Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Good. All right. The um December 10th through 20 2025. >> Uh sound sound. He's flashing you.
>> Yeah, it's me. Sorry about that. Okay, start over. The December 10th, 2025 meeting of National Initial Code Enforcement Board is now called to order. Our next meeting will be on January 14th, 2026. Please stand for the pledge of 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 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 on the alleged violation. The respondent will then present his or her case. Both parties will have an opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses. Board members may ask may question any witness. Comments by both parties must be relevant to the case. Persons wishing
to speak will be given an opportunity to do so by the chair and must address the board from the podium after giving their name and address. Upon request, copies of material submitted by staff are available for review. Board members are reminded to obtain permission to speak from the chair and questions of the city
should be directed to the attorney for the city. And I also want to add that now the meeting has started, no sidebars. Everything you say has to be on the record. Okay. At this time, I'll ask all persons um that expect to give testimony tonight to please stand and be
sworn in by the clerk. >> Please raise your right hand and answer. I do. If you agree, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will provide the board tonight will either truth, be the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Thank you. >> At this time, I'd like to ask board members if they've had any exparte communications regarding any matters coming before the code enforcement board this evening. If you've had verbal communications, please disclose the summon substance of the communications, 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, starting with I have none. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I have none. >> I've had none. I've had none.
>> Great. Thank you. Approval of minutes. Minutes for the uh November 12th, 2025. Have all board members received a copy? Yes, sir. >> If there are no uh additions, corrections, or other changes, I'll entertain a motion to approve. >> Move to approve the minutes. >> We have a minute. We have a motion.
>> Second, >> and a second by Rod. All those in favor? >> Opposed? No. Nays. Motion carries. Very good. Okay. Um tonight we are going to be taking cases in semi order. Um our first three cases will be the first
three cases under your hearings. So be case uh 50052, 50076 and 50091. Our fourth case will be under old business. Uh that'll be 50072.
And then our fifth case will be 25-2041. And then we'll go back and complete the others under our new business and then finish old business. Everybody got that? >> Yes, sir. All right, let's begin. >> Case number 25-50052,
City versus Wan Ha Louu and Yin Yi for the property located at 12912 Arbor Isle Drive number 204. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 8-137E,
rental permit fee, and section 8-134A, rental permit initial. The case will be prosecuted this evening by fire inspector Becky Zerella. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly
served. >> Thank you. >> This will be real quick. Um, as you can see, this case is for a rental permit fee. It's come out of our uh risk reduction group of the fire department. Um, they have actually come into compliance. What we were waiting for was
payment. They finally paid. >> Sorry, before you go on, name name for director. >> Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Ernest Mueller, city attorney. >> Thank you. >> Um, so anyhow, as I was saying, uh, they have paid. Uh, and the department would like to go ahead and take this case off of the agenda. Does not need to be heard
today. >> Okay. Uh did you want to call and I don't know if you want to we'll just call the second one and the third one then it'll be the same all >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If there's no vote involved then yeah let's just keep going. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Excuse me. So they're actually in compliance. >> They are in compli. This one is in compliance. Yes. Along with two and three. >> Okay. So I thought I heard you say something about they paid a fee. >> Yeah. They have they've paid their rental fee. That's what
>> Okay. Thank you. >> And there's no vote required. >> It's would be just a matter of it. Yeah, it's complied. I don't We're not looking for you to make a finding or anything. And I don't know if you want to make a motion to take it off the agenda. That's cool. >> Up to you. >> Um maybe that'll be the cleanest way.
That way the Would that help you as far as administratively is how would you like to handle it? I think that's the big >> Excuse me. Uh city clerk Linda Seder. um it's been published on the agenda so it is still part of the agenda and I will
have to note it in the record um but um I can just note that it is um normally before we have a complied violation motion that is normally done but if you
are saying they do not need a motion then I will note that >> that's probably a good point. Why don't we um as we said, we've found them in compliance. So, uh I think the cleanest thing will be just to have ask for a motion to have it removed from the uh
maybe remanded back to the department as being complied. How's that? So, I think that's the way to do it. >> So, at this time, we'll entertain a a motion. >> And you're ready because we'll have two more. >> So, so the first one's going to be the toughest one. a motion to uh to uh remand this back to
the department as it's in compliance. >> Uh I make a uh a motion in case number 25-50052 uh to remind that to the department and to be removed from the this agenda. >> Perfect. We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second that motion.
