to touch the sensor. Love how that works. >> Okay. The January [clears throat] 14th Happy New Year everybody. Um meeting of the municipal code enforcement board is now called to order. Our next meeting will be February 11th, 2026. Please
stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, the municipal code enforcement board is charged with conducting hearings to determine whether an alleged violation of the city code has occurred. Decisions might made by this quasi judicial board will be based on the evidence and facts presented this
evening. Our meetings are conducted in accordance with Robert's rules of order and each case will begin with the city presenting its evidence of the alleged violation. The respondent will then present his or her case. Both parties will have an opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses. The board
members may question any witness. Comments by both parties must be relevant to the case. Persons wishing to speak will be given an opportunity to do so by the chair and must address the board from the podium after giving their name and address. Upon request, copies of all material submitted by staff are
available for review. Board members are reminded to obtain permission to speak from the chair and questions of the city should be directed to the attorney for the city. This time, I'd like to ask all persons to expect to give testimony tonight to please stand and be sworn in by the city clerk.
>> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will provide the board tonight will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Please answer. >> Thank you. >> All right. Exparte communication. This time I'd like to ask board members, have
you had any exparte communicate exparte communications regarding any matters coming before the code enforcement board this evening? [clears throat] If you've had verbal communications, please disclose the summon substance of the communication, when and where the communications occurred and with whom it occurred. If you received any written
communications, please disclose the nature of the communications, and provide a copy to the city clerk to be filed in the record. I get this hand. >> I'm looking at this and I have case number 25-463. Um, >> verbal or written? >> It was verbal.
>> Okay. >> By phone. when I >> would say maybe about last week, nine weeks ago. They're actually my next door neighbors 1343 Terror Springs Drive and I was in communication with Progress uh
residential to remedy some of the um violations that they had on there per the HOA board. >> Can you elaborate just a little more on exactly what the communications were, please? >> Sure. Uh there was a cable in the
outside that had to be u either buried or eliminated. There was some sod in the front yard that had to be replaced and also the roof had a blue tarp on there as well too and we're trying to get that uh um corrected. >> Okay. Did you uh talk to them as a
potential contractor for it or just given advice or what? >> Uh no, we were contacting them to get these things done cuz I'm part of the H. >> Okay. So, you did it And is they live right next door to you? >> The the house belongs to Progress uh Residential, which is a management
company, and they're right next door. >> So, you live right next door to the property with the violation on it. >> That's correct. because this you you live so close. You've had these discussions. >> I think that you're going to be too uh I
don't think you'll be able to um uh uh make you know be a part of that particular hearing if you don't mind. If you would recuse yourself and the reason being you're right next door to it, the outcome [clears throat] may or may not have an impact on you and there may be a you know question of you know impartiality or anything like that. So,
if you could just appreciate >> Absolutely. And when that case comes up, you'll just have to go out. >> Just he can stay just can't participate. >> Okay. Well, I'm not sure about this case, but you know, I just wanted to uh it's case number 25-4799.
It's uh city versus sad investment. If it's regarding the new uh restaurant, uh before they opened uh I did not have any exparte. Uh they just asked me about the sign and I directed them in the right directions to the city engineer to I I
have no clue how you permit a sign except structurally but not with >> So the conversation you had with them was they asked you about how they could get a sign permitted. Yes. >> You gave them the name of somebody that would that knew more about it than you. >> That's about it. >> That was the extent of your conversation.
>> That's it. >> All right. Let me just go through it. Um, do you feel you can be a fair and impartial decision maker on this and base your decision only on the evidence presented at the hearing? >> Yes, sir. >> Very much. >> Is is if that's the case, I don't know if it's regarding the uh it's called
>> Fu required for sign. So, >> yeah, I know. I know. But is it is it >> probably is? >> Yes. So, all right. That means it's the same case. Thank you. >> I'll be easy though. This I've had none. >> I've not had that. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. There is one case where I
will like have to recuse myself. >> You want to hear about it now or >> uh 25-4599 um is a neighbor and I think just to avoid any appearances of bias or impropriy I should recuse myself from that particular case.
>> Right. Thank you. >> Jeez. All right. [laughter] Wow. Be safe. >> All right. All right. So, um, we did all that >> out of order. >> Uh, okay. So, we we will be taking cases
out of order tonight. Um, hopefully you all have pens. The first case we're going to hear is got to find it. Is um the last case under new business. Case number 25-4799. >> Mr. Chairman, may I have a point of order? >> Sure.
>> Uh, we did not approve the minutes. >> We'll get to it. >> Okay. >> After I tell everybody which case what what the order is. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh, case number two will be 25-3063.
Case number three will be 25-3064. Case number four will be under u old business case number 25-2911. Looks like >> test number five. That's number four.
got to find him myself. >> I was going to Can you read age three? >> Once you're home, >> you want me to go through it again? >> Yeah, once you're done. >> Yeah. Let me um let me get give number five is also under old business. 25448. Number six,
slow down. Okay, there we go. is under unfinished business 2550072 and number seven is under new business 253466 >> 253466 that's number seven you said >> yes >> okay
[clears throat] >> so if you go by the way they're listed in your agenda the first Case under new business case number 253063 is number two. >> Yes sir.
>> Case number 25-3064 is number three. Case number 25-3466 is number seven. >> [clears throat] >> The last case under new business 25-4799
will be number one. >> Okay. >> First case under unfinished business 2550072 is number six. Case number 25-2911 under unfinished is number four.
and case number 25-4048. The last case under unfinished is number five. Okay, >> sir. >> All right. Shall we begin? >> Case number 254799, City versus Sad Investment, Inc. for the
property located at 11401 North 56th Street, Sweet 23. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation. >> I'm sorry. >> Oh, the mic. >> It is on. >> It's on. >> Yes, sir.
>> Um maybe um move your >> move it closer. >> Sorry about that. >> Try that. >> Uh continue minutes. >> Oh, minutes. Oh, thank you. Yes. Okay. I said I was going to get to them and I didn't. I apologize. >> Before we get started, we must approve
the minutes. My apologies. Okay. Um, hopefully everybody's had a received a copy of the December 10th, 2025 minutes. If there are no additions, corrections, or anything else that you guys want to change, I'll entertain a motion to approve. >> Motion to approve.
>> We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? >> I'll second that. >> Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Now we can begin. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Case number 254799, City versus Sod Investment, Inc. for the property located at 11401 North 56th Street, Sweet 23. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 12-979
subsection A permits required for signs and section 8-28 subsection A subsection 1 permits at required. This case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Danielle Bat. The city has evidence that
the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm officer Bat with Code Compliance. This case this evening was initiated by myself per the request of the permitting department on December 23rd, 2025. This [clears throat] property had just
finished going through the permitting process in multiple meetings where they were well aware of their permissions. Permit number [clears throat] 252103 was approved and finalized which was correctly installed. But the week of December 23rd, 2025, there was an un
there was unpermitted modifications done to the sign. So a stop work order was issued on December 23rd, 2025. These same modifications were rejected during the permitting process multiple times by the planning department between May and September of 2025.
Prior to the permit being issued, a notice of violation was prepared on November 23rd, 20 I'm sorry, December 23rd, 2025 and posted to the property requested posting to city hall electronic board and sent both certified and regular mail to the address of record on December 24th, 2025 with a
compliance date of December 26, 2025. Upon reinspection on December 29th, 2025, the violation was still present. So, a notice of hearing was prepared, posted to the property, requested posting to city hall electronic board, and sent both certified and regular mail to the address of record on December 31st, 2025.
[clears throat] As of Monday, January 12th, 2026, records show that the property is still not in compliance. Seeing as this case was not something within our normaly, but clearly an intentional disregard for the city's ordinances, I am asking for a ruling and a fine at least of $50 daily until the
violation is in full compliance. At this time, the city's building official, Dallas Foss, and Deputy Director of Community Development, Marissa Robinson, can answer any questions regarding the property. >> Good. Thank you. Any questions for the code officer? Roz. >> Yes. >> Um, is are you going to answer the
questions? I have a question. What's What's the problem? Actually, you say it's they submitted for a signed permit. Did they >> Dallas and Marissa are going to answer all those questions? >> Okay. [clears throat] here. I thought you were here just to hang out with us. [laughter]
>> Good evening, chair and um board members. I'm Marissa Robinson with Community Development. >> So, go ahead and ask your question. >> Yes. Uh what's what's the problem? Actually, I you know, it's it's they have a violation, but what's the actual problem? Is it the size? Is it the
writing? Is what what is it? So, I'll kind of walk you through. Um, Community Development actually worked with the tenant and contractor starting in May of 2025. We actually met with them. They did ask at that time for leniency with our code to install the sign that they
requested. Um, staff did inform them that we couldn't be lenient in that they would need to redesign their sign um to meet the code. So if Jack can >> what's what's the code calls for? >> So this was one of those signs that they
submitted for the design on August and it was denied by our permitting staff because of the two logo or three logos, one in the center and two on the edges. The code says you can only have one company logo and they had three.
