[Music]
[Music] [Music]
e [Music]
[Music] [Applause]
[Music]
you ready good afternoon we'll go ahead and get started it's uh 1:33 p.m. uh on Thursday March 27th 2025 uh I want to start by asking uh The
Madam clerk to do a roll call for us please Dennis Warren here Katherine Townsen here Mike sinon here Dudley Bates here Craig d here and Jack morgus attorney to the board thank you very much filling in for attorney that
brown thank you for letting me be here thank you okay let's see here let's uh all rise for a moment for the Pledge of Allegiance [Music]
please I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the repic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all you can be seated unless you're going to be speaking today in any
manner please remain standing and raise your right hand so the clerk can swear you in make sure she sees that you're being sworn in the sly swear or affirm the testimony you are going to give is the truth I do I do thank you I'm going to read something
real quick and uh for the record and for your information folks and then we'll get started uh again good afternoon uh welcome to the March 27th 2025 hearing of the seamo County Code Enforcement board before we begin I'd like to advise everyone about the procedures that
govern appearances before the code enforcement board this meeting is open to the public under Florida's government and Sunshine Law therefore every effort will be made to hear all persons having relevant evidence or arguments to offer it is required that every person who
appears before the code enforcement Board needs to be registered with the clerk the cases where the respondents are present and signed in will be heard first you will be sworn in or affirmed by the clerk once all cases where the respondents are present and have been
heard heard the code enforcement board will hear the remaining cases as they appear on the agenda when your case is called please be seated at the table reserved for the respondents the county will present their case and then the respondents will be allowed to present their case additionally please please
limit your comments only to information related to this case each party May question Witnesses offered on behalf of the other party additionally staff members May question those appearing before the code enforcement board the board will then make their decision
based on the evidence and testimony as presented by both parties all proceedings before the code enforcement board are electronically recorded please speak directly into the microphone at the center of the table when you're up here and state your name clearly before presenting your case should you need
assistance due to a hearing impairment or a language barrier please inform the clerk upon registration all cell phones and other electronic devices are to be turned off or silenced while inside the chambers thank you for your
cooperation with that being said uh I'd like to uh see if I can get a motion from the board to revise revise the agenda so that we can put everybody who's here today first and here are your cases and that would be
taking the cases in this order starting with item number one on page one uh that would be case number 25-16 CB Betty W tanzer and the uh case that goes along
with that item two on the next page 25-17 CB Betty wtan and both those the addresses for both those uh cases are 300 South Sweetwater Cove Boulevard Longwood Florida
32779 then we would go to the uh item number three which is case number 25-18 CB Barbara B Fredericks 230 Scarboro Cove Longwood Florida 32779 uh and the two other cases that go
along with that 25-19 CB and 25-21 CB we would then follow by hearing item number eight on page five that's case number 25-25 CB
Jennifer L Acres 250 Cambridge Drive Longwood Florida 32779 that would then take us to item number 11 case number 24-8 CB philis L
Scott Douglas Street Sanford 32771 and another case for that same respondent 25- 85 CB Phyllis L Scott same uh address information on that
one and after if somebody makes this motion we would then follow all of those by the cases where the people aren't here today do I have a motion to move the agenda in that order so moved second motion by Mr
B second by Miss Townson all in favor say I I so that's what we're going to do uh we will that being said we'll go ahead and get started here so I'd like to uh call the the first case up if you're here to
speak on on that case uh it's 25-16 CB step up to the table Betty W tanzer 300 South Sweetwater Cove Boulevard Longwood Florida 32779 uh this is 's case and AER if you
could tell us about that case and we'll follow it with uh the the next case that I'll read into the well go ahead and read that into the record now uh we're going to have a presentation on this case by Aller Adair and then following that immediately case
number 25-17 CB same respondent same address just a different violation uh ma'am uh we're going to get started thank you for coming you'll be he's going to present both cases and we'll come to you and allow you to talk on both of those as well okay thank you
thank you Al sir dare sir code enforcement officer Cameron s County Sheriff's Office South Region this is case number 25-16 dceb the respondent is Betty W taner I would like to submit a copy of
this PowerPoint presentation to the clerk as exhib a so again this is case number 25-16 dceb the violation is located at 300 South Sweetwater Cove Boulevard in seminal County Florida the violation charge is semal county code chapter 95 section
95.4 as defined a 95.3 F stagnant water my initial inspection was on October 29th 2024 notices to respondent were October 29th 2024 November 15th 2024 and December 11th 2024 the
compliance dates were set for November 15th December 2nd and December 26 2024 the followup inspections were as follows November 15th through including
yesterday March 26 2025 uh the results of the follow-up inspections is the stagnant or foul water violation Still Remains on subject property so this is a picture from my initial inspection you can see the it's
a little hard because the reflection of the Sun but the pool is stagnant again followup inspection on 11:15 2024 the pool is still remain same condition stagnant this is followup inspection on
December 9th uh 2024 the pool remains staging you see the black water clear this is and then follow-up inspection January 2nd you can I believe the water is a little clear in this picture but it still remains
stagnant followup inspection on March 26th or yesterday March 26th uh the pool Remains the Same the suggested recommendation is based on the testimony and evidence
presented in case number 25-16 CB it is determined that the respondent Betty W taner is the owner of record of the property located at 300 South Sweetwater Cove Boulevard located in SEMA County as determined by the property appr appraiser records is in possession or
control of the property and is in violation of semal county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as defined in 95.3 f it is further recommended that the code enforcement board issue an order for the respondent to correct the
violation onor before midnight of April 11th 2025 in order to correct the violation the respondent must remove or clear the stagnant water from the pool if the respondant does not comply with the order a fine of $250 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is
repeated after compliance this concludes my presentation thank you uh before he gives us next one any questions on this particular from the board this particular particular case is this is this pool fenced in yes thank you well
that that'll be the next case and go ahead with that answer code enforcement officer Cameron Adair Sim County Sheriff's Office South Region this is case number 25-1 17- CB the respondent is Betty W tanzer would like to s a copy of this PowerPoint
presentation to the clerk as exhibit B or a the violation is located at 300 South Sweetwater Cove Boulevard in semal County Florida the violation charge is semal county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as defined in 95.3 G unscared
swimming pool initial inspection was on October 29th 2024 notices or respondents were October 29th November 15th and December 11th 2024 compliance states were set for
November 15th December 2nd and December 26 2024 followup inspections were November 15th December 9th 2024 January 2nd and March 26
2025 the results are the unsecured pool violation remains UNS subject property so this is our pictures from my initial inspection on October 29th the left photo you can see the gate is slightly a jar um it's not properly self-closing or
self-latching follow-up inspection on November 15th same results the gate still not properly secured followup inspection on December 9th the gate is still not properly secured it's closed a little but not
properly secured follow-up inspection January 2nd uh I guess the respondent tried to secure it with I believe a bike lock but it still doesn't meet the criteria for the code this is yesterday's inspection it
remains in the same state with the bike lock but still does not meet the criteria the suggested recommendation by the enforcement officer is based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-17 dceb it is deter determined that the respondent Betty W tanzer is
the owner of record of property located at 300 South Sweetwater Cove Boulevard located in semal County as determined by the property appraiser records is in possession or control of the property and is in violation of sem county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as
defined in 95.3 G it is further recommended that the code enforcement board issue an order for the respondent to correct the violation on or before midnight of April 11th 2025 in order to correct the violation the respondent must secure the pool by
surrounding it with a fence or barrier at least 48 Ines in height above the finished ground level ensure the gate and doors in such barrier are self closing and self-latching and ensure that the release mechanism is located on the pool side of the gate if the
respondant does not comply with the order a fine of $250 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance this concludes my presentation thank you any questions rer D could you explain exactly what the requirements for the proper gate would
be for the pool yeah for the pool for the gate to meet code so it's listed right there U how to correct it so it needs to be at least 48 in tall the barrier so the gate would have to be self closing self-latching
with the mechanism on the inside of the pool enclosure so all that means is if I open the gate and walk away it'll close and Latch by itself that way no one behind me or no one come following me will be able to
enter it without actively reaching and pulling the latch so the gate is the only issue then the rest of the fence is fine correct I have one question it looked like like you mentioned there's a lock on it m I'm just curious if that lock
assuming it's securing that gate and it's unable to be open is that I guess it's still in violation somehow it would still be in violation yes and what what's what would it take to correct that lock is what does she need to do you can't have a lock on it or um so she
would have to move the opening mechanism so that little black latch would have to be at the top of the fence and in order to open it latch would have to be on the other side so you can lock it from the other side just not the position is currently is
okay and you're and you're also saying that that latch is not 48 in correct it's about here which roughly under four feet Mr base noticed several series of several
visits and so forth what is the protocol on you know how many times you have to go and inspect and issue an order and go back follow up anyway how
many times you have to do that before we get to this point I'm my concern is having a pool that's forceably unlocked accessible Danger
possibly to others to the community and why do we have to wait three or four five six visits before we can you know take more take more
action so I opened up a case immediately especially with unsecured pools um and we have to give the respondent at least 14 days to have reasonable time to fix the violation right so then after
that initial 14 days I send out the final notice and then from there we submit our sov and send it over to the County Alexis to um put it on the the docket so I don't know why exactly it takes as long as it
does but at least we we have to give them a reasonable amount of time to comply there is the end process and I'm not sure maybe Mr morgus will jump in here too but when it gets to the board
that we if we identify something as a health safety welfare issued to the general public or the community and that comes into play a lot of times in pools not always but sometimes in pools especially if it's a repeat then once that if if that's voted
on and approved and that's in the motion the final motion the county has some Authority and I don't know what that is and I don't know when that kicks in but but they do have some Authority at that point to do things I think correct Mr chairman yes um if if in fact the board
were to find that any violation is a serious threat to the public safety welfare then such would be included in an order to that effect and that would uh by a copy to the county give the county the statutory ability to self
self- remedy and impose the cost of securing the property against the property owner statutorily and it could take effect immediately it would be at the pleasure of the county of course but Tom sort of gets handed off if they want it does if if uh if the
board finds and obviously usually in in my experience that's a recommendation that comes from the code enforcement officer sometimes it's unilaterally decided by the board and or magistrate uh but uh it's certainly within the purview of the board to make a finding
if they feel that such as a is a safety threat uh in terms of the timing to get before the board that may be an administrative in terms of the scheduling but I know that often times working with as we all know working with property owners to try to uh encourage
and coordinate compliance is the ultimate goal so it does at times take a bit longer than uh than uh maybe ideally would be hoped for I have a question for the officer so as a followup to Mr Bates this has
been going on for five months correct okay seeing no other questions uh think Miss tan tan I guess thank you uh and you're the property owner that's listed as respond okay this is going to be your opportunity to address we've got