>> Motion second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Next case, please. Case number 20 25-50076 city versus LA Homes LLC for the property located at 108 Mission Hills
Avenue. This case is before the board based on alleged violation of section 8-137E, rental permit fee and section 8-136 C, rental renewal required. The case will be prosecuted this evening by fire
inspector Becky Serella. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served. >> Again, uh the department is coming out of our risk reduction group out of the fire department. they are have a what
was outstanding was the rental uh permit fee that has been paid. So again we would ask uh the department would like this pulled off the agenda it's considered complied. >> So same motion >> yes in case number I make a motion in
case number 25-50076 uh I make a motion to remand this back to the department and be removed from this agenda. We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second that. >> Motion to second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? I >> oppose. No naysay. Motion carries. Next
case, please. >> Case number 25-50091, City versus Bay Area Homes LLC for the property located at 7513 Leyon Avenue. This case is before the board based on alleged violation of section 8-137E
rental permit fee and section 8-136C rental renewal required. The case will be prosecuted this evening by fire inspector Becky Serella. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served. >> Again, this case is coming out of the
risk reduction part of the fire department. Uh what was outstanding was the rental permit fee. It has been paid. The department is asking it to be remanded and uh taken off the agenda. >> One more time. >> We'll do that again. Uh I make a motion
in case number 25-50091 to remand back to the department and to be removed from this agenda. >> Have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second that. >> Motion to second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I opposed. No nays. Motion carries.
Thank you, Ernie. Okay, on to old business and case number 2550072. >> Case number 25-50072 city versus Blue Rock Premiere Properties for the property located at
6900 Aruba Avenue. The deadline for compliance was December 10th, 2025. Fine of $2,000 per day beginning December 11th, 2025. Violations section 8-56A fire alarm system not operational.
Section 8-57B4, fire hydrant access maintenance. Section 8-57B1, fire safety emergency lighting. Section 8-57B2, fire safety extinguisher inspections.
Section 8-57D, fire safety posting addresses. Section 8-56, fire suppression systems. Section 8-55, fire grills. And section 8-55A2, fire improper storage. The deadline for
compliance is midnight tonight. >> Good evening, members of the board. My name is Cletus Squires, fire inspector with the city of Temple Terrace. So on this uh case, I u conducted a reinspection with um property
representative on Tuesday, December 9th at 2025 approximately 0800 hours 8 a.m. um to reveal what progress has been made on the property. At the conclusion of that reinspection,
I have uh several uh corrections that were made that could be removed as violations. Okay. The first being emergency backup lighting that was addressed has been repaired and or replaced.
The fire extinguishers have been inspected, certified, and reissued to the proper tenants on the property. As of December 8th, u the fire hydrants were uh inspected by Py Barker. I uh
revisited the property again as late as today and they all have uh been reertified and tagged appropriately stating as such the uh addresses uh for the buildings that were missing uh due
to uh whatever reasons mainly because they're redoing remodeling and re changing the siding out have been reposted. Uh the improper storage of the grills have been cleaned up. Uh they told me that approximately 44 grills to date
that they know have been removed. There's still a few laggers, but just about everything was cleaned up on the property. And uh they they also uh put uh new policies in place. I'll let uh there are a couple representatives here tonight if you have questions about that
and notifying them and and putting it in their rent leases that they're no longer allowed to have the the grills. the uh improper storage of the combustibles underneath the stairwells have been corrected. So the two uh following uh items that
remain out of compliance as of today uh would be the um fire alarm systems which they just started on on Tuesday doing I believe or Monday maybe the but uh they're going through it's going to take a while. They got to do the
inspections to see what repairs are required. There's still a couple buildings that have no fire alarms uh operable at this time. Um but there they have hired a company once again Py Barker to initiate the inspections. That
work started this week. And the uh fire sprinklers is going to be Pi Barker as well, I'm told. And that will be initiated I believe on the 18th of this month to to start the work. And they
project uh what I was told by um property representatives approximately 6 months to to go through that do the inspections and make the required repairs but but some of those have already initiated too with the uh with the fire sprinklers.
>> Okay. So the two sections that are still out of compliance is 8-56A fire alarm system not operational and 8-56 fire suppression systems. So it's the two correct >> and the rest the other ones are all now in compliance.
>> That's correct, sir. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> So yeah, so basically six of the eight violations have been are in compliance now, right? That's what you said. Uh and
um as far as progress, you feel you feel comfortable that they're making adequate progress. It sounds like the two things that are left are going are longer term uh >> so they they were working on site when I was there uh yesterday with a
appointment in the morning and also today unannounced I also uh followed up on some things I didn't get to yesterday and they they were on site the contractors that is and and working that that I witnessed them actually >> and you said the fire suppression
systems those going to take like six months to correct that's estimated rough rough rough time, >> right? They got to do replacement ahead. Some of the work they don't know what until they get it the properties inspected because it's a new ownership and they've done a lot of work. They got to see what the damage is to see what
the all the repairs and and uh due to the size of the property uh they just it's an estimate 6 months. But uh >> what about the fire alarm system not operational? Is that another if I remember right that's the one where they
have to actually like tear out sheetrock and so forth right to get to the >> No no so all there are there panels >> uh each building has an independent panel is located on the outside uh okay >> and a little cabinet of each building time 78 and then the devices are inside
is what you're referring to the house >> inside the apartments those shouldn't have to be uh messed with for the most case unless some kind of damage or something's happened uh from the tenants or whatever. It's more of getting the panels up running, power supplied to a few of the panels don't have power
supply to them for electrical reasons to to do those uh notification devices inside the buildings. >> So, that shouldn't take 6 months, right? I guess >> Yeah. Well, they just they they got a a new contractor, >> right? >> So, um so they're they're new to the
property and it's the size of the property. So, uh, I was asking them to to prioritize the the ones that are nonoperational first and then we'll get to the inspections and and and addressing the others as needed.
