How are you Oh my god. >> Do we need our like handouts for the Doesn't she normally give us like >> It should be in your packet. >> I don't have a calendar with the calendar and the and the >> No, I don't have a packet. That's what I'm saying. >> Is that what it is?
>> Oh, is that's Oh, >> oh, okay. >> Never mind. >> Packet. >> Yeah, it is. Okay. >> And it is. You're correct. >> All right. If everybody would please that the May 13, 2026 meeting sound. Yeah. Okay. We'll try again. The May 13,
2026 meeting with Municipal Code Enforcement Board is now called to order. The next meeting will be June 10th, 2026. If everybody would please stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> 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 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. 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. Thank you. The board members may question any witness. Comments by both parties must be relevant to the case. Persons wishing to speak will be given an opportunity to do so by the chair and must address the
board from the podium after giving their name and address. Upon request, copies of material submitted by staff are available for review. Board members are reminded to obtain permission to speak from the chair and questions of the city should be directed to the attorney for the city. At this time, I'll ask all persons who expect to give testimony
tonight to please stand and be sworn in by the legislative assistant. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth? Thank you.
>> Give me just a minute before we move on. Okay. So, all right. Okay. At this time, I'd like to ask all board members if they've had any exparte communications regarding any matters coming forward the code enforcement board this evening. If you've had verbal
communications, please disclose the sum and substance of the communications when and where the communications occurred and with whom it occurred. If you have received any written communications, please disclose the nature of the communications and provide it to the legislative assistant to be filed in the record. Starting at this end, Tina, >> I've had none.
>> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. However, I will recuse myself from case number 26-1463. >> Hang on a second. Say that again. >> Uh 26-1463. >> That's the last one.
>> Oh, got it. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. There you go. All right. >> Are we taking them out of any any order? We we are taking them out of order and I'm going to get to that. >> Okay. >> Next. So, our first case will be 261461.
>> It's towards the end. >> Yeah. It's on the second page. >> Yeah. And what we're going to do is after that um we're going to take all the uh water shortage declaration cases at one time. Not individually, but we're going to take them as a as a group. So, we'll we'll do all the water cases, then
we'll get back to my list, which I'll tell you. There's a whole bunch of people here tonight, so I'll tell you which case will be next as we get to it. Okay. >> Uh, one question, David. >> Yes. >> Uh, if Ryan
takes himself out of that case, will we have a quorum? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. All right. So that take care of export takes care of that. All right. Minutes of regular meeting. Everybody should have gotten a copy of the April
8, 2026 minutes. If there are no edits, corrections, or changes, I'll entertain a motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion in a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> Opposed? No. Nays. Motion carries. Okay.
First case will be 26-1461. Case number 261461 city versus Steven B. Smith Jr. and Gretchen D. Smith for the property located at 11013 Sagenol Drive. This case is before the
board based on an alleged violation of section 22-161 subsection C water shortage declaration. This case will be prosecuted this evening by code officer Danielle Bat. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were
properly served. >> Okay. >> Before she gets started, Jack or or Ernie, did you want to >> Jack's going to do it? Okay. >> All right. So, good evening everybody. Uh before we go into these water cases,
this is out of the order and this is not something that normally happens. Uh on April 3rd, we entered into phase three water shortages. uh per swiftmud uh regulations, there are certain things that we have to do as a city. Uh we
follow their guidelines. We uh the other jurisdictions, municipalities, we all well do the same thing. We do them independently as a city though. Uh after April 3rd, we were given 14 days to provide warnings so that the officers
went out, I went out. We try to identify anybody that was watering outside of the regulated times provided by Southwest water uh Florida Water Management District. During that time frame, we handed out flyers, uh courtesy notices, we spoke to people,
we stopped a lot of people. Um we pro provided two videos, uh all sorts of things. It's been on the news. After 14 days, we were directed uh by uh Southwest Florida Water Management District to go directly to citations
without warning, which is what we've done. Uh so, Brian, if you could uh put that up, please. So, this is the u their website where we we receive our direction from. So, looking through here, it spells out everything. We we're pretty much
mirroring exactly what's on here. Uh this right here is where we are providing these uh these notices of violations and this is where the fines come from. We were directed to do this