And the next one, this one was also submitted in August. Again, you can see the three logos in the center which is a violation of our code. We also submitted this one which was denied in July
because of the multiple um special services. Um and then this was the actual sign that was permitted and I can read the section of the code if you would like that. >> Yeah, I would like that. Okay.
>> So 12-984 section >> I just wanted to add something before you read the code. I'm familiar with this overseas and that's a franchise from overseas and they always have it with three logos because they service inside the three
commodities whatever food they just wanted to but I don't know what the code says here. So 12-984 subsection X or H I'm sorry. Ground pylon flat wall mansard roof awning canopy and permanent window signs shall
consist of only the name, corporate logo, corporate slogan, a single special service feature and the name of the profession, service or business being conducted at the site. So because they had multiple logos is
why they weren't allowed to permit the sign. >> Even if the logos are tied to each other, >> they were not tied to each other. So because they're all separate logos for separate businesses, they couldn't be allowed. So it had to be one logo.
>> I Are you done? >> I'm Yeah, I'm done. But I'm not too clear on it. >> That That That's not the code that's listed though. >> Correct. So after we went through the permitting process, um the permit was pulled in September, it was inspected in
October and the permit was closed out. After that happened in December, they went back and put in the sign that they were told that they were not allowed to have. >> Oh, okay. Okay. So you permitted you ultimately you permitted a version of
the signs they submitted and they went ahead and did what they wanted to do anyway, >> right? After the permitting process was through and the permit was closed out, they went back in a um modified the sign. >> And when did that occur? >> December 20 um
>> December 23rd. Yes, that Sunday. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> So So there's two violations. Is that what I'm seeing here? >> The violations are regarding the permitting, >> right? >> Yeah, there's two but there's two two
separate violations. Okay. Okay. What do they have to do to to get the permit? >> They have to remove the features that were unpermitted and go back to what the permitted um sign design was. >> Even if their cooperation if they're no
>> the same signs over all over the world. >> Yeah, that I mean though it's overseas that way, it doesn't meet our sign code. >> We got one more question. >> Just to clarify, Miss Robinson. So the sign that's currently up, the sign for which there is this infraction is one
that your department explicitly rejected. They they approached you guys. You said no. >> Yes. So this start this started in May and then the permitted sign the permit was issued in September. So, I actually have our senior planner, Alyssa
Livingstone, here as well, and she actually met with the contractor or tenants multiple times in the permitting [cough] office and did like a courtesy review of what they were submitting. And she always told them no and they would go back. So, we went back and forth with them for months.
>> Understood. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Thank you. Is the respondent here? Good evening. My name is Muhammad. I represent uh SAD Investments. I am not the uh the violator, I guess you would
say, but since we own the own we own the property, um I'm assuming that the violation sticks to the property >> and then eventually we would have to go after the tenants and so forth. >> Took me a while to understand exactly
what happened. back and forth emails, a lot of fighting go uh happening or I wouldn't say fighting but a lot of back and forth uh uh uh explanations and so forth. [clears throat] I think the issue here aside from what they did um the
timing. So we we didn't really find out about this till the beginning of the year. I mean the 23rd the violation uh uh occurred. We didn't get the notice till probably that Friday or Saturday. And when I showed up to the property,
[clears throat] I didn't even know we had a hearing until I seen the hearing posted on the window. And I'm looking at it. They had assured me that it was taken care of and so forth. So I'm looking at the notice and I'm like, "Guys, do you know what you're looking at?" And so forth. They said, "No, it's taken care of. We spoke
with Dallas. Here's this. Here's that. Here's that." So there was a lot of confusion going on. And then finally uh when when when Jack responded and kind of explained everything to me, that's when I understood, okay, you got two you got two situations going on. Um and and
so forth. So I'm not here asking uh I guess what I'm asking today for is an extension. The contractor I spoke with him this morning. He's out of town. He comes back on Friday. He said, "I need all next week to take care of it, but at the same time, I wanted I wanted an
additional seven days just in case they can't do it, then we'll send our crew and so forth." Um, I when I spoke to Jack today, he was telling me that you're going to need a permit to to take the sign down. So, if they can't take care of it, we will step in, we'll hire a contractor, put their name on the
permit, and pretty much take it down oursel as a landlord. >> Any questions for the respondent? >> Thank you, sir. MC there's no other questions. I'll entertain a motion. >> All right. Well, I'll take this one.
>> Thank you. >> This here. In case number 25-4799, I move that the city has proven by a greater weight of the evidence that the following violations of the city of Temple Terrace City Code exist on the
property located at 1141 [sighs] North 56 Street, Sweet 23. And the code sections are 12-979A and 8-28 subsection A subsection one.
This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from code enforcement officer Danielle Bat along with any other evidence including photos, affidavit, and notice of violation. All of which is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that said
violations be corrected on or before February 11th. If the respondant does not comply with this order on or before that day, they ordered to pay a fine for each and every day. The violations continue past the date set for compliance. [clears throat] Upon considering the following factors,
the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, and any previous violations committed by the violator, I move that the fine be 25 or excuse me, $50 per day. >> Second. We have a motion, a second. Any further discussion?
I just have a question for for Jack. Is the two is February 11th an acceptable date for you? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. I wasn't sure when he said something about getting a 7-day I I'd assume that that 30 days would cover
whatever. >> Yeah, that's fine. I just want to make sure city was was good. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um there's no further discussion. All those in favor? I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. So, you have until uh February 11th to take
care of all this, okay? Which should it's 30 days. It should give you plenty of time. If if it's still if it's if the wrong sign is still up, you don't have your right permits, blah blah blah. Um you you will be charged $50 a day until it's fixed. Okay. Thank you. Next case,
please. case 2530 63 city versus JGC Second LLC for the property located at four I'm sorry at 5416 Rainbow Drive. This case is before the
board on an alleged violent vi violation of section 8-102 subsection 22 minimum housing maintenance of structures section 8-102 subsection 13 subsection C minimum
housing roofs section 12-859 subsection 2 RVs boats and trailers and section 10-34 sanitation premises clean this case will be prosecuted this evening by the board, I'm sorry, by the code officer, Doug
Allen. This the city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. Doug Allen, code compliance officer. This case was originated by officer Bats on July 29th, 2025 for the
minimum housing and debris accumulation violations. She is scheduled a reinspection date for August 11th, 2025. On December 22nd, 2025, I created an amended notice of violation for boarded windows and doors, fascia disrepair, a
trailer stored in the sideyard without being screened from view, and an accumulation of debris throughout the property with a compliance date of December 30th, 2025. I posted the notice at the front door and a copy was posted on the electronic board at city hall for the 10-day requirement and copies were
mailed, both certified and regular mail, to the owner of record. On December 30th, a notice of hearing was created and the case was scheduled for the January municipal code board meeting. I posted a copy of the notice of hearing at the site at the site on that day. This time I'd like to submit
photographic evidence taken by myself on December 22nd. This time the site is in compliance and I'm also submitting an affidavit of compliance on those violations and seeking a finding. We'll >> accept those. Thank you. You're welcome. Any
questions for the code officer? >> So, two violations and they were all all >> everything's in compliance. >> Everything Everything is in compliance. >> Any other questions for the code officer? I know the respondent is here. Is there anything you want to say? >> Okay.
Claire Matthews, council for um JGC2 LLC. Uh just briefly um we'll stand on the evidence submitted on the testimony by a code enforcement officer um and request that uh that the board enter an order finding no violation and imposing no penalties and we're here to answer any questions you may have.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Will you sit down? Any questions for the responding? Oh. Okay. There's no no further questions or entertain a motion. >> I'll do that. >> Thank you. In case number 2563, I move that the city has proven by the
greater weight of evidence the following violations of the city of Tumble Terrace City Code did exist on the property located at 5416 Rainbow Drive with applicable code violation section 8-102
subsection 22 and section 8102 subsection 13 subsection and section 12-859 subsection 2 and section 10-34. This motion is based on the swan
testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer along with any other evidence including photos, affidavit, and the notice of violation of which you received and entered as part of the directive of this hearing. I further move there'll be no fine imposed because the violations were brought into compliance prior to the date of this
hearing. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> A second. >> Motion is second. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all those in favor? I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. So, um, you've been found in compliance, so there's no fine. However, should these
properties go out of compliance again, it becomes a repeat violation, and the fines are much more because of that. Okay. Next case, please. >> Case number 253064, City versus JGC2
LLC for the property located at 5418 Rainbow Drive. This case is before the board on alleged violation of section 8-102 subsection 22 minimum housing maintenance of structure section 8-102
subsection 13 subsection C minimum housing roofs and section 10-34 sanitation premises clean. This case will be prosecuted this evening by code officer Doug Allen. The city the city has evidence that the notice of
violation and notice of hearing were properly served. >> Good evening once again. Doug Allen, code compliance officer. This case was originated by officer Bats on July 29th, 2025 for an accumulation of debris, unpainted or unsealed exterior wooden
wall set and disrepair. She scheduled a reinspection for August 11th, 2025. On December 22nd, 2025, I created an amended notice of violation for debris accumulation, unpainted or unsealed exterior wooden wall and soften disrepair with a compliance date of
December 30th, 2025. I posted a copy at the site and a copy was also posted at city hall in the electronic board for the 10-day requirement. The copies were mailed both certified and regular mail to the address of the owner of record. On December 30th, 2025, notice of hearing
was create rec created and the case was scheduled for the January municipal code board meeting. I posted a copy of the notice of hearing at the site on that day. This time, I'd like to submit photographic evidence of the site taken by myself on December 22nd. This time, the site is in compliance with all the
violations. I'm seeking a finding and would like to submit an affidavit of compliance. >> We'll accept that. Thank you. >> Thank you. You're welcome. >> Any questions for the code officer? >> Seeing none, >> just state your name again, please.