>> Some of them might just need a a reertification. Uh, so those could be knocked out fairly quickly. You set off the alarm, walk through, make sure it calls out, and I mean a matter of 15, 20 minutes for the the the building, right? But some of them that require work and replacement panels, they got to order
parts and programming and the computer stuff and and it could take it could take a while. So where I'm going with this questioning is basically trying to establish what length of time should should we ask them to come back in 30 days to report progress in your in your opinion or is it something if this is
going to take months then should should we extend the assuming we you know extend anything uh should we extend it longer excuse me longer than than 30 days. So, I like really for you to address that because I didn't have that. I I
don't know if they have an answer. There's representatives here if they do have an estimate since then on the fire alarms. The the sprinklers I was told they they're hoping to get them all done within 6 months for the for the fire suppression sprinklers. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, so I don't really have a
direct answer. I think it's going to be determined on what they find because you got a contractor's going in there and he hasn't even been to all the buildings. So, he don't know the condition. I just meant do you want do you want them to come back in 30 days and give you a stat and and give a I mean is that what you would prefer that we get >> that'll be fine. We could do we could do
that and and and uh >> just get a status from them. >> I'll do an update every month. Yes, sir. >> I just didn't want to have you you know you have to come up here and I'm good with it. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. That's a lot. I >> I he asked this question. >> He asked questions. Okay.
>> I asked too many questions. Would respond like to approach. name and address, please. >> My name is John Jones. Address is 6900 Aruba Avenue, Temple Terrace, Florida, 33637.
Good evening. Um, I'm a regional vice president with RPM Living, the management company for the park at Valenza Apartments here in Temple Terrace. Since our last meeting, our ownership group, our management team, and our fire protection contractor, Pi Barker, have made this a top priority, and I'd like to briefly walk you through
what has been completed and what remains. There were, as mentioned, eight main violations. As of the walkthrough with Inspector Cleletus Squires yesterday morning, he has indicated he is prepared to sign off on six of the eight violations, which include the fire hydrants, fire extinguishers, posting of
addresses, emergency lights, barbecue grills, and improper fire storage. The two remaining open categories are the fire suppression system and the fire alarm system. Both of these are under contract with Py Barker and the work is underway, but due to the size and scope of the project, parts of that work could
not have been completed by today's date. For the uh fire suppression system, so far we have completed underground valve replacements in several buildings, restoring water to those fire suppression systems, and Py Barker has completed sprinkler system deficiencies in three buildings identified in the
report. Currently in progress, there are approximately 600 painted or corroded sprinkler heads that must be replaced. Pibbarker is under contract and has advised an estimated duration of 120 days to complete this work across all buildings. For the fire alarm system, we
are addressing both the infrastructure and the annual testing. So far, we have completed installing new outdoor breaker panels, new breakers, whole panel surge protection devices, and new wiring for multiple fire alarm panels. We've completed trenching and conduit work for the building's fire alarm panels, and
we've replaced batteries and restored systems to normal in several buildings. Inspector Squires has been receiving these updates directly from our project manager and has joined us for on-site walks to verify progress. We have also adjusted how we manage this process going forward. RPM Living has
incorporated these annual inspections and system checks into our corporate compliance calendar so that they cannot be missed. We have standardized vendor onboarding for life safety contractors and ownership management. Py Barker and our electrician now have recurring meetings and written progress reports so
that deficiencies are tracked to completion. Since our last appearance, we have closed six of the eight violation categories with Inspector Squire prepared to sign off on those and executed contracts and started work on the remaining two with a contractor provided timeline of 120 days to fully
complete the sprinkler head replacements and remaining alarm work. Because of that, we are respectfully requesting a 120day extension to allow Pybarker and our electrician to complete the remaining work with continued oversight from Inspector Squires. We are asking
that in recognition of the complexity of the remaining work that this case remain open but acrruel of the daily fines be suspended so long as we remain on schedule and provide regular updates to inspector squires and to the city. We are committed to finishing this correctly and to ensuring that park at
Valenza remains in full fire life safety compliance going forward. Hey, thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Well, thank you for your progress. And just a quick question, the 120 days that you uh referred to, is that calendar days or work days? That is work days. >> Work days. Okay.