without without warnings after this 14 days. Uh now the fine amount is set at $250. You'll see that on the um the violations. However, given the the time frame, um we've
believed that for these first offenses, we could reduce that amount. Um 250 is is a lot and it it is a wakeup call and that's it's meant to be that way. That's why we were asked to do this. Um I would not be apart from lowering that
if if you choose to $100, but not go below $100. It still needs to be impactful, but $250 would be appropriate for second, third offenses. By and large, the people that we've contacted have ceased uh continuing
after we've made the uh the announcement or identified them as being in violation. Um so that would be my recommendation should you choose to to go that route. >> Okay, question for you. So in this particular case, it's not a matter of
giving them an opportunity to cure because it's an irreversible um violation, right? >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> Go ahead, Bill. >> So is is $250 the Temple Terrace uh fine
or a citation fine or is that count is that also district or south whatever that >> Southwest Florida, >> Florida? Is that districtwide? No, it's it's not districtwide. We were we were asked to uh provide the citations. We come up with whichever whichever amount is most appropriate. It needs to be
impactful because the water shortage is very serious. Um driving around you you can see the water levels dropping. Um and it's going to get to a point where if we don't impact this uh we could see even more drastic issues. So this is why
it has to be impactful and direct. We will have more water cases as we're we're identifying people. Um, but we're trying to get the word out to please stop watering and and hopefully this this serves that that direction well. >> So, how does the how does the $250
compare with other cities or uh >> it's it's kind of all over the place. Uh there are some as low as $100. Uh I know uh Penelis County is $194. >> Very very specific. Okay. >> Um so they're they're kind of all over the place. We we are on the higher end.
However, what what I do see is first, second, and third offenses uh do get pretty high. That's why my recommendation would be to we can lower it to no no less than $100 in my opinion. Um and then second, third
offenses going forward, we could go with the 250 as as written. >> Do you have any other Sorry. No, go ahead. Do you have any other plans to educate the public as far as um flyers in people's mailboxes or something
posted on the is how prominent is the posting on the city website as far as >> it's on it's on the the main page? It's on the front page >> and it's there's news stories not specifically the Temple Terrace but about the water shortage general and different municipalities are saying wait we're fighting for this we're fighting for this
>> um and we're we're following trace with that. So, we're going to continue to to be out there in in the the public trying to identify these things. >> But you don't have any plans to like, you know, put put a flyer in somebody's in in your say in your water bill or in your
Is that possible? >> There are certain things we can do, certain things we can't do. That's something we can't do right now. Um, but there are there are plans for other things that we're going to be doing. >> Okay. Rod, you have a question? >> Yes. Uh did we have ever do this before
within the city of Timble? >> There have been uh like we we just came out of a phase 2 water shortage. I believe the last um it's it's on the website. The last phase three u water shortage was several years ago. Um it
has happened before. Uh it just hasn't been recent. >> How did we treat it? >> Same way we're treating it now. >> The same way it came in front of us. >> This comes out of their their order. So they have uh just like we have our codes, they have theirs as well. This comes out of their manual this
direction. >> I I I still think the $100 is excessive too. So you know because >> so $100 I would I would argue is not excessive. Um and the reason is the impact the water use has um is extreme.
Uh normally we go around and we want people watering their yards, you know, make their yards look beautiful and the trees and all all these things. Um but right now some of the areas that we see the the water levels are so low. I was talking to a gentleman the other day. He wasn't able to get water out of his well. Um the water levels has dropped so
far. And the only way to impact that is by showing people that this is serious. This cannot be repeated and it has to stop. >> Go ahead. So, do you do you feel like the the Southwest Water District are
they more or less mandating that you do this or is it is there any wiggle room with >> There's no wiggle room. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> What are the restrictions? Cuz I don't water my lawn so I don't pay attention. What are your What are the restrictions
that >> So, they're spelled out very clearly. Um, and we have uh put them in our in our flyers and whatnot. So, um, I'm not sure if I can make this bigger. >> Yeah, there you go. >> But by and large, this is really what it
is. It goes by the last uh digit of your address. >> And you're allowed to water on your watering day one time. You can pick in the morning between midnight and 4:00 am or in the evening between 8:00 pm and 11:59 p.m. So one one time per week on
your watering day. Now there are other restrictions that go into play as well as like pressure washing and washing your car. Um those are still allowed. It's just very specific. Handwatering is allowed on any day if you want to do your your plants or whatnot. It has to