>> Briefly for the record, Clay Matthews, Council for JGC2 LLC. Um, based on the testimony and affidavit from Mr. Allen, we respectfully request an order finding no violation and no penalties or fines. Thank you. Here to answer any questions we may have. >> Thank you. Thank you.
If there's no questions, I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll do it. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> In case number 25-3064, I move that the city has proven by greater weight of the evidence the following violation of the city of Temple Terrace City Code did exist on
the property located at 5418 Rainbow Drive. Violation section one. -102 subsection 22. The motion is based on
the swear testimony this board has received. >> Before you you go on, there's there's two violations or three violations >> and it's 8-102 subsection 22, 8-102 subsection 13 subsection C and 10-34.
>> Understood. applicable code sections 8-102 subsection 22 >> section 1-102 subsection >> 8-102
>> oh I'm sorry 81- >> 8-10 subsection 13 subsection C >> section 10-34 the motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from
the code enforcement officer along with any other evidence including photos affidavit and the notice of violation all of which is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further moved that there be no fine imposed because the violations were brought into compliance prior to the
date of this hearing. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all those in favor? opposed. No nays. Motion carries. So, same same warning. If it comes out of compliance, it becomes a repeat and the
fines go up from there. Thank you very much. >> Next case, please. >> Case number 252911 city versus Eddie Fabro Mestre for the property located at 6125 Liberty Avenue.
>> I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. >> Is it me? >> Um, after this case, can I get two minutes? I think I need to do a reboot in here. >> You want to do it now? >> I can do it right now. >> Okay, we'll just go ahead and do it. >> Yeah, just do your break. >> Motion to break. >> Okay, we'll take a Yeah. Mo motion app
to approve. We'll take a fivem minute break. >> Approved. >> So, mark your agendas. We have um case number eight will be under new business. Uh 25-4550 should be the next to last case
under new business. 4550. >> Okay, >> that's number eight. >> That's number eight. Okay. >> Right now we're on case number four which is under unfinished. >> Okay. Case, excuse me, [clears throat] case number 252911
which is under unfinished business. City versus Eddie Fabbero Mestre for the property located at 6125 Liberty Avenue. The deadline for compliance is January 14th, 2026. Fine
of $25 per day beginning January 15, 2026. Violation section 8-28 subsection A subsection 1. Permit app required. Deadline for compliance is midnight tonight. >> Yep.
respondent here. >> Yes. >> Good. Good afternoon, chair and the board. Uh Karina Fuller here on behalf of the respondent, Mr. Mestre. Um I just wanted to advise that we do have the permit. However, we are >> Hey, before you get into that, why don't you remind us what this violation is
about? >> Okay. So, this is a driveway violation where my client um without a permit ex expanded his driveway. Um, since the violation, um, the driveway has, I guess, not been used or utilized with
the expansion. There's grass now growing. What happened was it was expanded by laying gravel, which killed the grass. Um, with the intent of laying concrete, but it didn't even get there at that point. Um, after some time, the grass has is growing and it's not being
used. Um, we have gotten a survey on the property. Um, we have a permit ready. However, there's another violation, which is the next case that's going to be called, where my client needs to obtain five different permits. Um, but we cannot submit the permit with the
driveway without submitting all of them at the same time per the process here in Temple Terrace. So, at this point, we are asking for an extension just because out of all six permits, the permit for this particular case and then for the next case that's going to
be called, we're only missing one permit and that's electrical and I'll get to that when that case is called. But at this time, we have everything. Uh we just can't submit it without having everything completed because there is a stop. >> This case is being held in abance because of the next case,
>> correct? and you're and you'll tell us why the electrical. >> So, should we make a motion to just hear the next one and then do them together? >> We could do that. I mean, there's a couple of options. Can is that is it would it be acceptable? >> Have her speak to both of them, but when
it comes time for motion to >> sound somebody's somebody's mic is not yours. Okay. >> Yes. I mean, I I think it would make sense to hear them both at the same time, but if you choose to give an extension, it will be two separate motions, one for each case. >> Okay. So, um, at this time, we're not
going to make a decision on this particular case. So, why don't you go ahead and tell us about the next case and then we'll make two different motions. >> Do they have to read? I think they have >> We have to read to read. Yes. Let her read the case and then we'll get started. [clears throat] >> Unfinished business. Case number 2540448
city versus Eddie Fabbero Mestre for the property located at 6125 Liberty Avenue. The deadline for compliance is January 14th, 2026. The fine of $50 per day beginning January 15, 2026.
Violation section 8-28 subsection A subsection 1 permit at required. And uh for the record, the section 12-225 zoning R-10 single family residents uh will be was
removed from the agenda. The item was not a part of the case um 42548 at the time the order was entered. >> Okay. >> Deadline for compliance is midnight tonight. >> Very good. Thank you. Okay. Is yours and just state your name again, please? >> Yes. uh Karina Fuller um council for the
respondent Eddie uh Mestre um per for this particular violation um board members uh my client was uh supposed to get five different permits. These permits included HVAC, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and structural. Uh
this was um there's currently a stop work order because there was work done on the property without the requisite permits. Uh we do have a general contractor, Caesar Garcia. Um, we have all of these permits except the electrical. The reason it took so long
to get an electrician on board and provide his license to submit this permit was because it is an after the-act permit. So, work was done. So, it was very difficult to locate a contractor who was willing to put his license on the line without ripping all the walls and so forth. But that being
said, the holidays occurred um and this particular contractor who's willing to do an affidavit and inspect the property is currently out of the country. I'm being told um that he gets back by the end of the month um and and he will be
ready, you know, to inspect it, prepare an affidavit and and put his license on the permit. However, we cannot per Temple Terrace uh process, we can't submit like permits one by one. So, the driveway permit that I previously explained plus these five permits all
need to be submitted at the same time. Um, I believe my client was here maybe yesterday or the day before and he's been here in the past to try to submit one by one permits and they won't accept it unless all of them are submitted at the same time. I did have an opportunity to speak with Mr. Dallas uh the
inspector on the case and I did and let him know and advise him that I would be asking for an additional extension and so that's what I'm here for today. Dallas, you mind coming up for that? >> So, assuming that her contractor gets back by the end of the month and gets
you something, let's say February 1st, um, would you be able to have your people review and assuming there's no problems, approve by our next meeting? >> Yes, they're getting it done. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right, gentlemen. What's your
uh what's your pleasure and no the board? >> Oh uh well it just uh these we have when we do the u uh the extension we >> if you decide to give them extension or not give them extension we'll need to have two motions
>> one motion >> one for the first case and one for the second. >> Okay I'm ready. >> Okay do one at a time. Go ahead. >> Okay. >> Uh case four. Okay. In case number 25-
20911, uh I move that the city uh give an extension for the um client uh till February uh February 11th, 2026. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second?
>> Second. >> Second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I opposed. No nays. So you have an extension for this for case 25-2911 until February 11th. >> Thank you.
>> In case number 25-448, I move that the city uh I have a motion to move the um uh >> compiance >> the compliance date till February 11th, 2026. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Motion a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? I >> oppose. No nays. So, you received the extension on both uh cases. >> I will be seeing you all again on [laughter] >> hopefully with good news. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Have a good night. Next case,
please. >> Unfinished business. Case number 25500072 city versus Blue Rock Premier Properties for the property located at 6900 Aruba Avenue. The deadline for compliance is January 14th, 2026. The fine of $2,000
per day beginning January 15 2026. Violation sections 8-56A fire alarm system not operational section 8-57B4 fire hydrant access maintenance section
[clears throat] 8-57B1 fire safety emergency lighting section 5 I'm sorry section 8-57B2 fire safety extinguisher extinguisher inspection uh section 8-57D
fire safety posting addresses is section 8-56 fire suppression systems section 8-55 fire grills and section 8-55A2 fire and proper storage deadline for
compliance is midnight tonight. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Good evening members of the board. My name is Cletus Squires, fire inspector with the city of Temple Terrace Fire Department. So this is a continuence um case that I had that was uh found in
fault for these violations. Since since that date u six of those violations I have already uh cleared off the dockets. They have been corrected and uh currently [clears throat] meet our our
code on the other two um violations for the fire alarm systems and the fire sprinkler systems for the >> sections of those. >> Um >> 856A I think and
>> 856 is fires printing system. Um, the very first one, Mr. Chair. >> Yeah. 856A. Okay. >> You got it before I did. All right. >> So, it's 856A. And which other one?
