like any other material that could be used as a barrier something that's got to be able to stop a vehicle because that Park lot is a very big Park lot so you can get you can get up to 40 miles an hour very fast if you wanted to I hate to say the word take somebody out but cause an accident it doesn't take much nope okay thank you thank you there's no other questions I'll entertain a motion that's uh in case number 24- [Music] 2199 I move that the city has proven by the greater weight of evidence the following violation of the city of double terrorist city code did exist on the property located at uh 5400 East Bush Boulevard with that applicable code violation 12- 234 subsection B subsection 48 subsection B outdoor seating this motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer along with any other evidence including photo affidavit and photos affidavit affidavits and the notice of violation of which received and entered as part of of the as part of the uh record of this hearing I further move there'll be no fine imposed because the violations were brought into comp uh compliance prior to the date of this hearing we good we have a motion do we have a second second motion a second any further discussion see none all those in favor I opposed no Nays motion carries next case please case number 24- 2230 City vers MF commercial LLC for the property located at 12908 North 56th Street the case is before the board based on alleged violation of section 12- 9831 H signs roof sign the case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance director Tom Bron the city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served good evening tomaron Code Compliance this case this evening originated back on May 16 2024 by Community Development when when the business installed a business sign on top of the roof area which is a viol of our code that same day inspector Lorie Smith prepared a notice of violation with the compliance date of May 31st 2024 she hand delivered the notice letter to the business owner then on June 25th 2024 inspector Smith and I had a discussion about the two violations that she cited in the notice letter I explained to Lori that the rooftop Mount sign would be a violation of the city ordinance and the building permit would never be approved by the city planner inspector Smith did prepare an amended notice letter and only cited the property owner for the pr prohibited sign violation she hand delivered that notice letter to the wholesale business the owner of the business did state to Lori that he would remove the sign at this time I would like to submit photographic evidence that was taken by me on June 24th 2024 exhibit one displays the rooftop Mount sign uh in exhibit number one I like this submitted this time so the sign we're talking about is the Rio wholesale all that yes so we don't allow rooftop uh signs uh so like I said Lori did um site them originally for the sign and not obtaining a permit so the city would never approve that sign so permit is not required so so we just eliminated that permit violation so as of today's date the sign has been removed and I'm submitting an AFF of compliance very good thank you any questions from the board any questions I just wanted to mention I uh I did not know that Cas is on the board but I had knowledge because I met with that originally the original owner was a friend of mine now I don't know the owner is there so I would have I would have not been able to vote on this or do any motions on this cuz I have we we had I had on that yes I did not know that was on the case you you didn't have any any discussions with not recently let me finish you haven't had any discussions with the owner about the roof sign that was way back when they before they opened uh I think Tom was there at one point and that's when I there but the violation that we're talking about today the roof sign you had anything he had it the same way yeah they were talking about the same thing it's un and I mentioned to them that's they should remove the sign too because they asked to visit the location Rod was there and I was having a discussion previous owner the previous owner yes okay so that sign's been up for a while yes it has okay okay yes that's the part I was missing can I ask r a few questions uh in light of all this do you feel you can be a fair and impartial decision maker on this case yes yes okay and you'll base your decision on the evidence that was presented at the hearing yes okay if there's no questions for the code officer I'll entertain a motion I got this thank you in case number 24- 2230 I move that the city is proven by a greater weight of the evidence the following violations of the city of Temple Terrace city code did exist on the property located at 12908 North 56 Street um this includes violation of section 12- 983 subsection 1 subsection H signs roof sign this motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer along with any other evidence including photos affidavits and the notice of violation all of which is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing I further move that there be no fine imposed because the violations were brought into compliance prior to the date of this hearing we have a motion do we have a second second motion a second any further discussion seeing none all those in favor I opposed no nay motion carries next case please okay case number 24 2394 City versus jelin Enterprises LLC for the property located at 204 Redwood Avenue the case is before the board based on alleged violation of section 10-3 B sanitation grass weeds the case will be prosecuted this evening by code liance officer Doug Allen the city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served thank you good evening