>> Any other questions? >> Yes. >> Go ahead. >> Um you're asking do you have any problem like checking every month or every two months because this is as you see it's an important case especially with these
remaining. I mean you sold a lot of them. I know we appreciate hearing that, but you think he can I'm I'm gearing towards with my colleague here maybe 60 days. Every 60 days. >> I don't know. I think that I'd like to
see him come back every 30. >> Well, that's you want to say something? >> Well, I was just going to say the same thing. I think a third every an update each month would be good to know how many buildings are done. Okay. I mean, we're talking about the sprinkler system and the alarm system, which are very important. >> So, I think you guys will want to keep
tabs on that. So, my recommendation would be 30-day. >> I agree with any other questions. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> All right. So, >> thank you. >> I'll take it. Uh so in case uh number
25-50072, I move that we extend the uh the uh compliance date until January 14th, 2026. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion and second. Any further
discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I opposed. No nays. So you've been given an extension until next month. uh you'll have to come back and see us next month and we'll go through this process again and at that point you can ask for another extension. Uh there is never a
guarantee that you will get one but you have every right to ask for one. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next case please. Case number 25-2041 city versus John D. Cronin for the
property located at 8722 Corral Dawn Court. This case is before the board based on alleged violation of section 8-102 Russ. 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. >> Thank you. Before we we continue, um the next case on my list is 0402. Is that a case or >> my list wrong?
>> No, you that's >> Yeah. >> You said we go back. Did we do that one already? >> No, we're doing it after this one. >> After this one >> you mention cuz it's reversed on my list. >> Yeah. So, yeah, you said the fifth one was 25 to 241
>> and the sixth one was 0402. >> Okay. All right. >> There's yours, sir. >> Well, thank you. Doug Allen, code compliance officer. This case was originated by me on May 14th, 2025 for a tarped roof, which indicates that the
structure is not being maintained and kept in good repair, which may cause dampness into the walls or interior portions of the residence. I left a door hanger with a reinspection date of May 31st, 2025. The property owner did contact me on May 23rd, stating he was
working on with a group to provide assistance in repairing the roof. So, I granted an extension to my reinspection date. My reinspection on October 2nd showed no change. So, I generated a notice of violation on that date with a reinspection date of October 29th,
2025. I posted the notice of the property and a copy was posted at city hall on the electronic board for the 10-day requirement and copies were mailed both certified and regular mail to the address of the owner of record. My reinspection on November 21st showed no change. So, I prepared a notice of
hearing on that date and the case was scheduled for the December Municipal Code Board meeting. This time, I'd like to submit photographic evidence taken by me on October 3rd and November 24th, 2025. Accept that. Thank you. There you are, sir. Thank you.
Exhibit number one shows the posting of the notice of violation. Exhibit number two shows the tarped roof. in exhibit number three shows the posting of the notice of hearing. The resident did reach out to our department on December 1st stating that the group assisting him was close to beginning repairs but had
not begun. The site is not in compliance and I'm seeking the roof. >> Good. Any questions for the code officer? >> Yes. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Yes. Uh is there a lead? People are still living there, right? >> Uh yes, sir. I believe it's like
>> uh is it in any way that you see it's endangering or just an appearance of the neighborhood appearance? >> I would have to assume it from what we can observe it's just the neighborhood appearance. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> Um so if I can remember what what I was going to ask um I can't remember now. Anyway, never mind. >> Never mind. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. The respondent is here. >> Yes, sir. >> Would you like to approach?
>> Good evening. I'm John Cronin. I'm 67. I own the house outright. Uh unfortunately, because I'm self-employed, I don't have um economic track record that I can point to and say, I will have this much money. So, even though the house is owned
outright, I I can't take equity on it. I can't borrow against it. You'd be surprised that nothing can happen. So, uh 14 months ago, I applied to uh the county through the owner occupied housing re rehabilitation program and uh
they okayed that uh in July. Uh they uh assigned a contractor to uh go through inspect uh change the roof uh do other repairs as needed. and they recently
changed the contractors. They they assigned a different one. Um the process was dragging out because there's also a very large uh oak tree in the backyard that was damaged during Hurricane Milton and it's in the process of falling over.
it's caught on the neighbor's tree and uh unfortunately a crane is required to remove that and so getting all the contractor bids in uh has slowed the process down. Um I have letters from the uh program indicating that they're
they're ready to reinspect and get their bids together to make this happen very shortly. >> Is are those letters something you want to submit into? Yes, please. >> Be happy to give him. >> So, you've got two issues. You got the tree issue and then you've got what
you're here tonight for is the roof, right? >> Roof and the tarp. >> Now, do you know whether or not they have recommended repair as a total re-roof or just the repair? >> It's total re-roof. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> And do you have any idea whatsoever when they might get started?
uh they were supposed to contact me uh within the last week and uh I think it's falling on me to contact them and push and uh saying that I've appeared before you uh should be a little extra to to
push them along. Um they they want to do a whole series of things uh at one time uh to bring the house up to where it should be. Okay. >> So So it it is happening. It's just taken 14 months to get to this point.
So, >> do you think something can happen within the next 30 days? >> I believe so. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Bill. >> Oh, yes. >> No, I I do want to keep This is a copy. >> Yeah, I think this is the same.