two issues that we're looking at I understand okay we we got the the gate issue and then the stagnant water uh you heard the recommendations that are on the table and these folks are going to make the decision here so communicate with them whatever you like to but the
the the the recommendation is have both of these each one individually corrected by April 11th or $250 fine will begin on each one that's my 80th birthday so I will be quite aware of it thank you okay
well thank you thank you did you want to say something else I'm sorry no I want you to go ahead and address these for the board because they need to make a decision whether we're going to go with what's being recommended something else but that we're we're we're open to hear what you have to say thank you I
apologize for being here um I've spent my life trying to do the right thing um officer there I'm sorry I missed you yesterday I was outside working all day long I have the bruises
and scratches I was cutting tree lims because I had roofers coming today I got back in town from California on Tuesday morning at 4:00 a.m. which was the only flight I could a for
um by 2:00 my roofers who were not supposed to be there from my leaking roof until April 18th had called and said that they were coming to bring the towels to put on my
roof that day which they did um that was Tuesday Wednesday they came and brought the equipment the dumpster and everything and today they showed up at 6:30 to um they're on my roof right now tearing it
apart um the mitigating circumstance is it take your time man I spoke to you several times on the phone and I appreciate the advice you
gave me and the time that you gave me do you want to address these one at a time maybe the uh the stagnant water with a pool or no it all goes together okay okay go ahead I'm sorry I'm sorry no take my husband of 54 years passed
away in in between hurricane one and hurricane two number one as you know didn't do any damage in our area hurricane 2 did
damage there is a fence between my house I'm on a corner my neighbor is on the other corner and there's a fence between us it's a long fence that um my husband and I it was there when we
bought the house house we replaced it twice it had gotten old again in the meantime um when Co hit my husband was in the travel industry and he um was forced to resign from his job of 29
years because they couldn't pay him anymore hotels and travel were shut down um he thought it would Co would be over quickly so he made the choice against my best wishes to go ahead and
continue paying bills and um he B used his 401k he mortgaged the house and borrowed on his life insurance the cash value on his life insurance we sold our
car after um a year and a half almost 2 years um we we're out of money so my husband who was vice president of a small management
company took a job as a host at Red Lobster and I started delivering groc food for Uber e so we've done everything we could to survive but he had a heart attack in
midt with no warning he had a St replaced and was in ICU for a week came home and got steadily worse even despite seeing his cardiologist who said you're fine you
just need more time um he had a second heart attack um 4 days after this Milton the bad hurricane which did damage the the fence between my house and our neighbor did
not break but the middle section bowed down and was like pretty close to being on the ground um I spent uh the night of Milton in the in a rental car in the parking
lot at alont mall because I couldn't get a room anywhere without driving all the way down to whatever the big resort area is south of um Disney and I didn't feel like it
go that far when I came home I saw the fence was down started trying to call people to fix it I couldn't get anybody to even answer I heard voices out in my
neighbor's yard I went over my neighbors are the owners of the house are in their '90s um their daughter was there from out of town with her husband and they were cleaning up and I told them um I had not
told anyone in my neighborhood about my husband because I couldn't talk about it yet I told them and told them that when he
died the hospital notified Social Security who immediately notified my bank truest and they froze my checking account because it was a joint account with my husband so I
told the daughter and son-in-law of my situation that my husband had passed away that I had very limited funds as it turned out it was even worse than I thought because um the hospital
would not sign the death certificate because they took my husband on that final night to a different hospital than the one where his cardiologist was because it was closer so the hospital wouldn't sign the
death certificate because it was not their patient and the cardiologist wouldn't sign the death certificate because he was not there so the help the little bit of life insurance I had pending they could not
pay it because there was no death certificate I only got a death certificate 30 days after my husband died and that was only because my funeral home went to bed for me and called the court the board of directors
for funeral homes because they were in trouble for not disposing of my husband's body within 30 days like they were mandated to do and that's the only reason the cardiologist finally signed the death certificate I'm sorry I'm
telling you this to let you know part of what has been going on in my life the other part is that um my son lives in Los Angeles he has third degree heart block
because his sinus node which is the electrical current in your heart was SED during open heartart surgery for an infection he lives with a dual pacemaker that's the only way his heart
beats when he found out about his father he was very distraught because after the first heart attack his last conversation would to be to tell his dad to get a proper diet and
to start exercising so I left to go to Los Angeles to be with my son in the meantime officer D when I got back I think I was there 3
weeks when I got back offer s dar's cards were on the door I found them and I I think I called you immediately you might remember the conversation and told you I would get working on it which I did uh we have a
pool company that's always been very good to is take care of any issues with the pool motor it had broken and the the pool had become stagnant before I left
no before I left town I heard the nber's daughter and son-in-law out in the yard I went out and explained to them what the circumstances were I said you know can you help me
lift the fence up and the mail said um I've already tried it's too heavy we'll have to get somebody to do it and I said okay and he said I'll get back to you I said Thank you and I left town to be with my son and didn't hear anything he
had my phone number my tech I gave him a text message the way to text message me about 5 days later I got a message and he said we're back in Indiana and I had explained everything
in my life including no money and and dead husband and everything and he said we're back in Indiana um I couldn't do anything about
the fence I suggest you hire someone to put a new one up so I answered after thinking about it carefully and I said it was so nice to meet you and Jan I appreciate the advice
I hope we don't have another hurricane it's still in hurricane season and I guess he took a fense to that I can show you the text message on my phone but he called to the homeowners association
and reported that I had a tarp on my roof because my roof was leaking and the roofing company couldn't get to me yet he told the homeowners association where I have lived for 40
years that my husband had died that was not his news to give to anybody anyway after I answered him back indicating that I I wouldn't be doing anything anything I couldn't do anything um miraculously somebody came
in jerked my gate open came in my property put a rope around a tree in my yard and pull the fence back up I guess he hired someone to do that and that's the way it is now I don't know if you noticed that when you were there but it it's dirty the the fence is
okay but that's not a permanent solution he also I believe called code enforcement I I think I don't know what you think but I think that's pure evil but I know there's a plan for all of us so I'll leave that to someone
besides me to determine in the meantime I did at one point get get the pool clean um I um I didn't know how the gate was
supposed to be done I did the what I thought was acceptable I didn't understand as I think one of you didn't understand what the what the gate had to be like now I know um I came back in town um Tuesday
morning as I said 4:00 a.m. and the roofers bless their hearts they did come early so I don't get any worse damage inside my home but um I called Pool Shack in Alm
to takes care of the motor on the pool and he called me want to come this morning and I said no you can't the roofers are here so he's coming in the morning to fix the motor uh apparently the tornado I don't know what it did
here but it messed up the fencing at the um Clubhouse in Sweetwater Oaks so um I think it was right on Hunt Club which is a couple of blocks from my home it was a lot of silt but it it blew a bunch of stuff into the pool and evidently the
pool motor stopped working and um I guess that was I don't know how I missed you yesterday as I said I was outside but um Mike is coming to to fix the motor in the morning and uh get it
cleaned and um I will get someone to fix the gate in the proper way and as I said I'm sorry to be in front of you I'm sorry to take your time ma'am uh the pool motor currently does not work is is that correct I when
I I I went out and the water load was low I explained to Mike the pool guy the water level was low I filled it with water um yesterday day before yesterday I filled it with water I backwashed it to see if
there was de in it if you have pools you understand all of this it came out clear meaning there was no de so I filled it with de I um put new tablets in it I turned it on and the de came out the
um outlets in the pool so when I told Mike that he said that something was wrong inside the motor and he would have to come out and fix it and I I think I know what it is it's the panels in there that filter the de and and keep it
from going out in the pool and instead filtering the water so he's going to come in the morning and we'll fix that and the pool will be fixed before my birthday and if I can find someone competent and cheap then the gate will
be fixed before my birthday too and I I thank you for any um any leeway and any kindness you can give me you're already giving it by saying I can have until April 11th thank you well thank you and thank you for
sharing all that with us and we're I'm sorry that was so long and you probably don't need to watch any of the reality shows today ma'am are you currently living in this home or are you currently living in California no no I just um I I went back out there because as I said my
son has a serious heart condition and he was just told that um he's going to need more open heart surgery soon that he needs to be at a teaching hospital because his condition is so tenuous that um he needs the very best
doctors and equipment so you are currently living in in your I live in Longwood I'm going to live in Longwood thank you man' any other questions do you ma'am do you foresee being able to get these two
things corrected by the 11th I hope it will be within you know four or five days the pool will be done tomorrow and you know I don't know how long it will take to for it to clear maybe a day or two after it's been cleaned and and the
motor is running um the gates um I don't I don't know how backed up they are right now all right thank you thank you officer D when was the last time you were out there I'm just curious
yesterday besides yesterday oh yesterday okay I missed that then so so the pool's still the coloring is everything okay okay and you have anything to add on to what she said does that sound everything sound accurate as far as you know as far as I'm aware yes thank
you uh okay so we have a couple decisions to make we make them separately uh I I'd just like to say the board before there's a motion on the floor that what staff is asking for here what code
enforcement is asking for here is basically I mean at $250 a day I mean that's $115,000 a month in leans so I just want to make it clear that that's what they're asking for before there we move forward I agree and I I would add
on that giving the circumstances she's sounds like she's tried as hard as she could to do what she could at this point so we certainly can make whatever fine we would like if there is a fine or what have you uh the I'm curious about the uh
the date I'm worried about us it's a short turn around to some degree not not given what the issue is we need to make sure that's done but uh are you sure the you can have this done and what you you say 3 or 4 days yes my pool man is coming in the morning to fix the panels
in the motor and then get it cleaned and um I I will find someone to put up a new gate a proper gate okay you may not need the whole gate speak with the codeos or whatever you need to get that fixed but
thank you for that uh okay so that's where we're at uh let's see if we can get uh something done here on 25-16 CB this will be the stagnant watercase staff recommendation compliance by April
11th or 250 fine and it's up to us I'm encouraged that she feels like that she's going to be able to get on top of this and get it
corrected but I guess I would in case she doesn't I would just move that we uh proceed with the officer recommendations except to reduce the
fine to $100 a day and if what she's planning doesn't take place maybe she can get back in touch with off there and
they can make some sort of arrangements or something I I don't see any sense in I mean sounds like it's headed toward correction and I'd like to encourage that as much as possible
and but still say that in the end if if it doesn't happen we'll have to take further action you would still like uh April 11th yeah seems to not be a problem she said in four or five days I'd like to
give her a month Miss Townson if you could just lower your microphone so well thank you um I was just asking the motion or if he'd be willing to amend that to maybe give her another 30 days instead of two weeks on this one yes yeah that yeah that'd be all right I I
would amend the motion then so the motion would State as for this case that you would move to to compliance by when uh calendar here May 11 May 11th