>> 856A. And the next one would be uh 856. >> Okay. So, those are the only two left. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, I' I've been uh speaking with the the property representatives uh as of uh last week, and I have confirmed
the progress with the actual contractors that are doing the work out there, and there has been uh much progress made on the correction of that. spoke with the fire sprinkler uh which is Piparker
uh this week uh on the phone and he's replaced they're doing it in phases and he's uh ahead of schedule. He's replaced a number of the heads. He's uh and the sprinkler heads inside the units. He's got uh eight valves that he still needs
to be replaced to feeds the water to the buildings. and uh he said he's ahead of schedule and potentially by next month that his work will be done. Spoke with uh Kevin from Coxfire now I think it's
also Pi Barker uh formerly Coxfire and um he's the uh in charge of fixing the alarms and uh some of this work goes together. you have to have one done before you start the fire alarms with with the way it reports and things. And
he has started and uh we got about uh 10 of the buildings that that he's got at priority that are on firewatch that the actual uh property management is is conducting on their own that because of the fire alarms not working which we addressed prior to and uh so they're on
a firewatch status knows that they have to call and that the system might not uh report or go out. So, uh he's he's making those the priority and and same thing he's uh he's got them all inspected because they weren't inspected before and he knows what work is is required and same thing he's thinking
that he told me maybe even by the end of this month that his his work uh if everything goes u as scheduled should be done. >> And remind me somebody how many extensions have we given so far? Well, well, u when you found them, they
they've asked for one extension on the on the first meeting last month, and you granted them a six month, but for me to come back and and progress, 180 days, and and uh the representatives are here from the property from Blue Rock, but you granted that at at their request
from the first meeting on the uh on the outstanding violations. >> I mean, if we if we gave them six months, >> I don't think he did. No, I don't think we wanted this. >> We didn't give >> So, we didn't give them 6 months. We both understood >> estimated it would take six months.
Okay. So, but we only given them one extension so far. >> Yeah, I think this would be the second extension. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That's what I was trying to get at. >> Sorry, I misunderstood. That's okay. Any other questions? >> Did the respondent want to say anything more? Uh my name is John Jones. Address is
6900 Aruba Avenue. Um good evening. I just wanted to reiterate uh we are making significant progress. We do anticipate to have this project completed in its entirety uh by next month. Our fire vendor is anticipating um a date of February 18th for full
completion. Uh and so we respectfully ask for an additional 30-day continuance. And just >> the um you're continuing the fire watch in those buildings that don't have alarm systems. >> That is correct. >> Any other questions? Rod, >> you're you're um our next meeting will
be February 11th. So um the 18 So you still you don't think you can make it by February 11th? I know the progress and with Cletus is very few and he's very happy with the progress but >> um what
>> yeah we're hoping that the fire vendor can uh finish the work ahead of schedule. That's kind of a conservative date that they've given us so far. Last month we projected a 180day timeline uh with the understanding that we'll be here to check in every 30 days. So there
may be a situation where by the the meeting on February 11th, there may be one or two items um of I believe 8-56A remaining. Um so it may be a situation where next month's meeting we may need
to ask for just one last continuence and then be fully compliant by March's meeting. >> Very good. Any other questions? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Go ahead. In case number 25-50072, I move to extend the um case till
February 11th, 19 uh February 11th, 2026. >> Second motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? I >> opposed. No nays. You have your extension, sir. >> Thank you. See you next month.
>> Thank you. Next case, please. Case number 254550, City versus Jose J. Garcia Jr. for the property located at five numbers. Oh, I'm sorry. I skipped to number eight. Sorry about that. Case
number seven under new business. Uh, case number 253466, City versus Michael Eea and Natalie Etchivera for the property located at 409 Burwick Avenue. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation
of section 12-859 subsection 2 RVs, boats, and trailers in section 10-34 sanitation premises clean. This case will be prosecuted this evening by code officer Doug Allen. The ca the city has evidence that the notice
of violation and notice of hearing were properly served. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. Doug Allen, code compliance officer. This case was originated by officer Bats on September 2nd, 2025 for an RV in the front yard and [snorts]
debris throughout the property. She scheduled a reinspection for September 9th, 2025, which showed no change, so a notice of violation was generated on that date with a reinspection date of October 1st, 2025. if she achieves service with the
resident's adult daughter and a copy was posted at city hall for the 10-day requirements and copies were mailed both regular and certified mailed to the owner of record. A reinspection on September or December 29th, 2025 showed no change. So, I prepared a notice of hearing on that date and scheduled the
case for the January municipal code board meeting. I'd like to submit photographic evidence taken by me on January 8th, 2026. >> Works out there. Thank you. Exhibit number one shows the affidavit of service for the notice of violation. Exhibit number two shows the RV in the
driveway and debris in the yard. Exhibit number three shows the debris in the in the driveway. Exhibit number four shows the affidavit of service for the notice of hearing. The site is not in compliance and I'm seeking a ruling. However, around 5:00 this afternoon, we did get some photos from the resident,
and it does look like some of the violations are in compliance. I'm going to do an inspection again in the morning and see if everything's in compliance, and if so, I'll submit an affidavit to compliance to the clerk's office. >> Okay. But as of this moment, both U sections are still out of compliance. >> Yes, sir.
>> Thank you. >> Any questions for the code officer? Seeing none, I guess the respondent is here. Have you both been sworn in? I'm sorry. >> Were you both sworn in? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay, come on up. >> Good evening, members of the board. So,
we have we were literally done. >> Address first, please. >> I'm sorry. >> Name. >> Natalie at Chavaria. >> Michael Traria. >> Address. >> Address 40. The address. Yes. 409 Burwick Avenue.
>> Perfect. Thank you. >> All right. So, we were literally down to the wire. We went ahead and we emailed uh Mr. Doug here the photos of the completed work. We have gone ahead and put the RV on the side of the yard
behind the gates. Um we closed we were able to close the gates and we were able to clean up all the debris in the yard. The tires, the wood that was out in the front, everything has been cleaned up. And I sent him all the updated pictures today, literally before we made it here because that was literally all the time
that we had left. >> But we were able to comply with both of the violations. >> So in your opinion, it's it's now in compliance. >> Absolutely. >> Respectfully, yes, we Okay. >> We are in compliance. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions for the respondents?
>> Um over here. Hi. And hi, >> good afternoon. Um including the um damaged and unpainted wood wall that was taken care of as well. that actually is going to get done. I didn't know that was part of it. >> What is that? >> Can you show us >> um protocol? I could just
>> Yeah. Is this okay? >> Okay. >> Yeah. Give it >> Oh, different. Oh, I'm so sorry. I apologize. >> Okay. We We >> Thank you. >> Slowly getting around. >> Got it. Understood. My apologies then. Please continue.
>> Violations with the RV in the front. debris in the front of the yard, which both have been taken care of as of today. >> Excellent. >> That we did >> send pictures out. >> Yeah, we did send the pictures, but I don't think he had time to print them out before he got here. >> All right. >> Any other questions? >> No.
>> Question for you, David. How How do we do this? >> You would just >> find it. >> Find it in violation. They'd have 30 days to fix it. It'll go out there tomorrow, assuming [clears throat] everything is good. They'll be in they'll be in compliance. >> Okay. Perfect. >> Then they'll do that. Go ahead. I'll do
that. Can you have a seat? >> All right. Thank you so much. >> Just don't be scared. >> $2,000. >> Yeah. In case number 25-3466, I move that the city has proven by this
greater weight of evidence the following violations of the city of Tumble Terrace City Code exists on the property located at 409 Avenue with applicable code violation section 12-859
subsection 2 and section 10-34. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer Doug Allen along with any other evidence including photos, affidavit, and a notice of violation of which received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I
further move that the SID violation be corrected on or before February 11th, 2026. If the respondent does not comply with this order on or before the day, they are ordered to pay a fine for each and every day the violation continue past
the date set for compliance upon the following factors. The gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, any previous violations committed by the violator. I move that the fine be $25 per day. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Motion a second. Any further discussion?
>> Yeah. Um, so do we have any photographic evidence from this case? >> No, excuse me. >> You have second batch. >> The second There were two bad. Okay. >> The second batch shows the the RV and the tires and all that other stuff. >> Thank you. So we got two in one. Yeah.
>> Got it. >> Okay. Sorry. I don't want to vote before I have a chance to evaluate. >> It was the second. >> Got it. >> Okay. >> Thank you. We could just make sure that it moves with an expedient pace. >> Thank you guys.