>> So, they it just they changed the tech points personnel. >> Yeah. This is so this isn't a beta letter. >> That's a veta. Yes, that's the >> Okay. Yeah. >> Mhm. >> And >> so when you when you say uh you
reference they uh somebody need you need to push forward that you're talking about the county rehab program >> housing re rehabilitation program. >> Okay. So there's no there's no contractor involved or anything yet at this point to do the actually do the work. >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> Correct. And you have a you have a contact person there. >> Uh I do. Uh veta Virgil at 813248-3977. Okay. >> Any other questions? >> And this this the contact person this
was just changed last week. >> Okay. >> So I'm I believe me I'm looking forward to having a new roof. >> Sure you are. >> Any other questions? There's no other questions. I'll entertain a motion. Um, I'll do that.
>> Okay. In case number 25-20 41, I move that the city has proven by the greater weight of evidence the following violation of the city of Timulter city code exist on the property located at
8722 Carl Dawn Court with the applicable violation section 8-102 subsection 13 subsection C. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this report 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 SID violation be corrected on or before January 14,
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 the violation continue past the date set for compliance upon considering the following factors. The
gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, any previous violations committed by the violator. I move the fine be $25 per day. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> A second. >> Motion to second. Any further discussion? I didn't hear that whole
thing. Sorry. How many days did you give him? >> Until January 14th. >> 30 days. >> Our next meeting. >> No further discussion. All those in favor? >> I wanted to mention something. He's going to use us to put pressure on them.
So that's why I did not want to, >> you know, >> if he had a contractor and the contractor said, "Oh, I'm going to be done in two months." I would have moved to 60 days but let's put the pressure on them and then he can always come back and ask for extension.
>> Any any other discussion seeing none all those in favor? >> I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. So you your property has been found in violation. You have until January 14, 2026 to get bring the property back into
compliance which means the roof. um should there be hiccups or whatever problems with it, you come back on the January 14th to our meeting. At that time, you can ask for an extension. There is no guarantee you will get an extension, but you have every right to ask for one. >> I understand. Thank you very much for
your time. >> Thank you. Have a good night. Next case, please. Case number 25-0402, City versus Gordon Patel and Vishn Nikimemer Patel for the property located
at 12112 North 56th Street. This case is before the board based on alleged violation of section 12-986 signs maintenance. The case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Lorie Smith. The city has evidence that the notice of
violation and the notice of the hearing were properly served. Thank you. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members. Lori Smith, Co. Compliance. This case originated proactively on January the 24th, 2025. My inspection revealed the marquee business sign was in disrepair. At this time, I left a
door hanger with a reinspection date of the 31st of July, 2025. My inspection on October the 15th, 2025 revealed no change. Therefore, notice of violation was prepared with a compliance date of the 30th of October, 2025.
Affidavit of service was obtained by hand delivery to store manager Sarah Jim Penny. At this time, I'd like to submit photographic evidence of the violation taken by me on November 19th, 2025. >> Accept that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Exhibit number one shows a damaged
marquee business sign at the location. As of today's date, the site remains out of compliance and I am seeking a ruling. >> Very good. Any questions? >> Yeah, just curious, have you had any contact with the with the owners? Have they? >> Yes, as a matter of fact, as even as as
of today, I've had had contact. Um, they've made tried to make some repairs to the business sign. It is not in compliance. They they've used some duct tape um and some uh like snipe sign type of material uh to try to fix this uh
which is definitely not the material uh that was there prior to the hurricane happening. Uh since uh I opened up the case in January and the length of this now we're in December got damaged during the uh the hurricane. I gave them plenty of of time to try to uh get that uh
resolved uh with supplies being limited and then people having to really really hardress to find things. But um again, I spoke with him today. I let him know that it's not in compliance. Um and um hopefully if the board's willing and to
give an extension, hopefully they will have this done in 30 days. >> Great. Any other questions? >> I think you have a question. >> Yeah. Uh I didn't understand. Did he ask you to ask for extension or >> No, he didn't. He didn't. He didn't ask. >> There's no ex
case. >> Oh, yeah. No. Yeah. But it's it's still in violation. Nothing has been done. It's not satisfactory to you. >> It's definitely not satisfactory, which I explained that to him today. He called his boss and and I let his boss know that that was definitely not in compliance. What repairs that were
currently made to the marquee business sign, it's not in compliance. Okay. >> Any other questions? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> Got it. >> Thank you. >> In case number 25-0402, 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 exists on the property located at 12112 North 56th Street. Um section 12-986 signs maintenance. This motion is based
on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer Smith 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 January 14th, 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 of the violations. 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 violation, and any previous violations committed by the violator, I move that the fine to be $20 per day. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Motion in a second. Any further discussion? >> Yeah, just curious why we're why while you're while you came up with 20. I wanted to I wasn't quite sure how the board was feeling so I started with a low number so we could have a a dialogue at this point and kind of take the temperature of the board. >> Yeah. Just to be just for consistency
sake we've been doing $25 >> 25. Okay. >> But I mean I don't you know one time >> if you want 20 that I mean I'm okay with that. I I personally think given how um permissive and generous officer Smith has been I
higher numbers probably more appropriate but I just wanted to get us to this point so that we could have this dialogue. How do you feel? >> I I was thinking $50 per day. >> That's yeah >> to fix the sign like this. It's a very simple operation and it would not have went through and try duct tape and and I
think it's also maybe covered by the insurance if it's a permitted sign. We're well over a year. We're what, 14 months since the hurricane. >> Yes. >> So, it's been done. >> I think in July, I think was the first time you were out there. So, >> Mhm. >> Go ahead.