okay and and then if if if no compliance is met by May 11th F fine of $100 I believe is what you said $100 F okay if okay Mr B is making the motion I just wanted to get clarification for the board so as I understand for the
board's edification you're looking at a compliant State a motion to comply by May 11th or in event compliance is not met a fine to be imposed of $100 per day $100 a day on this case okay I understand that's the motion by Mr B thank you very good uh just for
clarification are we covering both one and here just for the moment one one and then we'll do the other so that's the everybody understand the motion that's what we have on the table uh a second that a second by Miss towns in motion
debate second M Townsen it was just read by Mr all in favor say I I opposed motion carries uh moving on to the next case uh same same respondent 25-7 CB this is the
fence case the same recommendation is on the table and we can uh make whatever motion we want uh recommendations by April 11th or 250 for day fine we have I would copy the motion from the
first one and make it um in compliance by May 11th if not a $100 a day five I was second for discussion my problem with that is I'm more concerned about this one
from a potential Public Safety basis than I am the stagnant water frankly but because of potential access to get into the pool and following into it
and I'm a little more sensitive about that perhaps than others might be because of some past experience of but it's got a pad loock on it it's just not high enough well I anybody's going to be able
to all right so that would be the it does the it's got the lock it's just not according to code is that right it's secured so no uh it needs the barrier itself needs to be 48 in so that's the
minimum requirement needs to be 4T the latch the lock needs to be 50 where is it 54 in and located on the interior of the pool like the pool side and then along with that a lock does not suffice but it has to be self-closing
self-latching meaning without human intervention the gate will close by itself okay so it's not up to code but it's secured it's locked technically yes but I cannot say it technically yes but I can't I have to
go by the code right I understand that you need it done by the code I understand the code but I'm just concerned about the thing being secured so so that somebody doesn't toddle in there and fall in
and something really bad happened so okay if it's secured I'll second her Motion in you were there yesterday sir did you attempt to open the gate yesterday no but previously I was unable to open it correct you were unable to open it with
the bicycle lock on it correct thank you motion by Miss towns and second by Mr Bates that we time on that May 11th uh by $1 by May 11th compliance date yes sir uh or $100 a day fine is what we
have on the table that's correct uh any other discussion see none all in favor say I iOS okay Carrie so that's what we've done ma'am uh both of those issues uh you have until May not uh April but May
11th or $100 per day fine so it gives you extra time uh normally everything was taken into consideration I'll just leave it at that so I understand that and I thank you so very much ma'am thank I do have a question if the if the barrier meaning
the fence or the gate has to be 48 in in height but the latch has to be less than 54 in I still don't understand where the latch is supposed to be if if the barrier is 48 which is 4T Mr chairman I I would
recommend that the the respondent get with code enforcement and they can work through the details now when you you leave here if he's still go and just wait for him or call him like but he'll he'll guide you on that okay if I miss you alic s thereare I have your number I'll call you is that okay yes ma'am
thank you and thank you for coming in today and everything you've done I thank you so much and I'm sorry I fell apart I'm sorry you just want to lower your microphone so we've got you on mic microphone everything's got to be on the mic I'm sorry that's that's why I
was just remarking that um perhaps they can give her some guidance on where she can find somebody who's just willing to do a gate without the fence okay and uh so if we're good we're going to move to the next case which
is 25 uh 25-18 CB Barbara B Frederick's 230 Scarboro Cove Longwood Florida 32779 uh looks like this respondent has two other cases as well it'll be followed by 25-19 CB same respondent
same address followed by 25-21 CB same respondent same address thank you all so very thank you ma'am and best of luck thank
you ma'am could you state your name please Barbara Fredericks thank you and you're the owner named on this property thank you ma'am oh okay thank you whenever you're ready I'll sir there yes sir code enforcement officer Cameron adir Sim County Sheriff's Office South
Region this is case number 25-1 18- CB the respondent is Barbara B Fredericks like to submit a copy of this PowerPoint present to the clerk as exhibit a the violation is located at 230 Scarboro Cove sem County Florida the violation
charge as Su county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as defined in 95.3 G unsecured swimming pool initial inspection was on September 25th 2024 notice the respondent was on
September 25th 2024 compliance states were set for October 11th 2024 and follow-up inspections were October 24th 2024 March 14th dat of posting 2025 and yesterday March 26
2025 the results of followup inspection are the unsecured pool violation remains on subject property so these are images from when I first initially saw the violation on September 25th 2024 you can see the
enclosure has collapsed in on itself and pushed the the gate open followup inspection October 24th 2024 same results the gate is still open this is date of posting yesterday March 14th or correction this is date of
posting on March 14th 2025 and same results the gate is still open this is yesterday's inspection on March 26 2025 uh it looks like the respondent attempted to secure the pool with a
chain and padlock is the suggested recommendation by the me is based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-18 CB it is determined that the respondent Barbara B B Fredericks is the owner of record of property located at 230
Scarboro Cove located in sem County as determined by the Property Appraiser's records is in possession or control of the property and is in violation sem county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as defined in 95.3 G is further recommended that the code
enforcement board issue an order for the respondent to correct the violation on or before midnight of April 11th 2025 in order to correct the violation the respondent must secure the pool by surrounding it with a fence or barrier at least 48 in in height above the finished ground level ensure the gates
and doors and such barriers are self-closing and self-latching and ensure that the release mechanism is located on the pool side of the gate if the respondent does not comply with the order a fine of $250 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance this concludes
my presentation thank you any questions for us there seeing none if you want to move on to the next case which will be case number 25-19 CB
[Applause] code enforcement officer camon semal County South semal County Sheriff's Office South Region this is case number 25-19 cev the respondent is Barbara B Fredericks would like to submit a copy of this PowerPoint presentation to clerk
as exhibit B the violation is located at 230 Scarboro Cove semal County Florida the violation charge is semal county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as defined in 95.3 B uncultivated
vegetation initial inspection was on September 9th 2024 notices to respondent are September 9th and September 25th 2024 compliance dates were set for September 25th and October
11th 2024 follow-up inspections were September 25th through yesterday octo or March 26 2025 the followup inspection results are the violation of uncultivated vegetation
remains on subject property this is my initial inspection on September 9 2024 you see the vegetation coming from the top of the frame is now on the remains
follow-up inspection on September 25th 2024 the vegetation Still Remains followup inspection October 24th 2024 the vegetation is in the same state this is date of posting on March
14th 2025 the vegetation remains and this is yesterday's inspection March 26 2025 vegetation remains the suggested recommendation by the code enforcement officer is based on testimony and evidence presented in case number
259-c it is determined that the respondent Barbara B Fredericks is the owner of record of property located at 230 Scarboro Cove located in sem County as determined by the property ofer's records is in possession or control of the property and is in violation of sem
county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as defined in 95.3 B it is further recommended that the code enforcement board issue an order for the respondent to correct the violation honored before midnight of April 11th 2025 in order to correct the violation
the respondent must remove all the uncult fad of vegetation in excess of 8 in in height from the property if the respondent does not comply with the order fine of $50 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance this concludes my presentation thank you any questions for
for there in this case see none we're moving to the next third and final case on this respondent 25-21 CB uh whenever you're ready code enforcement officer karen adir s County
Sheriff's Office South Region this is case number 25-21 ceb the respondent is Barbara B Fredericks the violation is located at 230 Scarboro Cove sem County Florida the violation charge of semal county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as defined a
95.3 h any other material or condition tending by its existing and or accumulation to endanger or adversely affect the health safety lives or well-being of citizens of Simo County the initial inspection was on
September 9th 2024 notices to respondent were September 9th and September 25th 2024 compliance dates were set for September 25th and October 11th 2024 follow-up inspections were
September 25th 2024 through yesterday March 26 2025 the results of followup inspection where the violation remains on subject property these are images from my initial inspection on September 9 2024
you can show the pool enclosure um let me reiterate this that her and her neighbor share a zero uh zero lot line so meaning that pool enclosure connects to her name house that's why this is the violation it is
so the vi uh the pool enclosure being collapsed like that directly affects the neighbor so this is a follow-up inspection on September 25th 2024 the pool enclosure remains in the same
state o follow-up inspection October 24th 2024 pool enclosure remains in the same state say dat of posting Mar March 14th 20245 the pool enclosure remains in the same state this is yesterday's follow-up
inspection uh March 26 2025 pool remains in the same state the suggested recommendation is based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-21 CB it is determined that the respondents Barbara
B Fredrick is the owner of record of property located at 230 Scarboro Cove located in sem County as to determined by the property appraiser records is in possession or control of the property and is in violation of su county code chapter 95 section
94 95.4 as defined in 95.3 Ag and it is further recommended that the code enforcement board issue an order for the respondent to correct the violation on or before midnight of April 11th 2025 in order to correct the violation the respondent must repair the
pool enclosure to its original condition or remove it in its entire if the respondent does not comply with the order a fine of $100 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance this concludes my presentation thank you questions Al sir
dare Mr dare is there a history with this property and can you go over it with us um so I do not remember when the exact code board date was but we've prevently had a lean hearing for this property for remains Rebel of a structure
um so that was sometime last year and last we left off she was working with rebuild Florida to have the house removed or demolished and rebuilt the the roof was basically collapsed in on itself if I remember correctly correct
thank you is that do you know if that's still the case today yes so uh the HOA sent me building plans with the intent that they're going to demolish the house and build it I do not know when that will
take place thank you and wouldn't this be included in removal of that for abolish okay the the first case and the third case seem similar in nature but I guess they're different one's the enclosure
and one is securing the pool but the enclosure secures the pool are they are they sort of the same thing or they actually two violations two separate violations okay so if the stru were removed then she would still have an unsecured pool the rest of the fence the property is not
fenced yes so if the structure is removed the pool would still be unsecured but um I believe yeah thank you any other questions see I don't have a question I'm ready to make a motion no we're going to hear from the respondent oh
that's right hello I usually the one doing it Miss Frederick this is your opport we've got three issues here you heard them I can clarify or any of us can clarify if you want but it's your chance um the pool is um the drain is
open so there can't be any water in it and then there's a um a cover over it which probably has been semi destroyed because of the um all the debris filing on it when um I've been approved for
rebuild um of Florida to come in and um um rebuild it um there's just just been some issues with the homeowners and I don't know where it goes with seminol County if all you know the approvals are there is um I haven't gotten a date but
I do have a letter from um from them for you um and to where you can call them if they you know they like they've um moved on out of the Orlando area but my um the person that's been working with me is
still in contact with me and it will still go ahead apparently um what do they have a date any plans just where how how far along the process are they if they you said they moved out of town she says
um let's see this is the rebuild company correct yes this is the um rebuild floorida ma'am if you have a copy of that you can submit that and can be made part of the case VI but you'll have to relinquish
control of that when we read it into the record yeah yeah that's for you you you heard Mr morgon that will have to be left into our records you okay with that thank we can provide our a copy back it's a if I could Mr chair you go ahead