>> So there if there is there any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. So you you have been found in violation. Um you have until February 11th, 2025 to bring
the property back into compliance. >> Um assuming you it's done like you said it's done. He'll he'll go out there tomorrow and take a look at it. And if it's in if it's in compliance tomorrow, he'll submit an affidavit of compliance and it all go away. >> Okay. >> Okay. If it's not, he'll let you know what needs to be done and you'll have
until February 11th to get that done. >> Right. So, as of this >> as of right now, you're in you're not in compliance. >> Right. But once once he looks at it tomorrow, yes, you're good. Assuming >> we're found good. Do we need to return? >> What's that? >> Will we need to return if we're found to
be in compliance? Like we >> No. If if let's let's assume that he finds something that's not in compliance tomorrow, he will tell you what that is. Okay? And you'll have until February 11th to bring that in compliance. Once you if some whatever he says is not in
compliance, you call down here and tell them we've now fixed that whatever that is, he'll come back out and then assuming that's fixed, then he'll give us an affidavit of compliance. So, you won't have to come back here unless something strange happens and you're not
able to not able [clears throat] to uh bring the property into compliance by our next meeting. You'll have to come to us on that date, February 11th, and tell us why it didn't why it wasn't fixed. And then at that point, you you will be able to ask for a a extension. There is
no guarantee you will get one, but you are welcome to ask. >> Okay. >> Awesome. >> Any other questions? >> I have one, too. Yeah. Well, you'll have to wait. >> Okay. >> No, no. Just for to for you to just to mention also repeated not to be repeat the same violations. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, like you heard before,
if if the property comes in comes out of compliance, once it's in compliance, it becomes a repeat violation and the and the fines are much higher after that. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, John. >> Next case, please. >> Next case. Under new business.
>> Yeah. Past their bedtime. >> Thank you. >> Yes. [laughter] Have a good evening everybody. >> You too. >> Case number 254550 city versus Jose J. Garcia Jr. for the property located at 409 Builtmore
Avenue. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 12-922 subsection A parking commercial vehicle in a residential area. The case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Doug Allen. The city
has evidence that the notice of violation and the notice of hearing were properly served. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. Doug Allen, co- compliance officer. This case was originated by me on December 2nd, 2025 for a food trailer stored in the driveway. Went directly to
a notice of violation on that date with a reinspection date of December 9th, 2025. I posted the notice at the property and a copy was posted at city hall on the electronic board for the 10-day requirement and copies were mailed with certified and regular mail to the address of the owner of record.
My reinspection on October 29th, December 29th, I'm sorry, showed no change. So, I prepared a notice of hearing on that date and the case was scheduled for the January municipal code board meeting. This time, I'd like to submit photographic evidence taken by me on December 2nd, December 3rd, and
December 29th, uh, 2025. >> Thank you. >> One second. Um, I take we have technical difficulties. >> Yes. >> Show them to the respondent real quick.
>> And they tried rebooting, but it's not >> for whatever reason, it's just not working tonight. I didn't realize we weren't getting photos. >> You can't see the laptops in there. [cough]
[clears throat] >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Exhibit number one shows the posting of the notice of violation. Exhibit number two shows the food uh trailer in the driveway. Exhibit number three shows the posting of the notice of hearing.
Exhibit number four shows the trailer in the driveway. Exhibit number five shows the trailer in the driveway. Exhibit number six shows the trailer in the driveway. Exhibit seven shows the trailer in the driveway. Exhibit eight shows the trailer in the driveway. I've also observed the trailer on site three other times since December without
taking a photo. once yesterday and today. The site is not in compliance and I'm seeking a ruling. Ben, >> any questions for the code officer? I assume the respondent would like to say something one up.
>> Have you been sworn in, sir? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Name and address, please. >> Hi, Jose Garcia, 409 Builtmore. So, as as you guys can obviously see, I run a a food uh food truck business. I don't store my trailer in front of my
driveway like overnight. I have before, right? Like in particular like last night. It was there because I had a gig late last night and my storage site is closed after hours, right? So I can't physically bring the trailer to storage after hours, particularly when I'm
coming from like a late night gig. Um I understand that the trailer is not supposed to be stored there, but it's usually in transit. A lot of times it's there for a few hours throughout the day because I'm waiting to go to a gig or I'm just doing
stuff, right? But it's I'm not storing it there overnight. I like I said, I had before and I I spoken with the co compliance personnel and they said as as long as you give us a heads up and and and let us know what's going on with the trailer, you should be good to go. Well,
I did that in particular that the the picture with the white truck that that was a rental. I called that day to say, "Hey, I'm prepping. I have a gig later that day." Uh that very same day, I I recall seeing the officer drive by taking pictures. And so
I don't sell food for my for my home. It's purely for prep and cleaning, right? Um it's, you know, the nature of my business. I'm I run a homebased business. Um,
as I mentioned before, as I mentioned to uh to the director, it's you guys are going to see it again. Whether or not it's there overnight, that's a that's a different story, right? That's how that's how I pay my rent. I mean, that's how I pay my mortgage. I sell pizza.
>> So, it's like you have the ability to put it on the side backyard or the side of your house. >> No, sir. But like I said, I have storage. I have sufficient stores uh facilities for just that reason, right? But when it comes to prepping, cleaning,
you know, offloading for example, I do it at my house. >> You don't you you can't uh clean it, prep it. You can't at least clean it at the storage place. >> I don't have access to water or power. Okay? >> That's that's the constraint I'm dealing with is water and power. >> Okay? And so I come home, I bring the
trailer home to clean because I have water and everything and it because I have to, you know, I have to have food safety regulations have to abide by have to make sure my trailer is clean, >> right? >> And um the storage site doesn't really have anything for me to do anything other than just to for storage. Like
I've I've made dough in the storage site before, you know, like just making the pizza dough. But >> have you investigated other historic locations that might give you power and water but might be open longer?
>> Not that that's within a reasonable uh distance. >> Okay. >> And um I'm not storing it there like overnight. You know, like I said, I have done it before, but you know, I've come to an understanding with the compliance department
and, you know, I'm trying I've taken steps to adhere to those um guidelines that they set forth. But, you know, like what can I do? I mean, you know, it's like I can't bring my trailer back to the storage site overnight and then,
you know, the officer's going to see the trailer the next day. It was there this morning. Okay. >> Right. I brought it back to storage site at at lunchtime. It's going to be there again. You know, it's it's just the nature of my business. Um but again, I won't it won't
be there overnight. Um I've taken steps to ensure that u that you know I can work with the co- compliance office going uh forward in the future. But I mean I'm at a I'm at a rock and a hard place. It's like
>> so either Ernie or Jack, what is the actual rules as far as trailer? Is it is it just overnight or can't be there at all or >> it it can't be there at all? Um, now we we did have a conversation uh Mr. Garcia
and I did uh on a couple occasions and just like anybody else that we would deal with here in Temple Terrace. Um if there's a situation once in a blue moon that maybe he does have to be somewhere at 4 in the morning um and he prepped
all night and it's going to be there give us the heads up. You know, we we'll take that in consideration. But if it's going to be something that's going to be every single day, uh we're going to we're going to get complaints. We're going to see it. It's a direct violation of of the ordinance. Um, so if it's something that's going to be every day,
it's it's not really conducive to what's in the ordinance. >> Gotcha. And there's no way to cover up that trailer like you would with a a vanded vehicle, putting putting a car cover over it. >> No. The the only way to to really make that work is to store it on the side of his without, you know, screen from view.
Uh, but the way his property is laid out, it's not really going to work for him. I don't have the space to store it on like in the backyard or or otherwise. I can either store it in my driveway. Well, store I can either have it >> won't fit in your garage, right? >> That's big.
>> No, negative. It's too big. Um my truck can't even fit in my garage. >> Um so it's like how can I make how can I make a living and be still in complying with the city of Temple Terrace? >> Sounds like you can't
quite frankly. Um, and here's here's my here's my dilemma. Um, obviously you're you were in you're not in compliance. >> Well, I am in compliance because the trailer's not there. >> The trailer's not there now, but >> and it hasn't been there. And each day that this notice was dropped off,
>> the trailer wasn't there. >> Okay. >> So, this is based on like the previous day. >> But here's here's the dilemma. We have photographic evidence that shows it was not in compliance on those particular days. Okay? If we find you in violation tonight, the next time it's
not in violation, it becomes a repeat. And when it becomes a repeat, the the the fines go up drastically, >> which we don't want to do, >> which we don't want to do. Okay? So, you you're we'll see if you get found you get found in violation tonight
according to the board. But you have to understand, and you keep telling us, well, you're going to see it again. Well, the next time they see it, it becomes a repeat violation. So, you're going to have to find an alternative. Um, you know, a a a buddy's house, a
different storage facility that's open longer, 24-hour storage. Um, you know, prep it and put it in the back of your truck and take it over to the trailer. Uh, you're going to have to change the way you do things in order to be in compliance. >> I mean, I'm a homeowner.