be between midnight and 4 am or 800 pm and midnight. >> So if I'm washing my car, I'm restricted to those times as well. >> No, ma'am. You can wash your car any any um any time during your watering day. You just have to have a um a shut off on
your um >> nozzle. Thank you. >> Yeah. And if you're smart, your wash is on your front lawn. >> Fair enough. Can't do that. I don't >> think I have. >> No, you can. >> Thank you. >> The car will be off by then. No, I'm
kidding. >> Any other questions? >> Floor is yours. Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm Officer Bat with Code Compliance. This case this evening was initiated by myself on April 28th, 2026. At this time, the city is in phase three
water shortage order per the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The property was found in violation of city ordinance violation 22-161 for watering outside the allowed time and date permitted and is irreparable, irreversible. First, Southwest Florida Water
Management. The property is only allowed to water on Tuesdays between 12:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. or 8:00 PM and 11:59 p.m. A notice of violation notice of hearing was posted to the subject property requested posting city hall on the electronic board and sent both certified
mail and regular mail to the address of record on April 28th, 2026. The notice of violation notice hearing was also posted on April 29th, 2026 to the subject property requesting posting to the city hall on the electronic board for the 10-day requirement and sent both
certified mail and regular mail to the address of record. At this time, I would like to submit evidence for case number 26-1461 supporting the case asking for a ruling in a onetime finement of $250 to be assessed. We'll
>> accept that. Thank you. The exhibit is photos of the violation occurring on April 28th, 2026 at 9:57 a.m. >> Any questions for the code officer? >> Just one quick. >> Go ahead. Um, I know you guys talked
about uh providing notices and things like that to everybody. Was there any contact with that you guys can recall with this particular homeowner uh prior to this event? >> Prior to the event? No. >> Yeah. Just uh to say, "Hey, don't you
know watering at this time or these are your restrictions, yada yada?" >> I think what he's asking is there was a twoe period where you were giving everybody warnings. >> Yeah. >> Was this was this particular address one of the houses that got a warning? >> No. >> Okay. Okay. >> Any other questions? Go ahead, Rod.
>> What I'm what I'm having difficulty with uh how were we going to do this? Is it similar to a tree? >> It's it's irreversible or irreparable. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I assume the respondent is here. >> Yep. Raised their hand. Would you like
to come up to the podium and say something? Name and address for us, please. >> Uh Gretchen Smith, 11013 Sagenaut Drive, Temple Terrace. Let's see. Ready? >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. Um >> Steve Smith. >> She talks with me most of the time anyway. and thank you for your courtesies letting us go first. Um,
we um turned our sprinklers off. I don't know in the time frame that we needed to switch over. Um, on April the 28th, we had our sprinkler guy come out and
reset. and that happened to be the same day she was there or came by. Um they got there about 9:15 in the morning. They don't work overnight on the swift mud schedule and um went through all our
sprinklers, reset our clock for once a week and left. He said, "I'm just let the let it cycle out and then you'll be good. You will be set to one day." And we did that. But the sprinklers were running >> at 958.
>> They did that to test the sprinkler. >> He tested all the sprinklers. >> There's the timing, right? And all that. >> Yeah. Was it 9:58? No, our our violation is was it 9:58? He
probably started running it about 9:30, 9:40 when he was all done. And so we're just in our minds didn't connect watering our lawn with getting the thing
the sprinklers and everything set. So that's our bad and we're asking for forgiveness. Um I don't see the electronic signs around
town and I really don't go to the website. So, if it came in the mail, I would have seen it. Um, but it's not something that I jump on and study. So, I was >> I did. >> Huh?
>> I'd like to have a little bit. >> Go. >> Hey, besides this, when he finished uh fixing the system, making sure everything timing is right, he was going to leave. We didn't know this till later
on. And he left and he said the spring test will go on for did he say how long? >> No, he just said let him run this whole cycle. >> Full cycle. And so
>> so we didn't even think about it. >> We assume assumed that and then until we got the notice in the mail and it turns out we had we were the only ones that didn't have knowledge of it. The timing was he came we made the
violation at 58 >> 9:58 >> 9:58 and very short within half an hour he was checking the mail checking it so we we were it's all felt like we were being set up
we done anything come walk up sight you right there that's the way it felt anyway >> so let me see if I summarize this for you. >> Okay. >> So, you're you're saying your position is that it was coincidental that she
happened to come by there at the same time that your sprinkler guy had adjusted your sprinklers to operate one day a week at the appropriate time and it was running through quote a cycle in order to catch up with itself to be able to run properly.