you go ahead there you can read it to the to the board okay uh this is dated March 22nd 2025 to whom it may concern uh Miss Barbara Fredericks is participating in the rebuild Florida housing repair and replacement program
Fry's R hrrp for Hurricane Ian through the administration of the Florida commerce agency uh Miss Barbara Fredericks has gone through the initial damage assessment environmental review and has executed the signing of the homeowner
Grant agreement in Florida commerce Miss Fredericks has been awarded a construction of her home she is currently under the preconstruction review phase and awaiting for the final Key activities to be approved before the start of physical
construction Miss Barbara Fredericks has taken a proactive approach to resolve the issues and concerns with her home by applying for rebuild Florida housing repair and replacement program once final Key activities are review and approved the new construction of Miss
Frederick's home will begin if you have any questions feel free to contact me at the number Alexis Cole case manager uh rebu Florida hrrp I would like to see that please yeah I'd like to know what the Florida commerce agency is I know a lot about
state government I know what the Florida Department of Commerce is is it that Federal program or state progam and there is a federal program there this Federal program does in fact exist
but the Florida commerce agency does not exist as far as I'm aware anybody else want to see this well they're looking at that ma'am are do you have anything else you'd like to add or are you done no I just um I I
mean I knew the um problems with um you know a child getting into a pool area so I did put a padlock on the door I I didn't know how else to secure it but at least you know would prevent a child from getting into the pool area
um adult or whatever either but um because it is definitely isn't safe but um I'd like to address this to the accy attorney uh in my opinion of the six years I've been here if anything we've
ever seen I think qualifies as a health Public Safety welfare issue to be referred to the county for consideration I would think this is it so I would like to make that motion however I need to word that okay well are you discussing
the first and third of the cases actually I'd like to refer all of them including the vegetation as a l sum under that heading well let's talk about that for a minute if we can uh the vegetation if you if it's fine vegetation violation
could be a public safety and health issue I would I'd encourage you to get some information from the code and forcement officer about um the the proximity of the property at issue with the residents and you know the status of any Vermin or what have you with regard
to that violation with regard to the pool enclosure and the security pool enclosure obviously that's not an uncommon finding if there's a a serious threat in those types of violations and if one were to make a motion to that effect it would simply just be that uh in addition to finding of non-compliance
that the motion include the fact that it's a the condition is a serious threat in fact if I couldi if I could I'd like to to make a motion on this vegetation so that we can just clear it out of the way and get to exactly what she's saying cuz I think she's on to something here
um and this has just got to be a catastrophe for these neighbors that have a zero lot line um so I would like to move that in the uh case of the vegetation 25 which which will be
25-19 uh I'd like to move that we accept the recommendation of Staff find it in violation with the staff recommended a fine of $50 per day motion on table uh motion is to have compliance by April 11th or $50 a day
fine that's on that's on case number 25- 19 CB that deals with the vegetation issue I'll second that second by Mr signing uh uh excuse me second by Mr Davis
motion sign all in favor say I I I posed n yeah I ask a question one day one moment ma'am uh passes for 41 sir P passed 401 if I if I heard Mr Bates
correctly uh was in favor it was a that motion was yes I'm sorry yes 41 yes sir correct yes sir now I think we can get to what you're getting at and yes ready you want to say something no no I'm ready well two respondent would like to
say something oh I thought I heard somebody say they wanted to say something M you question the the siid of the pool enclosure are still standing it's the roof that's caved in and and vegetation that was on
that um it I don't think it's a safe thing to go into and try and remove vegetation now until the whole thing is going to be removed with with this rebuil do you understand what I'm trying to say
well yeah and we appreciate the the input we we sort of that's being taken into consideration to the safety issues of I mean to remove the vegetation just to remove the vegetation all the the debris is still there and um it's not I don't can't
imagine somebody doing it you know and being safe doing just vegetation just to get it out of there well when all of this is going to be removed hopefully very very soon well I'm not sure you'll have to see who does the vitation and
concerns share them with officer Adair uh Mr chairman if I could the board the cas is before the board for the violation all the board has done is find that the vegetation violation exists and has given you a time for compliance with regard to that that's all they've done in the event that the
vegetation violation is not corrected then the board uh May impose a $50 fine per day until the I understand that but but that's all the board's that's all the board is charged with addressing ma'am so the timing and the staging of
these issues is something for you and your team to coordinate that's not something for the board to walk you through they're simply here to hear these cases and make a finding of a violation or not and if so um the requisite fine to be uh applied if such
with with respect to the board uh Mr chair before you make a motion on the other two hi my name is Megan orski I'm a project coordinator for planning and zoning and there was a question on the floor um about the agency for the Florida of Commerce it does appear that certain departments under Florida of
Commerce um do use the term agency so it it is a valid I deal with the residential permitting for a lot of these structures and they have to provide me a checklist that it's affordable housing or reconstruction when they submit at the time of Permitting um she may be working through
their processes but there has not yet been a permit submitted with semal County for a demolition or rebuild of the existing structure um to bring this property in compliance a demo permit
could be issued for the residence itself prior to the single family residents being submitted for permitting that happens all the time as long as zoning knows that there's going to be a permit coming back in for the replacement of
the structure um the pool would not be an issue so long as it was secured appropriately during the Demolition and waiting for the single family resident permit to come back in thank you for clearing that up for me I did see a place online where they had the department had referred to itself as
Florida commerce all one word so I guess we I I think they're updating their site just as fast as laws are changing in the State of Florida it seems like our agencies are changing just as quickly someday I may decide to live in the 21st century I thank you thank you for adding that
appreciate it I'm sorry I have one more qu this may be a question of orare I'm not sure uh but based on I don't know if you heard what I read from the letter but based on where she says she's at with this agency or uh would there have
been a permit pulled by now a and my not necessarily I can tell you with Habitat for Humanity um it can take them several months to um get through the funding
portion to allocate funds I know I just recently permitted a house from Irma that was through the state so the resolution for the structure itself could take years the these do not
move quickly when they're through the state from my experience thank you and along with that it unlike I guess a building permit violation that we've dealt with uh if we if they had a permit tomorrow for this our it doesn't make
this one go away is that correct aler Adair or whoever has the answer to this or does the vi does the violation go away as soon as we get a permit and they're they're working on it or is it so for an unsafe structure sure and I'm not going to try to step out on Mr
adair's toes here um from unpermitted construction standpoint when we have something that's similar in nature that's had work done the way to bring it into compliance is to remove the nuisance so in this case an unsafe structure could be resolved by removing
said unsafe structure hence a demolition permit for the home thank you thank you uh I think we're ready to hear from Miss Townsen now okay Miss Townsen I think I made my motion no I just needed help on wording
it well we the the case that was dealt with was the second of the three so that was 25- 19- CB by um the motion by Mr Simon which was seconded by Mr Bates and was approved 4 to1 so the so now we have one and three out there one and three so
we'll be back to 2518 I Mr chairman thank you thank you so we'll start with uh 25-18 CB this is the uh that's
number one that secured pool yes yes and then number three let's let's do this first one are you want separate okay recommend one one at a time uh my motion be that I recommend that it be referred to the county under the health
safety and public welfare issues we can add that uh we need uh I think we need to also find it that it's out a compliance and that give them a date a date and a a date and a fine right if I could understand your motion Miss town and you if I understood what you were
saying you were moving to approve uh approve or find the recommendation of the county but with the additive that the property the violation can con strs a serious threat to the public and you want that found in the motion as well with a compliance date of April 11th if
not the recommended fine that's why I was asking for help on how to word it thank you both I will second that okay uh motion by Miss p towns and second Mr I'm sorry um yeah if if we
pass that motion and it she the date isn't met is that on the county then at that point who's responsible for meeting the date well that's a great question what what the finding of a serious threat to the public health safety does is statutorily the order it's going to
be signed by the chairman if that order be adopted a copy of that order would would be copied to the county they'd be put on notice that the board found there was a serious public threat stemming from a violation the county could then could then doesn't have to has the discretion to then act independently to
take self-help to remedy the violation expend funds to bring the property into compliance and then assess those costs against the property owner but the significance of the finding from the code enforcement board by adopting that in an order is it then gives the county
The Authority Under statute to take action if is needed in the County's assessment so if we it's not an automatic it doesn't automatically mean that the governing Authority would take action it just gives them the right to so the fine can still accumulate even though we put the responsibility on the
county yes absolutely and any costs of bringing the property into CLI would be ultimately assessed against the property owner if if the county took the remedial action to remove or what have you the reason I'm in this predicament
is because I don't have money to to do things and that's why I was recommended by the somebody that I had spoken to here to go to rebuild Florida and now they're going to take
care of it but now you want me to pursue something else well we're taking everything into consideration including what you just shared with us including everything you've shared so but we have to make a decision today and this is
impacting other people so we have also have to take that in consideration uh that's what we're doing so in the end that's that's where we're at I mean just I know the Aesthetics is impacting her but is there in any other way impacting
her Well ma'am at this point we're talking about a motion for we can't get into neighbors impacts or anybody's impacts uh Mr chairman I know we had a motion uh by Miss Townson and did was there a second but by Mr s okay can I ask I'm sorry I have another question
could I ask the person from zoning does does this agency she's working with have any possibility of reimbursing her if the county takes care of this issue soon or is that just it's just off the table then once the county resolves the
issue I can't speak to that and I apologize um nuisance abatement um projects are done through building not through zoning so I'm not aware of their process for that um
however the likelihood that a state the state allots so much money from what I understand for like the demo the rebuild um if the county comes in and demolishes it and you know puts up a fence to secure the pool because the screen enclosure needs to come down as well at
the same time um I don't know what the process would be because the county doesn't have a contract with the state to get reimbursement the county is going to go back after the property owner for reimbursement so could they
potentially um but if there's so much money and they're allotting for all of the different homes that need work I don't know what the likelihood is that the state would reimburse the county for nuisance abatement so what it would come down to is it would be the owner's responsibility to try to pursue that
correct um to get reimbursed because the county would assess the property owner or lean the property owner for nuis nuisance abatement remediation and um then she would have to deal with that consequence thank you
okay I think we're back to a motion Mr Townsen uh to accept stat recommendation find was violation SS recommendation as presented uh and adding on that it's a safe uh safety threat safety threat
Health welfare to the public uh tag it with that uh and I believe second by Mr s yes sir absolutely uh okay is that okay so I think it's where we're at all in favor everybody understand the motion let me
try again okay all in favor say I I oppose that's that one we have one left uh on this same respondent and it's 25-21 CB uh on page three it's item number five this uh