>> Well, I concur with Rob as well, too. I think that was a good baseline. I was wondering about that, too. I actually jotted out 50 bucks, but I think how would the board feel, but I agree 50 bucks is considering the gravity even. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chair, may I amend my motion? >> You certainly may.
>> Okay. Um, councelor, do I amend starting at the top or just the um fine? >> Just amend the fine amount. >> All right. Um, amendment. I move that the fine to be $50 per day. >> Whoever whoever seconded the first time. >> Oh, second.
>> Second. Okay. Great. We have a motion. We have a second. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none. All those in favor? I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Next case, please. Bless you. >> All right.
>> Case number 25-3116 city versus Yosio Israel Kafon for the property located at 5116 East 122nd Avenue. This case is before the board based on alleged violation of section 12-861E6
fences appearance. The case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Lorie Smith. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and the notice of hearing were properly served. >> Will you start? I just want to remind councilman chambers the of the time
the time. >> 7:30. >> It's now 7:45. >> No. >> 6:45. >> Oh. Oh, my watch is off. Okay. All right. Good. I'm glad we're ahead of schedule. I thought we were behind.
>> So happy to So happy to hear that. All right. >> Good evening. >> Sorry, Hillary. Go ahead. >> That's okay, sir. Good evening again, Mr. Chairman, board members. Lori Smith, Code Compliance. Uh, this case originated proactively on August the 1st, 2025. My inspection revealed the front chain link fence in disrepair. I
left a door hanger with the reinspection date of the 19th of August, 2025. My inspection on September the 17th, 2025 revealed no change. Therefore, a notice of violation was prepared with the compliance date of the 17th of October, 2025.
No one was at home, so I posted the notice letter at the front door and request the 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 September 17th, 2025. Accept that. Thank you. Exhibit number one shows a notice letter posted at the front door. Exhibit number two shows the ch front chain link fence in disrepair. Exhibit three and exhibit number four also shows the front chain
link fence in disrepair. As of today's date, the site is not in compliance and I am seeking a ruling. >> Good. Any questions? H same one I had before is that have you been in touch with the >> Yes. As a matter of fact, I met with him
this morning um uh Mr. Snelling and he uh let me know that he was a little bit confused as far as what what fence uh that needed to be uh corrected. Uh he has chain link fence on the property as well as a vinyl fence. Um I explained
that in my notice of violation and my narrative specifically stated chain link fence. Um, we went over what needed to be done on the property as far as maybe trying to salvage some of that that fence. Uh, just some some some poles maybe would would need be needed,
possible he could get it straightened out, but if he could not, then that portion would need to be replaced. So, I expressed that to him this morning. >> Any other questions? >> Is he Can I >> go ahead, >> Mr. Chairman? Can I speak?
>> Yes. Thank you. Is he cooperative? >> Oh, yeah. He's definitely very cooperative. >> I just had hadn't heard from him before. Um, you know, I I've been in in this zone for seven and a half years. Uh, this individual knows me and I've know
know of him. Uh, you know, just by being in the area and and this being my zone. Um, I was just a little bit um I wish that he would have contacted me, you know, before, you know, the day of the hearing. um and
and said something or asked for, you know, clarification uh as to what needed to be done because I certainly would have met him any time um prior to today. >> So, he agreed like, you know, if he's found in violation, he's going to work on it, then fix it. >> Okay. >> Yes. Yes. He said that he would
definitely repair and or or replace it. Um whatever needed to be done, but um he would definitely get get going on it as far as today he would get moving on it. >> Okay, great. Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> All right, I can just Somebody else
wants to do one. >> All you, Bill. >> All right. So in case number 25-3116, 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 5116 East 122nd Avenue. 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 said violations be corrected on or before January 14th, 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 that motion. >> Motion in a second by Rod. Any further
discussion? >> Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Next case, please. >> I think uh regular cases are >> I don't know. >> We got one more. >> Oh. Oh, okay. You're right. You're
right. Case number 25-3640, city versus Abel Mino Lopez for the property located at 5307 Rainbow Drive. This case is before the board based on alleged violation of section 8-10213B
MH exterior walls and section 8-10213 C MH Ruffs. The case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Danielle Bat. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and the notice of the hearing were properly served.