>> Right. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> You can have a seat. Thank you. >> Thank you. It's not a question for code enforcement. >> Go ahead. >> So,
I lost my train of thought, but um Well, get >> Well, you now's the time because if we go to go to a motion. >> Um I don't know. >> Okay. >> I have ahead. >> Go ahead, Rod. Um, how how what was your mechanism of
determining, you know, just walk driving around looking at the numbers of the house of the house number? >> I was patrolling the area >> and it's during the daylight. >> Yeah. 9:13 in the morning >> cuz it's 12:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. that it's allowed to go. So, generally speaking, during the daylight hours, you shouldn't be walking. >> And you did not have the chance to kind of like go down and knock on the door and say, "We have water restriction."
I'm I'm having difficulty with this with this issue to be honest with you. Now, this is the hardest issue I'm going through since I've been serving the code enforcement. Um, this this is we have a lot of elderly elderly people in this city.
um they don't read, they don't go on the website. We needed more education. I got the I got the message myself. >> Trust me, it's not easy for myself. >> Most people who don't have any message or they won't know or they're water lawn people sometimes they come and adjust it
for them. They are not aware of this issue. So that's why I even mentioned at the beginning I think it's very excessive amount to be laying on our residents in the city of Dutter. So this is this is
my opinion but um your opinion can come later. >> Unfortunately I don't operate under the opinion factor. I go based on the directive of my director. >> Yes I I understand with respect and I know >> I finally remembered. Have you observed
any have you observed any other violations at this particular address since the Okay, so it was just a one >> it was a onetime coincidence. >> Um I didn't speak to them prior to the event but obviously I was in contact they let me know about that but unfortunately at that point in time it's
irreparable irreversible. >> Any other questions? If not I'll entertain a motion. somebody. >> I'll do one. >> Thank you. >> Uh in case number 26-1461,
I move the city is proven by a greater weight of evidence the following violations of the city of Temple Terrace City Code exists on the property located at uh 11013 Sagen Drive uh code sections 22-161
subsection C. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from code enforcement officers along with any other evidence including photos, 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 violation
is irreparable and irreversible as defined by city code section 1-63. Therefore, therefore, I move the fine of $100 be imposed. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion to second. Any further discussion? Can we lower the fine,
please? I I will I will vote on it, but otherwise I'm not going to vote on this. >> You have to vote one way or the other. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I vote name. >> Okay. So, I I can appreciate what you're saying. However, if we do it for one, we
have to do it for all of them. >> Let's start as a president today. It'll be education for the public. Let's have people watch us and people review this. I don't know. With respect to the attorney and the director, I don't. >> However, these droughts really a thing.
It's a It's a big thing. I mean, the water levels, it's it's I understand that they they weren't aware of their time or their day and all of that. At the same time, if you've lived here long enough, you know, we've gone a long time
without significant rain. We're what, 14, 15 in below average, something like that. Can we do 50? >> I think that's also hefty because you our water bill is around $100. You know, if you're getting them $100, that's a water bill with with water and sewer.
>> Well, here's the issue is as she said that if you do it for one resident, you have to do it for all the residents. >> Yes. And while I understand that it was coincidental that our officer happened to go by there the day they were getting it uh readjusted,
um I think now you're giving everybody that same excuse while I was getting it readjusted. >> Well, this is I mean I I I appreciate what you're trying to do. However, it's it's bigger than and I I feel for them um if that's if that's truly the case.
Um, but >> as he said, we are in a very very severe drought >> and the, you know, we're we're already lowering it from what would normally be a $250 fine
>> um to $100 as he suggested. Um, it's his motion. He's welcome to uh revise it. If you're asking for a revision, um, you should say that. >> I'm I'm going to stay at 100. >> Okay. So, we have a motion. If there's
no further discussion, all those in favor? >> I I nay. >> Okay, we have one nay. Motion carries. So, you have been found in violation. The fine is $100. Um, if it happens again, I'm sure it won't, but if it does, it's considered a repeat violation and the fines go up from there. Okay.
Thank you. Next case. So, I think we're going to go to um 261463. >> Correct. Case number 261463. City versus >> Is it the one you're going to recruit yourself on?