>> Yes. I pay my taxes. >> Yeah, I understand that. >> Why can't I have my trolley in my driveway? >> Can I ask a question? And this might be for the director. could could if they if the code compliance officer
comes through during the day and he's there prepping instead of just taking a photo is there a way and I understand it's more out of their time just to say hey like is it going to be here all day are you what's
going on since you know this is going on cuz if he's prepping during the day and then he's going to take it back his storage at, you know, 78 or he's going to be leaving to go to to work, whatever. Is that an option?
>> No. And the reason is if if this was something that was once every couple months and we we happen to notice it, we we do that now. >> We would stop and we would have that conversation. Hey, >> um how's everything going? Is is this going to be here all day? What's what what you got going on? Um letting you know that you're in violation, blah blah
blah. Um and then we rectify it right then and there. But if there's something every day, I'm I'm not going to have the officers go out there every single day. >> Well, it sets a very precedent, >> right? Because we'd have to do that for every single person throughout the entire city for every single violation. >> Yeah. >> And it's just not feasible.
>> That's fair. Brad, you had a question? >> Yes. Uh it's for uh for Jack. Um is what can he do? What you're suggesting that he can do? >> We have to figure out another way. Um I would be more than willing to to sit
down with Mr. Garcia um and brainstorm and try to figure something out. Um cuz I understand this frustration. I I get it. Uh it may be easier to sit down with somebody, a third party that um may be looking at things a little bit
differently uh to try to find things when when you're frustrated. Uh [clears throat] you know, you're you're just trying to get it done, trying to get he's trying to trying to make money. I I and pay his mortgage. Completely understand that. But the fact is we have a law and we've got to make sure that law is followed just like everybody else
in the city. I would recommend that he sits down with me or somebody if not me uh and try to figure this out so we can make sure he can perform the business. He's doing something I would love to do. Seriously, I would love to do something like that and I'm sure his pizzas are
amazing but we have to find another way to allow him to do that. Are we getting also neighbors complaints? >> Uh we we've had a couple since since I've been here. >> So it's, you know, like just every time
they see his truck in the driveway, they're complaining or >> No, that's that was a few months ago I was getting complaints, but that's kind of um died off a little bit as we've been engaging >> because I I think he explained that. I I
was following what he said. I'm I I feel with his frustration, but uh I just want to find a solution for him. He's a resident and he, you know, this is his living. >> We we just have to think differently. Uh the fact is it can't be in the driveway, right? It can't be on the property
because the ordinance says so. He has a storage facility that's not going to work for his business. We have to find another way. And um I'm more than willing to sit down with him and try to think through that and see what we can figure out. At what point does my rights as a property owner come into play?
Right. Like I can't have my own trailer in my own driveway on my own property that I pay taxes and a mortgage on. >> That's correct. >> This sort of laws any >> Well, I was just going to kind of go with the way that Mr. Kower was going to
go. It's there is an ordinance that prevents this and that was voted on by the city council. That is what the community wanted was to not have commercial vehicles in residential property. So
understand, you know, I understand your frustration and your argument, but that is what the community as a whole has asked for through our ordinances. So that's going to be the law and that's it's it's prohibited here in Temple Terrace.
So, at one point, is it storage versus it's just being there for temporarily? [clears throat] What is what are my left and right parameters? If I can't have it at all, that's I don't know. That's pretty unreasonable. If I can't have my trailer
in my driveway at all, like >> Have Have you taken a look at the at the ordinance language? >> I think I have not. Um, Mr. Chair, may I? >> Sure. >> Okay.
Um, so the ordinance description, I'm going to skip all of the the numbers and letters and whatnot and get right to the meat and potatoes for you. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all commercial vehicles, including self-propelled vehicles with or without trailers having a weight
class of one ton or more individually or combined. And all commercial trailers are prohibited from parking in any residential zoning district, street or lot. So it's it's not storage, I don't think, is the issue. It's the the
language is is parking it there. So we have to kind of reframe how we look at this to find the solution. >> Vehicle stops moving. It's considered parked. >> Well, if I can just paragraph B. Um, we
allow it for on a temporary basis for the purpose of loading and unloading. >> Okay, perfect. >> But I think we're moving beyond the loading and unloading. Then it's sits there. Correct. >> Right. And I admit I I granted it was I was storing it there prior, you know,
overnight mainly out of laziness. But as far as if I'm allowed to park it there for the sake of offloading, unloading or unloading and you know what are my left and right parameters?
>> You just you just heard them, >> right? But what is the time frame, >> Mr. Chairman? >> Is it 1 hour? Is it four hours? >> That's that's not Hang on. That's that's that's not for this board to determine. That's something you have to work out with with with the code officers. >> And so how is that even objectively
fair? Because he can pretty much interpret it as he sees fit. He can say if it's there 5 minutes, it's in violation. >> Uh may I >> use No, hang on. Um again, you have to work it out with them. But unloading and
loading means you're actively taking stuff out or putting stuff in. that's unloading and loading. So they believe me that the code officers and temple terrorists are willing to work with everyone, but you can't be if like you said if it's if it was once a month or
twice a month or something, but if it's every day and it's sitting there for hours while you're inside prepping, that becomes a problem. >> I'm in the trailer prepping. I can't prep in my home. I'm in the trailer prepping. >> So >> because I have water there, I have electricity.
>> Understand? I can actually prep and run my equipment inside. >> Just like you said, unfortunately, you're going to have to find a >> And I understand that, sir. But so you're going to leave it up to Mr. Jack and his his his enforcers to interpret
it as they see fit. So, is it 5 minutes? Is it 4 hours? I mean, what are my parameters? I mean, >> you'll have you'll have to sit down and work that out with them. >> Since we all don't know the inner workings of your business, maybe it
would behoove every party involved to have a conversation about what unloading and loading looks like for your particular industry. And if we can all come to the same conclusions about what reasonable expectations might be, everybody can be on the same page about
that. you understand what the parameters are, what you help us understand what normal looks like and then we also understand what abnormal will look like or outside of those parameters and then everybody's on the same page. >> Normal is every day for me. So because
that means I'm making money every day. >> Again, you have to work that out with with him. So [clears throat] that's that's that's crazy because it's like you it's like you're leaving you're leaving it up in the air for him to determine >> not based on the law but based on
>> they believe me they their their determination will be based on the law. >> So does the law prescribe a time frame of loading and unloading or is it going to be prescribed by the coding enforcers? >> It's going to be >> it's not going to be tied into time.
It's going to be tied into the activity. Are you loading and unloading? Otherwise, the law says you can't have it there parked there at all except if you're loading or unloading. So, it isn't a matter of time. It's a matter of activity. >> So, are you guys going to send code
officers to my house every time I have my trailer in front of my house, whether I'm loading or unloading to make sure? Because, you know, life happens. You know, I have kids in the house. something happened in the midst of me unloading and lo loading and I gotta go to the hospital real quick, right? Or I
gotta do something real quick. I mean, I'm not here to like waste you guys' time, but like if we're going to follow a letter of the law, the law needs to prescribe a time frame,
not being based on somebody's subjective point of view like, oh, I've seen this trailer last night. I've seen the trailer two days ago. It's always here. No, you don't. You It's not always here because overnight it's gone. You only see it in the mornings when I'm active.
But you have no way of telling telling that I'm bring that trailer back to storage every night. Particularly when I have jobs in morning and it's there in the driveway every morning. So if I'm a fisherman and I have a boat and my boat is always in the driveway, >> you be right. You'd be in the same spot
you are now, >> right? But but you guys don't know if I'm bringing my boat down to the marina every night. every night. You just see my the boat in the driveway every morning, but you don't see their subsequent activities after that. >> I'm sorry. >> Would be a violation. >> But I pick up the trailer in the
morning. >> But see, that that's the this is the real world implications that I'm trying to figure out here. >> Here's the bottom line. We will be making a determination tonight whether or not a violation of the city code has occurred. Okay? If [clears throat] that violation if if it is determined that a
violation has occurred, I'm just telling you that the next time it occurs, it will be a repeat violation. If it's a repeat violation, the fines go up. Okay? So, that's that's what we're dealing with. Okay? Now, however you work that out with the code enforcement officers,
and I'm pretty sure it's going to involve you changing the way you do things a little bit. Okay? and checking in with them and say, "Hey, can I do this on my own?" >> I don't know. I don't know. Beyond that, I don't know. >> It's crazy. It's like, what's the point of having property and ownership when
when you can just be told that you can or cannot do something as simple as having a trailer in your driveway just for a couple hours throughout the day. I mean, it's we we understand your
>> Okay. If there's no other questions, I'll entertain a motion. >> Motion. Thank you. >> Um, in case number 25-4550, I move that the city has proven by a greater weight of the evidence the following violations of the city of
Temple Terrace City Code exist on the property located at address 409 Builtmore Avenue um section 12-922 sub section A parking commercial vehicle and residential area. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has
received from code enforcement officer Allen along with any other evidence including photos, affidavit, and the notice of violation. All of which is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that said violations be corrected on or
before February 11th, 2026. If the respondent does not comply with this order on or before that day, they are ordered to pay a fine for each and every day the violations continue past the date set for compliance upon considering the following factors. The gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the
violator to correct the violation and any previous violations committed by the violator. I move that the fine to be $25 per day. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I >> I
>> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. So sir, you have been found in violation of the code. You have until February 11th to bring the property into compliance, which means you have until then to sit down with them and try to work something out. Otherwise, you're going to have to do something a little bit different and
the way you do do things now. >> The trail is not even there today. It wasn't there. >> Okay. the each time a notice was dropped off, the trill was not in the truck. >> Okay, cool. Again, any any other questions?