>> Okay, before we continue, hate to do this again, but my copy says 8102 subsection 3C, not 13 C. >> So, which one's right here? >> This one up here is a little mess as
well. It's just a typo. >> B3 C. >> 13 C. Okay. So, I had a typo on mine. Okay. >> Missing one. >> Am I too? >> Which one? >> So, it's A10213B. A10213 C.
>> Got it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm officer Bat with Code Compliance. This case this evening was initiated by me on September 11th, 2025 in violation of the city codes ordinance. The code sections are 8-102
subsection 13B for the keeping and or maintaining of a dwelling with peeling chipping paint on areas of fascia and 8-102 subsection 13C for a tarp on the roof indicating damaged or improperly stalled roof which may admit rain or
cause dampness in the walls or interior portions of the dwelling. a notice of violation with the compliance date of November 1st, 2025, posted the property requested for posting in city hall on the electronic board and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the address of record on October 2nd, 2025.
A reinspection was done on November 19th, 2025, finding the violation continues. So, a notice of hearing was posted to the subject property, requested posting to city hall on the electronic board for the 10-day requirement, and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the address of
record on November 24th, 2025. As of my last inspection on Monday, December 8th, 2025, the property was still in violation. At this time, I would like to submit evidence for case number 25-3640, supporting the case and asking for a ruling.
>> We'll accept that. Thank you. Exhibit A is going to be photos of the violation from October 1st, 2025, which initiated the notice of violation being issued. Exhibit B is going to be photos of the violations on November 19th,
2025, initiating the notice of hearing. And exhibit C are photos of the violations on December 8th, 2025, prior to tonight's hearing. >> Very good. Any questions? >> Yes. So, which one is showing the
damaged uh fascia? The >> Okay. Okay. >> I got you. >> Got you. >> And have you had any contact with the uh with the owner? >> Not with the homeowner. Actually, last week I received an email from an
attorney with the homeowner. So, I responded allowing them letting them know about tonight's hearing because it was already served. Um, and they are not present. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions? Go ahead. >> Yes. The home is occupied by the
homeowner >> as far as I know. >> Okay. It's not like a rental. >> I haven't talked to anybody or had any >> Nobody talk to you. >> Property's homestead. This property is homesteaded.
>> Any other questions? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> Very good. In case number 25-3640, 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 5307 Rainbow Drive. Where am I? uh violations being section 8-10213B and section 8-10213C. This 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 move that said violation be corrected on or before January 14th, 2026.
If the respondent does not comply with this order on or before that date, they 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 the fine to be $25 per day per violation. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> It's periation. Let's get We need a second. Sorry.
>> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second that. I'll second that. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Rod. >> Yes. Uh, usually we combine it just save $50 per day, but you know, just not to make it confusing and it'll take it
it'll get more attention. >> Any other discussion? Yeah, I just wanted to say I it seems like it's kind of the same violation, right? I mean, it's >> Are you on the roof? >> Well, it's on the roof. I mean, I I don't know. >> Well, it's two different contractors.
>> Yeah. >> Two different car. >> Yeah, that's true. Yeah. >> Two different or >> two different contractors. >> You don't think the same? But it doesn't matter. >> Depends on the company, but it would be a carpenter and a roofer. >> Yeah. So, >> I mean, I'm not opposed to changing it, >> but it was just, you know, usually
>> they haven't they haven't contacted her. >> Done nothing. >> So, maybe a little more. >> Yeah, you're right. >> Little extra might move them move them a little bit. >> I'm good with that. >> Any any other discussion? Seeing none, any
we already had the motion. All those in favor? >> I opposed. No nays. Motion carries at $50 per day. Okay, that finishes up our new business on to unfinished. >> Okay, so we did Excuse me, city clerk.
>> Agree. I was a little confused. >> Um, >> per violation. >> The motion was for 25. >> The motion was 25 per violation. >> Violation for today. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Motion was so be $50 for >> total $50.
>> Mhm. Rod didn't like the extra language of 25 per violation. He wanted to just be a flat 50. And the math works out to be the same. >> That's fine. >> That's why I second and agreed on it. >> There's much to do about nothing. >> But it'll be a nicer way of telling
them, you know, they'll see the $25. >> Bottom line is $50. >> That's true. >> Are we clear? >> I accept. >> Okay. On to unfinished. Case number 25-2420, city versus 8. >> Uh, sound.