is this is the uh structure pool enclosure location yes pool enclosure location that sort of collapsed and needs to be dealt with the other one was the unsecure pool this is the closure itself uh the STA recommendation uh by
April 11th or $100 per day fine so's being recommended any thoughts on that one I repeat my motion for the first one okay so just to clarify Miss Townson the motion for this case 2521 CB would be to
uh accept staff's recommendation with the additional finding of a serious threat violation consists serious threat and giving the uh respondent until April 11th to i' be in favor of since that we know the county can be backed up maybe
giving them till May the 11th okay so you can make that part of your motion then yes okay I would I would repeat my first motion with the um caveat of May the 11th in order for them to have time to evaluate it okay and you want to make a serious threat finding as part of your
motion okay that's the motion Mr chairman adverse health safety lives and Welfare of the citizens of Simo County I'll second that okay motion by Mr Townson second by Mr Davis uh to accept stat recommendation as presented after
finding that there has there is a violation SE stat recommendation however changing the compliance date to May 11th or a $100 per day fine begins in that's the motion on the table all in favor say I iOS so what we've done ma'am the the one
you've got three different violations here the the the the enclosure that needs to be dealt with that sort of collaps you've got till May 11th you got a little extra time on that uh or $100 day fine the uh the pool being secure uh
till April 11th or $250 a day fine and the vegetation by April April 11th or $50 a day fine so okay now what what needs to be done to secure the also dare will explain on each of those violations
whatever you need I had talked to him about a month several weeks ago maybe two weeks ago and he said something about putting post up and chicken wire across the the am I right and I had asked if you
could send me a picture of how how that should be put up and I didn't get anything so that's why I went to the um he'll have to discuss what whatever measures are available for you separate from the the
meeting here correct we'll discuss after okay thank you for coming in thank you much appreciated thank you well before we convene this case I forgot to submit the uh PowerPoint presentation for 25-21 I would like to submit that now as a
copy free I done no we're good next case we're going to hear is on page five uh case number it's item 8 case number 25-25 CB Jennifer L ACR 250 Cambridge Drive along with Florida 32779
if you're here for that case if you could please step step up to the table and when you get seated if you could uh tell me your names and your relationship to the case uh Jennifer acers I'm the
homeowner Scott Eisman and uh friend neighbor boyfriend okay thank you okay Officer D whenever you're ready code enforcement officer Cameron Adair s County Sheriff's Office South Region this is case number
25-25 CB the respondent is Jennifer L Acres I would like to submit a copy of this PowerPoint presentation to the clerk as exhibit a the violation is located at 250 Cambridge Drive semal County Florida the violation charge semal county code
chapter 95 section 95.4 as defined 95.3 abandoned or junk Vehicles my initial inspection was on November 6 2024 notices to respondents were November 20th and December 16th
2024 with the following compliance stes December 6th 2024 and January 1st 2025 followup inspections were 11 November 20th 2024 through and including yesterday March 26 2025 the results are
the abandoned drunk vehicle violation remains on subject property this are images from my initial inspection on November 6 2024 you can see in this image there's actually three vehicles on the property but I only took
pictures of the two on the left you can see a vehicle under a tarp with flat tires and on the right you see see a damaged vehicle with grass growing up to the frame indicating it has not moved this is a follow-up inspection on November 20th 2024 same
results this is a followup December 16th 2024 you can see that the initial vehicle that had the flat tires has been pumped full of air on the left and the vehicle on the right with the grass has been covered by a tarp followup inspection on January 2nd
2025 same results they have not been proven operable and but you can still tell it is the same vehicle based off the damage that's the picture on the right this is a follow-up inspection uh yesterday March 26
20202 you could see the red vehicle has been removed but the other two remained and you can tell it's the same vehicle by the the damage color of it plus it has some sort of brick or 2x4 stop uh under the wheel preventing it from
Rolling the suggested recommendation by the code enforcement officer is based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-25 CB it is determined that the respondent Jennifer L AER is the owner of record of property located at 250 Cambridge Drive located in Semel
County as determined by the property appraisers records is in possession or control of the property and is in violation of someone county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as defined in 95.3 it is further recommended that the code enforcement board issue an order for the respondent to correct the
violation on or before midnight of April 11th 2025 in order to correct the violation the respondent must remove or repair all inoperable vehicles or store them in an enclosed garage or permitted attached carport if the respondent does not
comply with an order a fine of $100 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance this concludes my presentation thank you any questions officer dare I want to make sure I was counting correctly there are two at this point
not three yes thank you okay uh um sir before I'm sorry one more thing H how do we know this is a violation if the vehicles are tarped and have air in the tires we've spoke on the
phone once uh and he told me that the vehicles do not run they're old cars he's working on mean but I mean we don't know whether they I mean they're in the same parking space but we don't really know whether they've been moved or not correct they have to me the indicators are there that
they have not been moved in some time thank you and I'm assuming that normally if there was a question in your mind since he said that he was working and they they weren't running he was working you would have asked him to move him forward and backwards he probably didn't do that because he told you they weren't right
every time I came to the house knock on the door no [Music] answer okay uh Miss I'm Sorry Miss acres and your uh your friend is with you this is your opportunity to speak to these
you heard the recommendation uh it's asking the staff recommendation is asking for it to be corrected by April 11th or $100 a day fine the car is all run they all Drive I did leave multiple messages on his
answering machine I spoke to him one time end of last year I don't remember exactly when I did tell him that one car did not run but I was in the process of making it run that's the one that um the gray one that I don't know if you can show
the pictures again but and I've called that one in the middle in the middle the one on the right it was not running it had a short and we fixed it it runs and drives now the one all the way to the left is a 1957 Chevy if I I have
pictures of it on my phone none of these cars are junk those two are classic cars that car I sold so that one was gone a long time ago which I called and told him about on the conversation the one time I spoke to him I even called
yesterday and left him a message but you haven't returned any of my calls only the one time that I called you that I that I spoke to you I called you this morning I checked my messages and I don't have a message from you this
morning but not withstanding the cars run and drive the the burgundy car is gone and uh the other two are on eBay for sale so if you want to see them run and drive I don't have a problem with that
but can't we have a cover on a car I mean isn't yeah isn't it legal to have a proper cover on a car those aren't tarps those are car covers that are made for those cars $100,000 isn't that the the code a car cover that fits on that car I I don't think he'd be here if there was
just a car cover on it sir I think he took everything in consideration all the facts considered including the fact that you said they weren't running and that's why we're here today well I said one wasn't running which it is now but those are car covers not tarps and a tarps not legal but a car cover that is made for
that car is legal no right that I'm unaware of it being illegal to have a car cover it's not what we're here for it's not legal a sheriff came to my house knocked on my door told me that if I had a car cover that was made for that car that that
would be illegal and and I don't have to prove that it runs and drives in that state but I don't have a problem proving that because they do I understand but what is it you're asking me to to do I'm asking you if the recommendation if you
have anything to share on the rec if you want to share anything which you have share it a lot that all be taken consideration and the recommendation if that's doable it sounds like you're claiming It's Already Done uh that by April 11th everything will be corrected
will be a $100 a day fine so you mean to make sure the car is run and drive yeah when REM that's the correction right yes that would resolve the problem yeah they currently do and if you want to make a date to
come check I have no problem with that we'll discuss after but yes pardon me we'll discuss after but yes okay so so you're saying sir that you can um contact Mr dare he can see the vehicles run yes move from their spot where they
currently are then back into their spot absolutely that would theoretically put him in compliance yes yes wonderful we have an option Mr go ahead sir just one question are these vehicles licensed current tags so forth
or does that even enter into this consideration that's only an indicator that they're inoperable have I been able to see the license plate and prove that it's up to date no that's question was under the car Mr that's a question for the respondent to see if they have any
uh documentation to show that the vehicles that are subject to the case are tagged and licensed as part of their indic that they're not abandoned or junk do the vehicles have tags the two um the 57 Chevy and the Dodge Dart
classic cars do not they're not registered they're for sale the other two I guess they're not part of the violation anyway right those both are tagged Mr dare in order for him to comply with code though he would not have to take it out on the actual Road
right he could start the car run it to the end of the driveway pull it back into its space and that would correct I just require it to move forward and backward 3 ft at least so it wouldn't effectively have to have a tag in order for it to be code compli does not require a tax thank you and I have a question for our
counsel here could we not uh if we feel there's enough evidence previously when he dealt with this and it was acknowledged that at least one of the cars wasn't running could we not find that there was a violation that appeared be in compliance
now and make that part of the record uh but no compliance date or fine because we found that that it's been corrected and then from day one if he goes over there and if he goes over there tomorrow and it's not corrected then the fines would start at that point well the issue
becomes if there's a finding that the property was in non-compliance but was corrected after the date that compliance should have been met stemming from the officer that's the relev finding that the board would make that would attach to the property for this violation in the
future in other words if it was corrected within the time presuming that there was a violation corrected within the time given by the county then compliance was met and you would not make a finding of non-compliance if alternatively you find that there was a
violation it was not corrected within the time given but was corrected prior to today's hearing then you'd make that finding that the property is now in compliance and that though there was a finding of non-compliance property is now in compliance and go forward the
significance of making a finding that there wasn't a violation past the date of compliance from the county is a repeat violation of that can trigger a fine of uh $500 a day as opposed to $250 a day or double the fine statutorily
that attach and a repeat violation can attach from the moment an officer recognizes a repeat violation not from the date that is brought before the board or some future date it by Statute it can attach to the date a repeat violation was first observed that's the
most significant part of the of a violation is is uh is that attachment and that potential for a repeat I'm concerned about future incidents officer I have a question yes ma'am if these vehicles are in the garage or behind the
fence is this still an issue in the garage not an issue behind the fence fence if I can see them or someone can see them it's still an issue needs to be under a carport or in the garage okay so we uh let's
see I guess we can do a few things uh anybody any more discussion on this I'd make the motion to go by staff recommendation of date and time um amount for the fine second same as they recommended yes and
second by Mr Bates motion by m towns and second by Mr Bates to accept St recommendation as presented which uh is finding that there was a violation and that it needs to be corrected by April
11th or $100 per day fine all in favor say I I iOS no and one one no so four to one four one yes and and uh so that's what we've done uh you say they're all fixed so I guess you have nothing to
worry about uh and actually one of the cars will be gone tomorrow I'm sorry one of the cars will be gone tomorrow okay well very good thank you the other appreciate that I had a question yes just for
future can you are you saying you you can have a car with a cover on it that would be legal as long as it runs and drives okay for future same thing if the car is operable you can put it in your yard it
just has to be uh capable of moving thank you okay it brings us to thank you for coming in I appreciate that on page eight item 11 uh it's case
number 24-8 CB philis L Scott Douglas Street Sanford Florida 32771 and the case along with that is 24-85 CB same respondent same unassigned