Mr chairman and board members Doug Allen code compliance officer this case was originated by me on May 24th 2024 for overgrown conditions I left a door hanger with a reinspection datee of May 28th 2024 my reinspection on June 3rd showed no change so I prepared a notice of that on that a notice of violation on that date with a reinspection date of June 10th 20 2024 I post a copy at the residence and a copy was posted at City Hall for the 10day requirement and copies were mailed both certified in regular mail to the address of the owner of record my reinspection on June 14th showed no change so a notice of hearing was prepared on that date and the case was scheduled for the July Municipal Code board meeting this time I'd like to submit photographic evidence taken by myself on June 3r and June 14th 2024 we accept that thank site is in compliance and I'd also like to submit an affidavit Affidavit of compliance and am seeking a finding we accept all that thank you any questions for the code officer exhibit one shows the posting of the notice of violation exhibit two shows the overgrown conditions and exhibit number three shows the overgrown conditions there's no questions for the code officer or entertain a motion I can do this thank you in case number 24- 2394 oh sorry we're yep all right perfect uh I move the city is proven by a greater weight of evidence of the following violations of the city of Temple ter code did exist on the property located at 204 Redwood Avenue applicable code sections 10-3 subsection B uh this motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer along with any other evidence including photos affidavits and the notice a violation all of which is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing I further move there's been no F there be no F imposed because the violations were brought into compliance prior to the date of this hearing we have a motion do we have a second second motion a second forther discussion seeing none all those in favor opposed no nay motion carries next and last case under new business thank you case number 24241 City versus Miriam Bara for the property located at 210 Mission Hill Avenue the case is before the board based on alleged violation of section 10-4 B3 nuisance the case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Doug Allen city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served thank you good evening once again Mr chairman and board members Doug Allen code compliance officer this case was originated by me on May 24th 2024 for several dead trees that create a public nuisance and safety issue I generated a notice of violation on that date and a reinspection datee of June 13th 2024 I posted this notice at the site as well as at City Hall for the 10day requirement and copies were mailed both certified and regular mail to the address of the owner of record my reinspection on June 14th showed no change so I prepared a notice of hearing on that date and the case was scheduled for the July Municipal Code board meeting this time I'd like to submit photographic evidence taken by myself on May 24th and June 14th 2024 the site is in compliance I'd also like to submit an Affidavit of compliance that's all that thank you never happen normally we fight the other way about trees exhibit number one shows the notice of violation posting exhibit number two shows the dead trees and exhibit number three shows the dead trees good any questions for the code officer see not I'll entertain a motion I got this one thank you in case number 2424 401 I move that the city has proven by greater weight of the evidence the the following violations of the city of Temple Terrace code did exist on the property located on 210 Mission Hills Avenue section 10-4 subsection 4 subsection 3 this motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer Doug Allen and other Witnesses along with with any other evidence including photos affidavits and the notice of violation on all wish is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing I further moved that there are no fine imposed because the violations were brought into compliance prior to the date of this hearing and before we go for a second maybe I misunderstood you but I think you said 10-4 subsection 4 subsection 3 when in fact should be 10-4 subsection B subsection 3 so if you wouldn't mind correcting that we can get we can get a second correction section 10-4 subsection B subsection three very good we have a motion do we have a second second motion a second any further discussion seeing none all those in favor I opposed no nay motion carries thank you very much that completes our new business on unfinished 10 David huh 10 out of 10 10 compliance 10 cases 10 compliance amazing that amazing that's huh well that's uh you know he's like let's think positively 90% we still got an A 10 it's still an a let's get let's get through unfinish business then we can do the smoking and joking but this is good though all right no it's good it's absolutely good okay unfinished business okay so case number 23 4652 City vers David J coun for the property located at 5 5106 Rolling Hill Court the deadline for compliance is tonight at midnight an affid of compliance was submitted by Officer Lorie Smith for Section 88-102 13c dated June 18th 2024 case number 24- 0787 City vers Walden green for the property located at 8505 Wula Drive the deadline for compliance is tonight at midnight a naida of compliance was submitted by Officer Lorie Smith for section 88-102 13k dated July 1st 2024 section 88-102 13B remains out of compliance case number 24- 0836 City verse Betty and David hinger and Harold Madel for the property located at 100027 North 52nd Street the deadline for compliance is tonight at