Thank you. Next case, please. Case number 253740, City versus Paula Amina Alio for the property located at 7903 Terrace Ridge Drive. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation
of section 8-102 subsection 13 subsection C minimum housing roofs. This case will be prosecuted this evening by code officer Lorie Smith. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and the notice
of hearing were properly served. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members. Lori Smith, code compliance. This case was originated proactively on September the 22nd, 2025. My inspection revealed a brown tarp on the roof which might emit rain or cause dampness in the
walls of the structure. At this time, I left a door hanger with a compliance dated the 22nd of October, 2025. My inspection on November the 4th, 2025 revealed no change. Therefore, notice of violation was prepared with the compliance date of the 28th of November
2025. Affidavit of service was obtained by hand delivery to Leily Channer who is a niece of the respondent who also resides there. At this time I'd like to submit photographic evidence of the violation taken by me on November the 4th, 2025.
>> Accept that. Thank you. >> Exhibit number one shows the brown tarp on the roof which might admit rain or cause dampness in the walls. Mr. Chairman, on the 31st of December, 2025, while delivering the notice of hearing, I spoke with Lena Leila Channer concerning the violation. As of today's
date, the site is not in compliance and I'm seeking a ruling. >> Very good. Thank you. Any questions for the code officer? >> So, you go ahead. >> So, you said you spoke with the I guess not >> niece of the respondent who also resides
at the property, Mr. Snelling. And did they give any uh what what what was the nature of the correspondence of the discussion? >> Uh she was surprised that uh the uh the respondent hasn't reached out directly to me uh and that she was kind of caught off guard. Um I said no that you know um
I haven't been contacted and she was the only person that I had contact with >> was Miss Channer. Okay. >> Thanks. >> Any updates since then? >> Go ahead. >> No. >> None. >> None. >> Any other questions? Seeing none, I
entertain a motion. >> All right, I'll do this one. >> Thank you. >> And case number 25-3740, I move that the city has proven by a greater weight of the evidence the following violation of the city of Temple Terrace city code exists on the
property located at 7903 Terrace Ridge Drive. Uh code violation is uh 8-102 subsection 13 subsection C. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from code enforcements officer Lorie Smith along
with any other evidence including photos, affidavit, and notice of violation. All of which is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that said violations be corrected on or before February 11th, 2026. If the respondent does not comply with this order on or before that day, they are ordered to pay
a fine for each and every day the violation continues past the date set for compliance. Upon considering the following factors, the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, and any previous violations committed by the violator, I move that the fine be $25 per day. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second?
>> Second. >> Motion is second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> Opposed? No nays. Motion carries. Next case, please. Case number 253904 City versus Timothy J. Moore and Jessica
Elmore for the property located at 63. >> Someone there's light. >> Hm. >> Uh >> oh. I'm sorry. My mic wasn't on. Okay. >> Okay. Let me start over. Sorry about [laughter] that. >> Case number 253940.
City versus Timothy J. Moore and Jessica El. Moore for the property located at 6311 East 1 113, I'm sorry, each East 113th Avenue. This case is before the board based on an
alleged violation of section 8-10213C, minimum housing roofs. This case will be prosecuted this evening by officer Lori Smith. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and the notice of hearing were properly served. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Good evening again, Mr. Chairman, board
members. Lori Smith, co- compliance. This case originated proactively on October the 6, 2025. My inspection revealed the east side gutter did not allow for unhindered passage of rainwater and there was tree debris on the roof of the structure. At this time, I left a door hanger with a compliance
date of the 30th of October, 2025. My inspection on November the 4th, 2025 revealed no change. Therefore, a notice of violation was prepared with a compliance date of the 20th of November, 2025. No one was at home, so I posted the
notice letter at the front door and request the copies be sent certified in first class mail to the owner of record. I also requested a copy be posted on the electronic board for the 10-day requirement. At this time, I'd like to submit photographic evidence of the violation taken by me on the 4th of
November, 2025. >> We said there. Thank you. Exhibit number one shows a notice letter posted at the front door. Exhibit number two shows the east side gutter blocked by a tree limb. Exhibit number three shows the tree to breeze on the roof of the structure. Mr. Chairman, on December
the 31st, 2025, while delivering the notice of hearing, I spoke with homeowner Timothy Moore concerning the outstanding violation. As of today's date, the site is now in compliance. I'd like to submit an affidavit compliance. I'm just looking for a finding. >> Set that. Thank you very much.
Any questions for the code officer? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. I'll do that. Thank you. In case number 25-3904, I move that the city has pro has proven by the the greater weight of evidence the following violations of the city of
the military city code did exist on the property located at 6311 East 113th Avenue with the applicable code violations section 8-102 subsection 13 subsection C.
This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code of enforcement officer Lorie Smith along with any other evidence including [clears throat] photos, affidavit, and a notice of violation of which you received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that there be no fine imposed
because the violations were brought into compliance prior to the date of the hearing. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Next
case, please. >> Case number 2540 58, city versus James L. Evans. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'll just get used to it. That's fine. >> All right. Case number 25458,
City versus James L. Evans and Joyce AG Evans for the property located at 11305 East Queensway Drive. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 10-34 sanitation premises clean. This case will be
prosecuted this evening by code officer Lorie Smith. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and the notice of hearing were properly served. >> Good evening again, Lorie Smith, Code Compliance. This case originated proactively on October the 20th, 2025.
My inspection revealed debris accumulation on the front and south side of the property. At this time, I left a door hanger with the reinspection date of the 25th of October, 2025. My reinspection on November 4th, 2025 noted no change. Therefore, a notice of
violation was prepared with a compliance date of the 20th of November, 2025. No one was at home, so I posted the notice letter at the front door, requested copies be sent certified in first class mail to the owner of record. I also requested a copy be posted on the
electronic board for the 10day requirement. At this time, I'd like to submit photographic evidence of the violation taken by me on November the 4th, 2025. >> That Thank you. Exhibit number one shows a notice letter posted at the mailbox. Exhibit number
two and three shows debris on the south side of the property. Exhibit number four shows tree debris accumulation on the front of the site. Mr. Chairman, on December the 31st, 2025, while delivering the notice of hearing, I spoke with homeowner Jim Evans and
discussed the violation. As of today's date, the site is in compliance and like I submit an affidavit of compliance. I'm just looking for a finding. >> Good. Thank you. We'll certainly accept that. >> Any questions for the code officer? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.
>> All right, I'll do this one. Make sure I got the right. Okay. So in case number 25-4058, I move that the city has proven by a greater weight of the evidence the following violation of the city of
Temple Terrace City Code did exist on the property located at 11305 East Queensway Drive, code section 10-34. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from code enforcement officer Lorie Smith
along with any other evidence including photos, affidavit, and notice of violation. All of which is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that there be no fine imposed because the violation was brought into brought into compliance prior to the date of this hearing. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second?
>> Second. >> Motion a second. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all those in favor? I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Next case, please. >> Case number 254063, City Versus Progress Residential Borrow
16 LLC for the property located at 1343 Terrace Springs Drive. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 8-102 subsection 13 subsection C minimum housing roofs. This case will be
prosecuted this evening by Lori Smith. Code officer Lori Smith. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. >> Before we start, I just want to remind uh Miss Jones that uh board member Gomez
will be recused on this one. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Good evening board members and and uh Mr. Chairman, Lorie Smith Code Compliance. This case was originated proactively on October the 20th, 2025.
My inspection revealed a blue tarp on the roof of the structure which might admit rain or cause dampness in the walls or interior portions of the building. At this time, I left a door hanger with a compliance dated the 20th of November 2025. My inspection on November the 25th, 2025
revealed no change. Therefore, a notice of violation was prepared with the compliance date of the 11th of December, 2025. No one was at home, so I posted the notice letter at the front door and requested copies be sent certified and first class mailed to the owner of record. I also requested a copy be
posted on the electronic board for the 10-day requirement. At this time, I'd like to submit photographic evidence of the violation taken by me on November the 25th, 2025. >> Thank you. Exhibit number one shows a notice letter posted at the front door. Exhibit number
two shows the blue tarp on the roof of the structure. Mr. Chairman, on the 9th of December, 2025, property manager Ces Jones contacted me about a permit and was referred to community development. As [clears throat] of today's date, the site is not in compliance and I'm seeking a ruling. Good.