>> Uh yes. >> I thought we were going to do all the water violations. >> This is a water. Oh, it's not. Okay. I'm sorry. >> All the water together. >> I thought that was a water one. I'm sorry. So, let's just go to the beginning of the water shortage cases, which is >> um
>> 26323. >> 323. >> Is it 1323? >> Okay. Yeah. So, we'll start with uh 261323 and just run through all of them. Okay. >> I think they're trying to to see their excuse to leave. >> Excuse me. >> I think they're trying to they can go.
>> Yeah, they can go. Yeah. Yeah, you you're welcome to leave. >> Yes. >> I don't know why you'd want to. It's riveting. >> Most exciting thing of the week. >> Uh 1462. >> Thank you. So, case number 261323.
I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 132323. >> Okay. >> City versus ARC Cafe HLD001 LLC for the property located at 8800 North 56 Street. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation of
section 22-161 subsection C water shortage declaration. The case h will be prosecuted this evening by code officer Doug Allen. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members Doug Allen. Code compliance. This case was originated by me on April 17th, 2026. At this time, the site is under the city is under a phase 3 water shortage order per the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The property
was found in violation of city ordinance 22-161 for unauthorized watering outside of the allowed time and date permitted and is irreparable, irreversible. Per the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the property is allowed to water on Monday between 12:01 a.m. and
4:00 a.m. or 8:00 PM and 11:59 p.m. Due to the phase 3 watering restrictions, I created a notice of violation, notice of hearing for the irreparable irreversible conditions. On April 17th, 2026, I posted a copy at the site and a copy was posted at city hall on the electronic
board for the 10-day requirement and copies were mailed both certified in regular mailed to the address of the owner of record. The case was scheduled for the May municipal code board meeting. At this time, I'd like to submit photographic evidence taken by myself on April 17th, 2026.
>> We'll accept that. Thank you. >> Oh, sorry. Exhibit number one shows the affidavit of service for the posting the notice of violation notice of hearing. Exhibit number two shows the unauthorized watering. Exhibit number three shows the unauthorized watering and exhibit number four shows the unauthorized watering.
This time I'm seeking a ruling and a onetime fine of $250 to be assessed. >> Any questions for the code officer? So have there have there any been any other violations at this >> I had stopped uh during the 10 or 14 day period prior to that and made them aware
that the rerigation was running during the day and it needed to be changed. So on April 17th it had not been changed when the restrictions kicked in. >> Have you observed anything since then? >> I got another case coming before you and one or two more cases. Same site >> for the same property.
>> Yes, sir. >> Any other questions? Is the respondent here? >> One up. >> Have you both been sworn in? >> Yes. >> We have. >> And for the record, this is Fred Harris. He's the district manager. And my name
is Tom Fox. I'm council for the respondent. >> Okay. So, name and address. Um, >> Frederick Harris 1711 spraying wear dry. And um your name and the name of your firm?
>> Tom Fox with Risbon Law. >> Thank you. Who was yours, sir? >> So I guess he gave it to I don't know who he gave it to like responded because we're checkers and rallies and we have team members and managers that works there and if they gave it to them
sometimes cuz during the time I was on a cruise, we're top 10 cruise and we heard about it. We tried to get our landscaper to get in fast to change it up, but I don't think he got in fast for the second ordinance, but he changed it since then.
>> Correct. And that's what I would add is that we have since rectified the error. So, it's going to it's set to start watering from 2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. going forward, which would be in compliance with the ordinance. And so, we would ask for a clemency from this board. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Any questions for the respondent? Go ahead. So you you set it for the date that was whatever was the proper the proper day of the week, right? You got it set for that. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. >> Any other questions? Seeing you can have a seat. Thank you. Seeing none, I'll
entertain a motion. >> All right. I'll do this one. >> Thank you. >> Oh, I guess I did have one. Sorry. one other >> these but these guy there's a second violation for the at this same location for the same same
>> well we'll deal with that when we get to it >> would it be cleaner to do >> would be cleaner to do it together >> we only have the one case on the agenda today >> no the case number 1389 is the same address >> same address same
>> Oh yeah just >> same violation >> curious if >> yeah each each viol ation is its own separate case, >> right? >> Okay. >> Do you want to Did you want to hear both of them first, Ernie? Or do do you want to take them separately? >> We need Well, it's got to be two
separate motions, one for each case. So, why don't we hear We've already heard the one case. Let's move forward with it and then we'll call the second case, okay? >> Because we need to hear the evidence on that case, too. >> Question for code is I know you said $100 was the the bottom line for you
guys. Is that per case or is is it I mean is it two separate dates that these guys were in violation or >> Yes. Yes. So there was a um the first violation was one one date. The second
violation came um a day or two later um after trying to work with them to get it turned off. Um they to the uh the staff's credit they did try to make phone calls and try to get people uh I was invited in. We we searched the property trying to find the water uh the
the where to turn it on and off. We we couldn't locate that. So, we were at the mercy of uh maintenance crews to come. >> Okay. I have a question as well. Then um the next case that comes up, case 261389. Is that going to be considered a repeat?