address I guess where are we at I'm sorry um page eight and page nine uh last name Scott philis Scott two cases thank you and uh let's see looks like aler
Henson's and whenever yall get seated if he could tell us your name please phis El Scott um Candace Simmons thank you uh Al Hanson whenever you're
ready you all have been sworn in correct yes yes okay thank code enforcement officer uh Shannon Henson s County sheriff's office North Region this case is uh 20-80 CB uh respondent is Phyllis L
Scott um it is the violation charged is um s County chapter 95 section 95.4 defined as 953 pointb uncultivated vegetation uh the initial uh inspection
was October 31st 20123 there was a code board um order uh for on December 5th 2024 I did two follow-up inspections afterwards on January 3rd 2025 and yesterday March 26 202 5 the results of
the follow-up inspection the uncultivated vegetation violation no longer remains on the subject property this P picture was taken my initial inspection back in uh October 31st 2023 this was uh the compliance on
January 3rd 2025 and then this was yesterday the property is still in compliance the suggested recommendation by the code enforcement officer based on the testimony evidence present presed in case number 2480 CB is determined that
the respondent is Phyllis L Scott the owner of record of property located at Hy Avenue and Douglas Street located in simal county is determined by the property appraiser is in in possession or control of the property and was in violation of simal County chapter 95
95.4 as defined in 953 pointb or RB and is further recommended that the code enforcement board based on the findings of back conclusion of Law and Order issued on December 5th 2025 I'm requesting that the code enforcement board to issue an order imposing a lean
in the amount of $750 for 15 days of non-compliance from December 19th through the through an including December 3rd 2025 and that the fine shall continue to acur at $50 per day for each day the violation continues or would be repeated after March 27 2025
this concludes my presentation um can I I forgot to give the exhibit to the clerk sure thank you and my apologies we're on on the lean request now obviously uh so
the could you please go back to the you have a photo from the 19th December 19 no I did I was unable to make it there so that's why the fines began because the uh original date was for them to be in compliance by December
19th I was UN to make it till January 3rd that was for their other cases so how do we know they were not in compliance if we don't we don't but I have to base it on that because that's when the date was see what Mr chairman we'll see what I apologize Mr chairman members of the
board may I ask a question of of the officer just to understand the the recommendation is for uh an order constituting a lean for $750 for 15 days of non-compliance from December 19th 2024
through and including January 2nd is that is that right for 750 yes but then is the property now in compliance it is in compliance it was in compliance as of January 2nd January 3rd yeah or January 3rd it it and then it states for a $50 continuing $50 they F
what would that be for only if they came into uh violation again oh I didn't I didn't understand I apologize okay so the so what's really being requested of the board is to adopt the imposition of an order constituting a lean for $750 whatever the board wishes to do for the
for the days of non-compliance and then would have the give code enforcement the ability to immediately begin finding this person should they come out of compliance again appears to be what's happening here okay you say that thank you thank
you uh Miss Scott uh this is your opportunity to speak to this uh you've heard the recommendations and the presentation uh so go ahead um but I'm still confused because it's two pares that we are
talking about oh these are two different Parcels yes okay and one of them was completed anywhere between I would say the date of the last hearing and the um 12th of December because my son had to
leave town so I know that part one of them was completed so on that um I and I didn't which which one are we talking about uh we talking about the say anywhere around the 12th okay that was done and it was my
fault that I didn't call him Miss Shana because when I left here I left under the impression that everything was to be done by the 31st so that was my fault for not calling her you know to tell her that that part was
completed how about the other one uh when did it come into compliance oh gosh right it came into compliance like I would say a day or two after Christmas back 28
29th we haven't seen that one yet though yeah they're both here uh that one is uh the first one uh case number 24-8 I guess you're saying it's the partial ID that ends in 20 correct on the one yes
but it it's year had a little bit of smoing out that they did do just before the year came in so so they both she says we're in compliance before January 3rd
uh and so we'll deal with this one first case number I guess 24-8 CB it's one that partial ID number ends in 1820 can can we charge administrative cost I have still have it the F take
effect after that date if they go out of compliance again well let me let me see if I can address I'm not sure I understand that question completely but costs can be imposed the costs that the county incurred can be part of the case and impos as part of the
administrative fine um I I I've never seen quite a recommendation for an additional fine if the if the lean once imposed the violation would go back into
non-compliance that to me would be a repeat violation which would be uh brought back before the board and addressed in that capacity as opposed to within the so we could just Char parameters of a of a lean yes if on this
case if we want just leave it at administrative cost if they happen to be less than what we've had a case where they were actually the administrative costs were more than the fine was so can we use administrative costs if we like it's comp the board's it's the board's
pleasure I with regard to the imposition of a lean uh it's got to be uh what the board finds as the days of non-compliance when that lean was acre that's what that's the frame that you need to find to to calculate the amount of a lean and then
if you decide to decrease that amount of course that's your discretion given the response you know level of cooperation and so forth and whatnot but the costs those can be addressed by the board and your discretion absolutely so if we want to do administrative cost we would have
to give the applicant the a time frame to pay that correct well you could you can you can just make it part of the order and then they would pay it either immediately or as they could it would be part of the of the lean if if there's a lean that's been imposed it could be satisfied in theory right away by being
paid or it would would act as a lean until it's satisfied okay before we uh get that far I mean you know we've got a person here who came before this board complied with this board's order code
enforcement did not inspect the property on the date of compliance they inspected it 3 weeks later but it was in fact in compliance I mean you know I'd be willing to consider just dismissing this case entirely and just moving on to the next one well I've got the same issue
that they say they were in compliance before January 3rd St County staff can't say whether it was or not unless I'm mistaken something it's and so the you know we have all the options on the table but it just makes sense that I I would just point out to
the board for discussion that once uh an order by the board is imposed with a compliance date the and I'm I'm certain the order would contain a directive that the property owner coordinate correct once compliance is met uh that that onus
not be placed on the inspector but be placed on the property owner correct so I would just mention that as a normal course of process good correct and there were three four cases and three of them were the 31st and one and two of them were for the 19th for the
19th and we have we have two of those in front of us here now I'm asking if you know this you may not know this but is the total administ ative cost that's listed in uh item number 11 this is going to be uh
tax parcel ID this is going to be our case number 11 um the first of the two that we're hearing is this administrative cost of $443 is that of total uh for both cases or does each one carry its own
individual $443 cost for you guys I mean you're each would carry their own okay no I'm just going to move that we just dismiss this first case entirely 24-- CB move that we dismiss him and if
y'all are fine with that then y'all are and if you aren't you aren't without including administrative without including a thing I'll second it motion by Mr s second by Mr Bates to dismiss this case number 24-8
CB all in favor say I I I opposed I three to two carries uh who's the third vote in favor of the motion the two that made it me so okay so I believe right the two the I show of hands the the in favor of
the motion were Mr Mr Bates Mr s and Mr um Warr Warr Excuse me yes passes three to two okay okay okay so that one's done and 24-85 uh the recommendation we we haven't seen that
case yet I oh we haven't I'd like to see this case before I thought we yeah uh okay 24-85 CB uh same case same same respondent same address also Hanson whenever you're ready yes um code
enforcement officer Shannon Hinson s County sheriff's office North Region this is case number 24-25 CB uh phis L Scott um I would like to note that at the top Under The parcel ID that number
should have been at the uh at the back to for the record 1810 so it' be 20- 19-30 d501 0000-18 one0 not 20 um this uh violation is the
simal county chapter 95 section 95.3 is defined in 95.3 B uh it be uncultivated vegetation also and this initial inspection was also October 31st 2023 uh the code board order was on December 5th
2024 the followup inspections were January 3rd 2025 and yesterday March 25th 2025 the result of the inspection was the uncultivated vegetation no longer remains on the subject property this is my inspection um
October 31st 2023 this was uh January 3rd 2025 and this one was yesterday uh March 26 2025 the recommen suggested recommendation by the code enforcement officer based on the testimony evidence
presented in 24-25 CB is determined that the respondent is Phyllis L Scott the order of uh the owner of record of the property located at Hy Avenue and Douglas Street located in simal county is determined by the property appraiser is in possession or control of the
property was in violation of simal County chapter 95 95.4 as defined in 953 3B is further recommended uh based on the facts findings of fact conclusion of Law and Order issued on December 5th 2025 I'm requesting that the code
enforcement board to issue an order imposing a a lean in the amount of 200 of 500 excuse me $750 for 15 days of non-compliance from December 19th 2024 through and including January 3rd 2025 and that the fine shell
crew at $50 per day for each day if the violation continues or is repeated after March 25th 2025 this concludes my presentation thank you any questions officer Hanson yeah the photos look the same I'm assuming the properties are join yeah they're right next to each other that was on the corner and then I
went down the other Street for the first one any other questions offer Henson saying none against your opportunity we're now talking about the the one that ends in uh 1810 is the the uh partial number okay
well I got them mixed up then but the the last one that I was saying that was done right out the Christmas before the new year came in so okay I know I'm I'm the one should have
it straight but this confused me the first one that we was talking about that was the 10 that was due I think before the 19th and this one was too well well 10 was
the first we disposed 10 is the one we're talking about now yeah we're talking about 1810 now we disposed of the other one so don't worry about that case was okay well it was dismissed it's just because I get the numbers mied that's what I'm saying so this is the one that it would be the last one and
and let me let me try to clear it up for you we're here the issue is there was a number of days not a lot but there's a number of days where it went and was not viewed as being in compliance and it needed to be and you had the date of by
the date get it done by date and it wasn't done by that date apparently or AER didn't know that whether it was or not so we're here discussing that Miss time okay and uh there's it's the recommendation $750 lean on the property
uh they shared with us some other information administrative cost that's another option we have we have different options but we have an issue with these days that it wasn't corrected oh okay I got you okay so that's what we're here to consider I just want you to be clear
okay I just okay uh anybody have any thoughts or anything the uh recommendation is $750 lean for 15 days non-compliance administrative costs were
$443 and7 uh they say it was in compliance before the deadline we don't know because she wasn't contacted and appears that she should have been I guess they they knew to get you right
they knew yeah and they contacted you in January and that's when you came out um I'm not positive they contacted me in January I just did my inspection after the holiday gotcha I'd make a motion we accept
administrative cost I second that you're talking about the total right yes 430 44307 44307 yes I can second that just to clarify that motion which has been seconded is that the the motion is to
impose uh an order constituting a lean in the administrative cost amount of $443 7 if not paid correct do we need dat with that it would be well that they're seeking that would in order that
it goes unpaid for financial obligation would constitute a lean if it's recorded against the property obviously the respondent could pay it long before that say if we do it way if we do it as a lean then they can well that's what the County's asking that that that uh that that be well they're ask yeah they're
asking for the lean of 750 they've corre thrown out there what the administrative costs are we have in the past in different cases different scenarios decided Well let's do administrative cost and if not paid within 30 days or then we go to the lean
that's well it it's effectively the same thing if if an order is entered imposing uh on order constituting or a fine of the administrative costs if that goes unpaid it can be recorded and constitutes a lean on the property so it's the same effect same yeah it's the