midnight case number 241385 City vers White Glove Holdings to LLC for the properly located at 1401 North River Hills Drive the deadline for compliance was June 12 2024 an affid of non-compliance was submitted by Officer Doug Allen for Section 81222 dated June 13th 2024 case number 24405 City versus Mariah seninsky and Dominique sininsky for the property located at 325 Brentwood Drive the deadline for compliance is tonight at midnight case number 24-1 1688 City vers Lon Mark Hammond for the property located at 414 Parkridge Avenue the deadline for compliance is tonight at midnight case number 24-23 City vers Betty and David hinger and Harold Madero for the property located at 100027 North 52nd Street the deadline for compliance is tonight at midnight I do have one case not on the agenda case number 23753 City versus progress residential borrower 21 LLC for the property located at 9039 Water testment Drive this lean has been paid and the case is no longer on the lean's list good any other board action any news on the lean report any new business did you update your stats on number of compliances I mean come on well I I like no the answer is no okay got it double dou but this seems to me a lot of people are responding to our Code Enforcement Officers great job they are this month they are like June mid June Doug Allen was going very hard mid June around mid June Mr chairman I just got a few comments sure so the first Cas case tonight was the Fire case so I just kind of want to let you know that several years ago there was a lawsuit against the city uh a a property owner a landlord took the fire appointment to the court and we lost the case really so the case was they we can't force somebody to do an inspection on the property so if the landlord doesn't want an inspection they could deny the fire department so I know there was comments made about health and safety issues tonight so I'm just trying to say that a landlord can deny the fire department rental expect the was during Co it was around that time that's correct so when they when they sign up to be part of the rental program don't they also have to give part of that signing up doesn't that give permission for us to inspect it no uh but what they can do if they don't give consent then the fire department can go ahead and get an inspection warrant because they are not owner occupied properties so there is a way the issue was is that the way it was set up um they were going in getting inspections without either consent or inspection so that was what the concern but okay so somebody signs up for the program we go to do our yearly inspection they say no don't we have to have probable calls to get an inspection warrant absolutely um yeah I mean so there could be all kind and we can't go inside to see so it could be all kinds of violations I remember there was a years ago under the under the U rental program where the floors were rotted out and the guy had tried to build a kitchen on the second floor and I mean it was it was a dis faster we wouldn't never be we would if they said no we wouldn't be able to see that but if we have a tenant that's reporting the problem um we'll have our probable cause in that area but I know there was some concerns about the boards tonight saying well it could be a safety issue so but let me and stay out there so have we looked at revising our our um code our well the form the the application the form so that we have the we have implicit permission to inspect once they sign up for the program that I don't know how you know the depart the department itself hasn't moved you know moved forward to my knowledge on that um so I I I can't give you an answer on that wait now the legal depended upon um permission from the owner Andor well or the tenant can give consent also because they have remember they have temporary possession of the property while they have le okay okay yeah it's just the way it was is they were you know they were they were doing the inspection without either consent all fire departments like vampire they have to be invited in well that's what that's what the court said so also to just another thing was the the lump sum there's other code violations throughout the city the local business tax that's why we put a lump sum because that that local business tax roughly costs around $90 to $100 so you don't want the violation if it continues on it can accumulate a a cruel leine of yeah $5,000 so that's why they Capp it so uh the far Department would have to present this case next year as a repeat violation and they would have to go in front of the board for they don't get the payment so they're going to that's 250 is just a lump sum and then 2025 they'll have to come back again as a repeat violation case if they don't pay if they don't pay that's correct well what what I Tred to do is hopefully they'll pay the $200 and then after that this will initiate automatically you know like I got lost a little bit it gets paid in 30 days it's a mood Point correct I think once they get the order uh then it shows that they'll be f up two 50 I think you're going to get their attention that's what happened in the past okay and that would also generate an inspection then after they pay the fee the if if they say okay if if they say okay if they say not okay if they say not okay then we don't expect but they can continue renting yeah yes okay y imperfect system notion privacy anything else that's all I have okay anybody else have any new business okay I will entertain a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn do we have a second second motion second any further discussion seeing none all those in favor I opposed no n we arej thank you all right [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]