>> You have a flashing light. >> Yeah, >> sorry. Case number 25-2420, city versus 8727 Equity Group LLC for the property located at 8727 Overlook Drive. The deadline for compliance was
extended until December 10th, 2025. Fine of $50 per day beginning December 11th, 2025. Violation section 10-4 B1. Nuisance diminish value. Deadline for
compliance is midnight tonight. Case number 25-2841, City versus Terrace Oaks Homeowners Association Incorporated in care of West Coast Management and Realy Incorporated for the property located at 10325
Council's Way. The deadline for compliance was December 1st, 2025. Fine of $25 per day began December 2nd, 2025. Violation section 12-901, pools duty to maintain. Affidavit of
compliance was received December 2nd, 2025. Case number 25-2866, City versus Terrace Oaks Homeowners Association Incorporated in care of West Coast Management and Realy Incorporated
for the property located at 10325 Council's Way. The deadline for compliance was December 10th, 2025. Fine of $50 per day beginning December 11th, 2025. violation section 12-620
storm water discharge control and section 12-619E storm water enforcement and legal deadline for compliance is midnight tonight case number 25-2930 city versus River Park Community
Association Incorporated for the property located at 7788 Rosewood Garden Loop The deadline for compliance was December 10th, 2025. Fine of $25 per day beginning December 11th, 2025. Violation
section 28.840E1. Community buffers good repair. Deadline for compliance is midnight tonight. Case number 25-2999. City versus Edison J. Yau Jamelo Monto for the property located at 110002
Ridgedale Road. The deadline for compliance was December 10th, 2025. Fine of $25 per day beginning December 11th, 2025 to replace 13 trees and lump sum of $4,200. The violation 12-763
tree removal penalty and section 12-768 tree removal regulations. The lump sum of $4,200 was paid on December 5th, 2025, but the replacement of 13 trees remains out of compliance. Deadline is
midnight tonight. Case number 25-3673, city versus 7608 North Santael Circle LLC for the property located at 7608 North Santael Circle. The deadline for
compliance was December 10th, 2025. Fine at $25 per day beginning December 11th, 2025 and a lump sum of $100. Violations section 12-763, tree removal penalty and section 12-768,
tree removal regulations. Affidavit of compliance received December 2nd, 2025 and the lump sum of $100 was paid on October 15th, 2025. Case number 25-3709
city versus Rhettz and Vonhof for the property located at 423 South River Hills Drive. The deadline for compliance was December 10th, 2025. Fine of $50 per day beginning December 11th, 2025.
Violations section 8-10213K MH hardware screens section 10-3B sanitation grass weeds section 10-34 sanitation premises clean and section 12-860
outdoor storage equipment. Deadline for compliance is midnight tonight. Case number 25-3736 City versus Vernon Milton for the property located at 5417 Rainbow Drive. The deadline for compliance was December
10th, 2025. Fine of $25 per day beginning December 11th, 2025. Violation section 12-922, parking commercial vehicle in residential area. The deadline for compliance is midnight tonight.
>> Good job. Thank you. Any other board action? Anything to report on? >> Okay, new business. I just want to first I think everybody got one, but thank you for the for the Christmas cards and
merry Christmas to all of you. Um, we won't meet again until next year. So, merry Christmas, happy new year, happy Hanukkah, Quanza, whatever you celebrate. And um just wanted to also take this opportunity to say that um
it's really been a good year for us. You guys have done a fantastic job. Um them and you. I think I think Rod finally gets it. >> Rod finally gets it. >> David, >> you are compliant with with the rule
with the rules of the board. Now, >> I did have one thing to share tonight. Um, last week we uh at the city council meeting >> like >> last week at the at the city council meeting uh we presented this the new short-term rental ordinance. Uh the second reading will go next week and
hopefully it'll it'll be passed through. That's going to bring a whole new portion of the ordinance uh and things that we're going to be inspecting along the way. It's going to include uh aspect from the fire department as well as uh code compliance. Uh going into the new
year as we're building this program, we're going to uh at some point conduct training for everybody. Uh so we we know what we're getting into. We know how to uh to affect these things to drive compliance through the city. Uh so more to come on that. I just want to let you
know that's coming in the new year. Um and that goes for my team as well. They're going to be getting training. So this is an a modification to the rental program. >> No, it's completely separate. It falls under a different Florida statute. >> So it needs its own program, >> but with that >> it's still inspections of rental housing
>> or No, >> the the the inspections are going to be very very similar, >> but it just falls under a different uh statute. >> But is it But is it for the rental housing program? >> No, sir. It's it's for the short-term rentals. Oh, >> for the short-term rental.
Gotcha. Okay. And that's going to be your purview and fire departments. >> Yes, it's going to be a joint venture. >> Oh, wow. Awesome. >> It's going to be pretty cool. >> Okay. Um if if there's anything that you think that
we need training for to to hear those cases, please get with Ernie and we'll we'll set aside either an hour before the meeting starts or half hour, whatever you think you might need um before one of the meetings once the program's in place. >> Definitely. um to um to get all all
these all of our board up to speed on um what to expect. >> Definitely will. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And if I can just add on that, just so you know, if that passes, the effective date of that ordinance will actually be July 1st, 206. Okay.
>> Uh that allows everybody to, you know, for the uh our risk reduction people and our code people and get all the stuff into in place before we >> or it goes into effect because I think they'll be bringing in uh some software to try and track this and everything
else. So, it's just going to take some time. But so, the training will come sometime before July 1st. >> Okay. >> Great. Something else for you guys to do. Awesome. Okay. Anything else from anybody? Okay, we alljourn. Thank you.
>> Motion to adjourn. Heat. Heat.