same fact but the motion as I understood was to impose an order of payment uh $443 7 uh uh as an imposition in this case so I guess the main thing would be whichever number we end up with within a
certain amount of days it needs to be uh paid or it's going to go to a lean they is that correct well once youen an order it would be imposing a fine of a certain amount which it once it's recorded that it creates a lean on the property once it's recorded that's why but if it's
paid just conceptually if the response is okay they entered a fine of X they walk down and pay it it it's satisfied it Matter's done so I wouldn't put a date on it the clerk of the court will allow them to make payments if they need to okay till it's
satisfied so that's where we're at and my my understanding is just so that the respondents know this is that if there are future violations on this property because of what we are enacting now that will immediately allow code enforcement
to go in and begin producing a fine of $50 a day I don't think that was part of the motion well theend we were just satisfying it with the administrative cost yeah two different things Mr s is referring to if this violation is repeated and it's detected as a repeat
violation sometime in the future within a 5year period of time on this property a repeat violation could be found by the board and a fine could be imposed going back to the time that the repeat violation was first discovered
carrying forward until compliance that could happen so that's that's an incentive for a property owner to stay in compliance once they've been found in non-compliance of a certain violation so but that's separate from what's Happening Here okay Mike's Point was that the fines would start right away
when they see it a second time that's my understanding of what could if we accept staff's recommendation that's my understanding of of how it will go moving forward is that they will be able to impose a fine of $50 per day beginning when they discover a new
violation well you're right that's the recommendation technically what could happen it's it's at the discretion of the county county can assess whatever repeat violation they want to assess but it's from the time that they observe a repeat violation and those fines can be
significant and prohibitive and much higher than what the statutory base fines are for a first violation so a repeat violation is a big deal at least conceptually if the county decides to be lenient of course that's within my purview all right thank you so just to
make sure I understand because what I seconded did not include that portion what I seconded was his motion of satisfying this with $443 7 that was his motion yes okay yes
ma'am oh wonderful then I'm much happier now so we're uh the we have a motion uh who made the motion Mr Davis second by Miss Townson to se recommendation and finding that there was a
violation uh however reduce ing the amount to the administrative cost to $443 7 I I do not believe that's what the motion is not to accept staff's recommendation I believe the motion is to find them exactly to find them not in
compliance and to find them $443 yes no it wasn't didn't didn't mean they weren't in compliance means it was we're going to satisfy this with administrative cost correct correct yes yes not to accept staff's recommendation
thank you so Rising that the motion on the table I believe is uh to find that there was a violation setting the fine at $443 7 period period
exactly okay so that's uh Mr Davis I believe second by Miss Townson everybody good all on the same she music uh okay all in favor say I so that's what we've done on the second case which is the 1810 it really
doesn't matter just for identifying purposes uh the fine has been set at $443 and7 if it is not paid in whatever time the county requires uh turns into a lean the main point to remember here is what
Mr uh sinon was trying to share with you in the future if if you have another violation you might be fined immediately because there was a violation that's how it all works any viol ations you have a second one then you're subject to not having this process that you know you
had all this time to go through to try to correct it so I'm just sharing that with you I appreciate it the person that caused all this problem he can't do anything else anymore my husband okay he did a good job a lot of work was done we can tell thank you for that thank you uh I mean
that caused the problem oh okay so we're all we're we're done here thank you for coming in thank you appreciate it one question uh how long do I have to pay this before we before it go on a record or
something the clerk will do that yeah well yeah yeah ordinarily I mean obviously the board has made the decision so they they've they've entered the amount as $443 7 um it's going to be out there as a
debt owed until it's satisfied so ordinarily in these cases um in my experience the board would give a time frame and if it's not met the original fine would be uh would revert to the original fines which were being sought at $750 a day so it' be some incentive
to pay that as soon as you can oh okay I just want to know before they put a lean or do something but by thefield okay thank you thank you all and guys for the record I'm sorry I
forgot to submit my report oh okay I think we're done with the all the inperson cases uh we can jump to the uh do the rest of them unless we need a break uh I'm good either
way uh if we're good to keep going I'll go ahead and keep rolling here with how many more do we have uh I'm not sure let's see what we get here see six and [Applause]
seven n I think we're on six are we on six four 25-23 yes that's the that's will be next look like we have two more 67 and 910 okay keep rolling keep going okay uh
number item number six case number 25-23 CB three girls property LLC Von Law PC registered agent 2311 South Ronald rag Boulevard Ronald Reagan Boulevard alut Springs
32701 offer Hemmingway whenever you're ready yes sir good afternoon code enforcement officer shenita Hemingway Sim County sheriff's officer South Region case number 2523 ceb respondent 3 girl Properties LLC I would like to submit a copy
exhibit a the violation address is 20 311 South Runner Reagan Boulevard simar County Florida the violation is simar county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as defined in 95.3 a
rubbish my initial inspection was September 11th 2024 notice to respondents was September 12th 2024 October 1st 2024 and October 30th 2024 compliance date September
27th October 16th and November 14th 2024 followup inspections were September 30th 2024 through yesterday March 26 2025 the results were that the rubbish violation remains on the subject
property it's my initial inspection September 11th you can see some of what was my High defition camera um I don't know if you can see it as well but on the one side there's like trash bags some rubbish kind of scattered there and then on the other side you can kind of
see some um are those planks and some buckets under there September 30th you can see the bags there and some rubbish scattered
there same picture violation remain the same on October 29th November 18th the violation remain no change as of yesterday the planks were still there and the violation remain the
same as of March 26 2025 the suggested recommendation by a code enforcement officer is based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-23 dceb it is determined that the respondent three girls Properties LLC is
the owner of record of the property located at 2311 South RTO Reagan Boulevard located in Simo County as DET turn by a property apprais the records is in possession or control of the property and is in violation of sim county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as
defined in 95.3 a and it is further recommend recommended that the code enforcement board issue an order for the respondent to correct the violation H her before midnight of April 11 in order to correct the violation the respondent must remove the rubbish from
the property if the respondent does not comply with the order a fining $100 will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance this concludes my presentation and for the record I have not spoken to the property owner have
you spoken with the law firm at all no did you attempt to contact them I did not any other questions I'm going to go ahead and jump ahead to the next one can you explain why the lawn would be partially mowed but not completely well
some of it there's where I was standing and you probp to the next one so yeah hang on one second let's just knock this out the the recommendation is uh by corrected by April 11th or $100 day
fine uh any discussion thoughts on that so moved okay uh I have a question if that if if you've not spoken to the owner nor the lawyer how how are we letting them know of this well they got a letter of certified letter
from and I sent notices as well and posted I'm sure posted it was certified oh okay okay thank for I believe we had a motion by Mr sign second by Mr Bates accept say recommendation finding there
was a violation this needs to be corrected by 11 April 11th or $100 a f all in favor say I I motion carries 5 to one now the next case uh go ahead and present that
officer Hemingway has 25-24 CB same address same respondent perfect yes whenever you're ready M yes sir code enforcement officer need to Hemingway Sim County Sheriff's Office
South Region case number 25-24 CB respondent three girl Properties LLC I'd like to submit a copy to the clerk ex thank you the violation prop that violation
address is 2311 South Ron Reagan Boulevard simar County Florida the violation is simal county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as defined in 95.3 uncultivated vegetation my initial inspection was
September 11th 2024 notice to respondents September 12th October 1st and October 30th 20124 compliance date September 27th October 16th and November 14th 2024 followup
inspections were September no September 30th through yesterday March 26th 2025 the violation of uncultivated vegetation remains on the subject property this is a picture of the front of the
house um my initial inspection and do you want me to address your question now or at the end at the end it's fine because you know we saw the backside where it's cut but only up to like a few feet before the house and then the mowing stopped okay I'll continue then
I'll explain okay September 30th 2024 you can see the grass is high October 24th you can see the uncultivated vegetation is well over 8
in November 18th you can see the uncultivated vegetation is still there yesterday it's a couple pictures of the uncultivated vegetation is still on the subject property the suggested recommendation by
a code enforcement officer is based on the testimony and evidence presented in case number 25-23 CB it is determined that the respondent three girl properties LLC is the owner of record of the property located at 2311 South Rona rean Boulevard located in simal County as the
ter by the property appra appraisers records is in possession or control of the property and is in violation of s s county code chapter 95 section 95.4 as defined in 95.3
B and it is further recommended recommended that the code enforcement board issue an order for the respondent to correct the violation on or before midnight of April 11 2025 in order to correct the violation the respondent must remove all uncultivated vegetation
over 8 in in height if the respondent does not comply with the order of f of $50 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues or is repeated after compliance this concludes my presentation thank you to address that
the part that's cut that's a different lot a different owner so I have standing on a different lot because that property does have no trespassing sign so I couldn't go into that and did you did you post the orange signs at any point no it was certified
so they received the letter from Alexis I'm confused about and I don't know if this is normal code enforcement procedure or not so you guys can clue me in but I'm confused about why we wouldn't try to call the the law firm or post the orange signs that seems to well
you don't post when you get that means they signed for it so they did get notice from Alexis and they should have received mine as well posting takes place when the certified mailings come back unsigned or don't are not confirmed as received your sign for to perfect the
service under the statute so this one recommendation uh is compliance by April 11th or $50 day fund I move we accept staff's recommendation second motion Mr sign second by Mr B set staff's
recommendation which is finding there was viol is a violation needs to be uh remedied by April 11th of this year or a $50 per day fine all in favor say I I motion carries 5 to one Mr chairman
yes ma' officer Hemingway are you new yes ma'am good good job excellent well thank you thank you have a good day get thrown into the Sharks right away huh lean back to the lean
cases uh 2471 CB Trinity and Joshua Bailey 181 Langford drive chulio to Florida on page six top of page six um again address 181
Langford drives chilota Florida 32766 uh officer Hill says officer Hill S County Sheriff's Office code enforcement east region this is case 2471 CB respondents are Trinity and Joshua Bailey I'd like to submit a
copy of this PowerPoint to the clerk is exhibit one again this is case 2471 CB Trinity and Joshua Bailey located at 181 Langford drive and toota violation charge s county code chapter 95 section 95.4 is defined in 95.3 a
rubbish my initial inspection was December 19th 2024 code board order was February 7th 2025 followup inspections were February 10th February 18th and yesterday the results of my follow-up inspection is the violation of rubbish
has been repeated this photo is taken um for after the code board order this was taken on February 10th 2025 and the rubbish is piled up by the curb I have not heard from property owner so I took initiative to do another
follow-up inspection to see if the trash was picked up and it was and this photo was taken on February 18th 2025 and that's when I F the Affidavit of compliance at that time then I did an inspection yesterday and there is more
rubbish um back on the property so I have to them before the hearing today I did file an affidavit a repeat violation with the clerk um I so I have not heard from the owner I did call Waste Pro yesterday and