>> Thank you. Any questions for the code officer? >> Any word on the permit? I haven't heard anything. No, nothing's been >> Yeah, it was the same question. Basically, is that have they applied is to the best of your knowledge if they apply for a permit or anything like
that? >> Any other questions? >> Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll do them. >> Thank you. In case number 25-4063, I move that the city has proven by the
greater weight of the evidence the following violations of the city of Temple Terrace City Code exist on the property located at 13043 Terrace Springs Drive with the
applicable code violation section 8-102 subsection 13 subsection This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer Lorie Smith along with any other evidence including photos avid and the notice of violation
all which is received received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that the sit violation be corrected on or before February 11th 2026. If the respondent does not comply with this order on or before that day, they
are ordered to pay a fine for each and every day the violation continue past the date set for compliance upon considering the following factors. The gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the v violator to collect to correct the violation and any
previous violations committed by the violator. I move that the fine be $25 per day. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> A second. >> Motion a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? I opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Next case, please.
>> Okay, this is what I have to recuse myself from. >> Next case, please. >> Case number 254599 city versus Christy and Reeves for the property located at 11309 Limb Banks Place. This case is before
the board based on an alleged violation of section 12-921 subsection B off streetet parking/driveway. This case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Danielle Bat. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of
hearing were properly served. >> Good evening. I'm officer Bat with code compliance. This case this evening was initiated by me on December 9th, 2025 for violation of the city's code of ordinance in which I left a courtesy door hanger advising of the violation of my contact information. The code section
is [clears throat] 12-921 for the parking or storage of vehicle in the front yard which is prohibited. A reinspection was done on December 15th, 2025 where the property was still in violation. A notice of violation was posted. the subject property requested posting the city hall
on electronic board and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the address of record on December 17th, 2025. Upon reinspection on December 29th, 2025, the property was still in violation. So, a notice of hearing was created and posted on December 31st, 2025 to the subject property requested
posting city hall on the electronic board for the 10 day 10day requirement and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the address of record. As of my last inspection on January 12th, 2026, the property was still in violation. At this time, I would like to
submit evidence for case number 25-4599 supporting the case and asking for a ruling. >> That Thank you. Any questions for the code officer? You said it's still in violation. >> Yes. Exhibit A in those are a photo of
the are photos of the violation on December 17th, 2025 for the issuance of the notice of violation. Exhibit B are photos of the reinspection on December 29th, 2025 for the issuance of the notice of hearing and exhibit C of the reinspection on January 12th, 2026 for
tonight's hearing. >> Uh go ahead. >> Yes. Uh they're parking on the grass or is there is what what's that? Uh >> that white Ford Ranger in the middle of the front yard. >> There's
[laughter] there's something I don't know. We can post that. >> So they keep parking their vehicle. >> It doesn't move. >> Doesn't move. >> It stays there. >> Stays there. >> If you actually angle the photos, most of the photos are taken close to relatively the same angle at every time.
So you can see the car has not moved. Okay. It wouldn't matter if it does. It can't park in the front yard. >> Right. Exactly. >> But doesn't move. They They have a driveway. >> I can't prove elsewise. >> Doesn't think it moves, but it doesn't matter because there park in the front yard. >> Right. Right. >> On the grass.
>> Get sworn in as a witness. >> Yeah. >> Is that Is that acceptable? >> Acceptable. >> Well, you recused yourself from the >> as a board member. I I just think it's better >> advise not. >> Okay. I'm I'm I'm going to step outside.
I I should not be part of this conversation >> even just with my eardrums. >> Thank you. >> More comfortable. Okay. >> Uh one more question. >> Hang on a second. One other time. Bill, >> have you had any conversation at all
with >> I have not um spoken to the property owner at all. Mr. Mr. Shanks actually did have a conversation with her yesterday or today, so he'd be able to speak to that. >> Yes. I was going to add that the uh I did speak with the property owner. She called me yesterday
uh about the uh the vehicles. Uh she mentioned the the Ranger, the the DY truck that's in her driveway, and I I believe there was another vehicle. Uh she did tell me a uh the history of why they were broken. Um,
specifically the Ranger was the one I was concerned most about. She says that the the key uh was broken, that her boyfriend uh was going to repair it, but was unable to because it's some kind of security system that's installed in it.
Um, but she understands the gravity of the situation and is going to do what she needs to do to uh rectify and repair that vehicle. >> Did you tell her that they could just put a Can't they just put a cover over the car? >> No. No, it's on the grass. >> Oh, sorry. In the grass.
>> If it was in the driveway. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> If it's in the driveway, the the way it sits, whether uh the key is broken or not, it would be fine. But it's just where it's at. Uh so she understands that she needs to fix that. >> It's registered and everything, right? It's just just sitting there.
>> It the case began as it being in the middle of the yard and can't be there to begin with, right? >> And that's where it started. Um I would like to say it's registered but at this moment I can't clarify that so I won't speak. >> Doesn't matter. >> It doesn't matter. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions?
>> Cuz then it's inoperable. >> See none. I'll entertain a motion. >> Go ahead. >> That's the last case. Not yet. >> No. >> Okay. Um in case number
uh 25- uh 4599. I move that the city has proven by the greater weight of evidence the following violation of the city of Temple terrace city code exist on the property located at um 30 uh 11309
uh line banks place with applicable code violation section uh 12-921 subsection B. This motion based is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer along with
any other evidence including photos avid and the notice of violation of which received and enters as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that the sid violation be corrected on or before February 11th 2026. If the respondent does not comply with this
order on or before that that uh the uh that day, they are ordered to pay a fine for each and every day the violation continue past the date set for compliance upon considering the following factors. [clears throat] The gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the
violator to correct the violation, and any previous violation committed by the violator. I move that the fine be $25 per day. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. >> Motion is second. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none. All those in favor? I
>> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. >> I believe that's the end of new business, is it not? >> It is. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, on to unfinished. >> Somebody want to let her know she can come back. Okay. >> Welcome back. >> Thank you.
The first case under old business or unfinished business is 25 uh 0402. >> Yes. Top of page three. >> Case number 2542 city versus [clears throat] guardan
Patel and Vishnakumar Patel for the property located at 12112 North 56th Street. The deadline for compliance was extended until January 14th, 2026. Fine of $50 per day beginning January
15, 2026. Violation section 12-986 signs maintenance affidavit of compliance received on January 7th, 2026. Case number 252041, City versus John D. Cronin for the
property located at 8722 Coridon Court. The deadline for compliance is January 14th, 2026. fine of $20 per day beginning January 15, 2026. Violation section 8-10213C, minimum housing roofs. Deadline for
compliance is midnight tonight. >> Mr. Chair, I do have an update on this one if that's okay. >> Sure. >> All right. So, on uh on January 5th, I received a phone call and an email from U. Mr. Jamal Johnson with Hillsboro County uh affordable housing uh who have
taken on correcting all these deficiencies on this property. Uh he said that the uh the corrections to the violations were supposed to start this week um and then carry on for the next couple of weeks while they get
everything finished. Uh so that was just an update on that. Um that was on Mr. Cronin's behalf. >> Okay. Would an extension be the right thing to do? >> In my opinion, uh, speaking with, uh,
Hillsboro County who did call, um, I would say so. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Yeah, we can do it. >> We can do it. >> Yeah. >> Make a motion. >> Yes. >> Oh, you want Okay. In case number 25-2041, uh, I would like the date for compliance
to be extended until uh, February 11th, 2026. >> We have a motion or a second. >> Second. >> Motion in a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? I >> opposed. No. Motion carries. Next case, please.
>> Who was the second on this case? I didn't hear it. It was you. Thank you. Next case is case number 252999 city versus Ed Edison de Jesus Harmelo Mononttoya for the property located at
110002 Richdale Road. The deadline for compliance was December 10th, 2025. The fine of $4,200 was paid and 13 trees were planted and $25 per day began
um was to begin. However, um the affidavit of compliance was received December 4th, 2025. And let me reference the violation which was sections section 12-763 removal penalty and section 12-768 tree
removal regulation. So this case is in compliance. Case case number 253166 city versus Yosi Israel Kafon for the property located at 5116 East 122nd Avenue. Deadline for
compliance was December or is January 14th, 2026. The fine of $25 per day beginning January 15, 2026. violation section 12-861 subsection E
oh subsection E subsection 6 fenc's appearance affidavit of compliance received December 30th 2025 the next case number 253640 city versus Abel Pino Lopez for the
property located at 5307 Rainbow drive. Deadline for compliance was January 14th, 2026 and the fine of $50 per day beginning January 15, 2026. Violation section 8-102
subsection 13 subsection B exterior walls and section 8-102 subsection 13 subsection C minimum housing roofs. Deadline for compliance is midnight tonight. That was the last case.
>> Good. Thank you. Any other board action? Any lean reports? Any new business >> other than happy new year everybody? Welcome back. Um if not, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All those in favor? I opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Thank you very much. [music] Heat. Hey, Heat. [music] [music] [music] [music] >> [music]
[music] [music]