spoke with them they said that they were out at this property on March 12th they tagged it and said it was going to cost $125 for pickup and they have not heard from they have not heard from the property owner either and that's why I filed the repeat
violation so the suggest suggested recommendations based on the testimony presented in case 2471 CB is discern that the respondents Trinity and Joshua Bailey are the owners of record located at one 181 link for Drive located in semone county is determined by property appraisers records in possession or
control of the property and is in violation of sem county code chapter 95 95.4 is defined in 95.3 a and as further recommended the code enforcement board based on the findings of fact conclusions of Law and Order I asking the code enforcement board to issue an order constituting lean in
amount of $1,100 for 11 days of non-compliance from February 7th 2025 through and including February 17th 2025 at $100 per day and the fine shall continue to acur $100 per day for each day the violation continues or is repeated after March 27
2025 this concludes my presentation thank you any questions officer Hill I I I want just out of curiosity I guess it's interesting all that stuff's lined up where the trash usually comes and thanks for calling them that clears up something but is it I maybe it's for
Council if that happens to have been an eviction and the landlord puts it out on the road where I thought they were supposed to put it out and I don't know if that's the case I'm just curious cuz it look like maybe I don't know is the landlord's ultimately responsible
as the property owner so so that's a violation it's a violation and it attaches to the landlord I me you could you technically a tenant can be found in violation of a code enforcement action the the
challenge with that is um the ultimate teeth in an order is the lean component if it's not paid if the fines are not paid and if a tenant doesn't own property in the county or the city that's enforcing the code it's somewhat of a hollow uh finding as against the
tenant if they don't own property property owner in a landlord situation totally different thank you sure do we know if that's a it's not a rental property they they live there I mean we had these people in front of us but yes I didn't remember Mr Bailey did show up
at the first okay yeah well that's very organized debris on the side of the road I mean that looks like an attempt to clean up something I would make the motion that
we take administrative cost 37297 that we not constitute the lean of $1,100 at this time but that we do Institute the repeat violation at100 per day with this that will come before the board later oh okay do that she
showed the photo that I mean there's currently it's happening again so so we've got this case to deal with we'll see the other one at another day in the issue but I just made a motion we need to do something with
it the motion was to uh accept the payment or the fine rather imposition of the fine of 372 $2.97 as the penalty for this case Okay um that motion has not been seconded second has been motion by Miss uh
Townson second by Mr Bates to find that they wait one second my motion did include administrative staff a recommendation of reinstituting the fine the bottom part of that paragraph I
didn't understand the the I did say that well I I thought I did I I apologize if I didn't understand I I if I misunderstood I Mr you want me to restate it as best I
can Mr well Mr bit second it so he probably understands better than me I apologize I heard her okay thank I heard you as well you knew what I meant I heard you as well all right okay so let me behind me so no I'm sure I just as proposed I apologize that maybe didn't
understand so the motion is to enter accept administrative cost of the 37297 yes and staff recommend recommendation of reinstituting the fine based on that piece is going to be brought separ at a at a future case the
f is currently running yeah that's a different case that's good so right it says right at the bottom of the recommendation and the fine shall continue to acrew at $100 per day for each day the violation continues or is repeated after March 27th I understand
that and that yeah that's what she's saying she wants that implemented M Townson does correct right yes and just wants to change the 1100 to the three
72 okay the just so the board's aware what officer Hill is contemplating is to bring this property and this violation back as a repeat violation which I'm going to presume is going to be a
finding of a violation from the date of first observation carried forward to the time of the hearing in a at a future date this and this is where I got confused in in a previous matter this recommendation here talks about the imposition of a of an an order
constituting a fine for $1,100 for 11 days of not compliance and then adding on $100 per day thereafter anytime the fine is repeated after March 27th which I said I've never seen that done because
it complicates the repeat violation issue that I was referencing earlier so my recommendation would be and I all respect whatever whatever the board wishes to do with the uh
$1,100 uh lean amount of days of 11 days of non-compliance whether that's to uh reduce that that to the administrative costs which as you mentioned a 372 and let that be the fine to be entered as an order to be paid within 30 days and uh
if not that it would be recorded as a lean and allow the county to bring the repeat violation for what you saw today as they're anticipating doing in the future that'd be my recommendation because you're going to see it anyway and it's going to be very tricky to
calculate a finding of a fine arising out of today's order when you see again as a repeat we have two fines going for the same thing I think it's cleaner to Simply take this non-compliance 11 days and reduce it to what you want to reduce
it to all respect on the motion my understanding is and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong here but my understanding is that's how we've handled each of these lean cases is that it's always had this this one's a little unusual because we know it's coming right back at us for a repeat we just
going to have another find more than likely attached to that as an example let's say it comes back we say repeat by let's hit the maximum fun we've already got a $100 one going over here now we throw a maximum on there for the same thing that's has been and the legal issue on that is is there are fine
limits on on repeat violations so you couldn't necessarily hit the Max on repeat violation because you've already got a piece of it stemming out of this if you did that if you adopted that so that's why I wouldn't why I would I would recommend not doing that I would recommend taking the recommendation
presented in front of you to whatever amount you decide as you decided it would be this um administrative amount or it could be the uh the 1100 along with the administrator whatever number you all collectively
choose but uh staying away from the uh add-on after March 27th fine because that's that's detached from this you've got a framework from when the property was not in compliance it didn't meet your previous order you've got that framework 11 days they didn't comply
then they did comply so you framed out that fine that's why the proposal was for $1,100 fine and then you've got your costs is making sense isn't you me to amend my motion well you've got a motion that's been seconded so so it's got to
be voted upon okay um I would recommend it be it fail that' be my recommendation no that's not personal it's just because then you can start from scratch it's nothing no harm it's just you can start from scratch with a with a with a different motion that's my recommendation don't have to follow it
can we just withdraw the motion it's SP second it now I know Roberts Rules of Order you'd have you have to take action on the motion that's been seconded an action can't be withdrawing you have to vote on it can you withdraw a second you can no you can just you can accomplish the same thing by simply voting nay
against the motion as second it which would be my recommendation so again we have the motion it's uh the motion and seconded to accept s recommendation uh however adding the bottom language on
there uh if it continues to be $100 per day fine all in favor say I I opposed n okay4 to one there uh okay so now you can make a new motion try again yeah i'
like go ahead dadly try it buy that apple if I could just I don't mean to I just the recommendation would be to avoid this additional fine issue after March 27th I would leave that out of the calculation yeah I'm going to make a motion just to accept staff
recommendation of admin administrative cost and the total of $372 N7 second to okay and to be paid within a certain amount of time no okay I think that's between them and the clerk's office motion by m Townson who's second
Mr Mr Mr de Bates to uh sets recommendation that there was a violation uh in setting the the uh the fine at $372 197 all in favor say I iOS motion
carries 5 to one before we move on to this second case let me just bring up that the reason why I voted for that thing in the first place is because I haven't seen any new repeat offender case from from code enforcement I saw the first case where they came through
here then I saw them not comply right now I have the op opportunity to do something about it each time they continue not to comply starting now not to wait on Code Enforcement to bring me a new case where I got to look at new evidence so you
know just keep that in mind as we move forward if I could respond to just because I know what the County's position is going to be on that they're going bring back the same violation but they're going to give you the starting date from when the repeat started show you the evidence and ask for a finding
of or a fine rather of could be up to the maximum amount for each day from the date of repeat all the way forward which will be a significant uh uh substantially more than that was in front of you today and if I took a small bite out of that Apple
today and then couldn't try to swallow the Apple all at once next time then be it y you know what I mean true sure you know if it if it's let's say just to throw out a number let's say you could find somebody $1,000 a day theoretically as a repeat offender and I had the
chance right now to do 100 a day that's why I voted I just so that you of course understood completely if that meant I had to vote for 900 the next time then so be it okay brings us I'm sorry y'all please proceed brings us to item 10 on page
7even case number 24 72- Trinity and Joshua Bailey same respondents same address different violation apparently allar Hill whenever you're ready officer Hill S County Sheriff's Sheriff's Office code enforcement east
region this is case 2472 CB the respondents are Trinity and Joshua Bailey I am submitting a copy my PowerPoint to the clerk as exhibit one again this is case 2472 ceb Trinity Joshua Bailey located at 181 link for
drive into Alo Florida violation charge of sem county code chapter 95 section 95.4 is Define a 95.3 B uncultivated vegetation my initial inspection was December 19th 2023 with com the com should be a board order date of February
7th 2025 with the followup inspections per the order of February 10th 2025 um again on February 18th and yesterday the results of my inspection the violation of uncultivated vegetation remains on the subject property these photos were taken um per
the cbard order on February 10th 2025 so they cut the front yard in the sidey yard but the backyard remained in violation photos were taken on February 18th 2025 the backyard Still Remains in
violation these photos were taken yesterday the backyard was in compliance but now the front yard was in violation and these photos are the same date still the front yard it has uncultivated vegetation excess of 8 in in
height suggest a recommendation by Co enforcement officer based on testimony evidence presented case 2472 CBS determine that the respondents Trinity and Joshua Bailey are the owners of record located at 181 lingford Drive located in SEMO county is determined by property appraisers records in
possession or control of the property and in violation someone county code chapter 95 section 95.4 is find a 95.3 b as forther recommend the code enforcement board based on the findings of fact conclusions of Law and Order I'm asking the code enforcement board to
issue an order Conan in the amount of $2,450 for 49 days of non-compliance from February 7th 2025 through and including March 27th 2025 at $50 per day and the fine shall continue to ur at $50 per day for each day the violation continues or is repeated after March 27
2025 this concludes my presentation thank you so just to be clear we don't have the same issues here because there's not a compliance period correct right right uh any questions for user Hill on this or you ready to I move we accept
staff's recommendation second motion by Mr son second by Mr town and set St recommendation as presented which is uh finding it was a violation uh and imposing a lean $2,445 for 49 days
non-compliance uh and the fin shall continue recuit $50 per day each day the violation continues as repeated all in favor say I I oppos uh motion carries 5 to one I think that might be our last
actual case there's other complied before there was a noticing error you can look at these several that were complied prior uh uh the tail end of the agenda here other
business move we approve the minutes from the February meeting we are getting ready to yep that's the no okay no that I'll take that motion and there's a second as well motion by Mr s second by Mr Bates to approve the meetings uh meeting minutes
from February 27 2025 all in favor say I I I uh motion carries 5 to one confirmation date of our next meeting April 24th 2025 please let the clerk know if you're not going to be able to be here and does anybody have anything
else before we hit the ground no hit the ground running thank am I correct that there will be no May meeting I think it's June when when do is your is May or June where you guys go to your I didn't see a May meeting on it's
every June is face every June June yeah there may or may not be a May meeting I know June we won't have one unless things change but uh yeah so I guess we'll I'll keep you updated okay I won't be sure okay oh yeah Miss towns won't be
here uh okay anything else no U we will adjourn a motion to adjourn at 406 is there a second okay second second by Mr Bates all in favor say I come on I'm going to stay a little
long [Music] for
[Music]