>> It is a repeat. >> Okay. >> Um I don't think we should handle it as a repeat. I think we should handle both of these as first time because we kind of consider repeat as a case that's come before they've come before you and there's been a finding. >> That's fine.
>> I think first time cases. >> All right. Good to know. Thank you. Okay. >> Let me proceed on. All right. In case number 26-1323, I move that the city has proven by greater weight of the evidence the following violation of the city of
Temple Terrace City Code exists on the property located at 8800 North 56th Street and the code section is 22-161 subsection C. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from code enforcement officer
Doug Allen along with any other evidence including photos, affidavit, and notice of violation. All of which is re is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that the violation is irreparable and irreversible as defined by city code section 161-63.
I therefore move that a fine of uh one uh $100 be imposed for this violation. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion is second. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I >> I one nay. Motion passes. So um so
you've been found in violation uh with a $100 fine. Um in an effort to get you guys out of here, we're going to hear the next case next. Okay. So we'll move on to case 261389. City versus Art Cafe. H LD 0001 LL
>> sound sound. >> Oh, thank you. For the property located at 8800 North 56th Street, this case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 22-161 subsection C water shortage declaration.
The case will be prosecuted this evening by Doug Allen. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. Doug Allen, code compliance officer. This case was originated by me
on April 20th, 2026. This time, the city is under a phase 3 water shortage order per the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The property was found in violation of city ordinance 22-161 for unauthorized watering outside of the allowed time and date permitted and is
irreparable, irreversible per the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The property is only allowed to water on Monday between 12:01 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. or 8:00 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. due to the phase 3 watering restrictions. I created a notice of
violation, notice of hearing for irreparable irreversible conditions on April 20th, 2026. and I posted a copy at the site and a copy was also posted at city hall on the electronic board for the 10-day requirement and copies were mailed both certified in regular mail to the address the owner of record and the
case was scheduled for the May municipal code board meeting this time I'd like to submit photographic evidence of the site taken by myself on April 20th 20126 accept that thank you >> thank you >> exhibit number one shows the affidavit
of the service. Exe Exhibit number two shows unauthorized watering. Exhibit number three shows unauthorized watering. Exhibit number four shows unauthorized watering. At this time, I'm seeking a ruling. I'm in a onetime fine of $250 to be assessed. Okay. >> Any questions for the code officer?
>> So, I'm assuming that this you guys tried to to contact the the owner, but I think they said they were on a cruise possibly. The >> Yeah, the site property. >> It's a business. It was off open during the daylight hours. I did the one >> Yeah.
>> original warning during the one period. Then the next time was the violation we just cased in 7 on April 17th. >> So I guess I have a question for director Shanks. So would this still be considered like a a new a one first time
violation and the $100? >> Ernie just said he considered as a first time violation. Yeah, we're going to treat these both as one time vi first time violations. >> Okay. Yeah. I just didn't know, you know, if you if they had enough time to react or that they were out of town or whatever. So,
>> if they had if they had come before us and got a ruling and then they back in front of us, it would be considered repeat. >> I wasn't saying a repeat. I was saying, >> you know, fine the fine is the fine is $250. So, >> yeah, >> that's what he's asking for. So, do we
are we still going to reduce it to to $100? That's that's >> asking for 250 for the last one, too. I mean, that's that's what they're asking. >> Yeah, I know. I just one of the one of the directors. >> Yes, the the ask is going to be 250 across the board for for these violations. However, my recommendation
is to for for these initial violations um minimum of $100. >> Okay, great. Thanks. >> Any other questions? >> Did the respondent want to say anything more? Sure. Okay. We just want to clarify there were >> No, wait, wait, wait, wait. Hang on.
Name and address for the record, please. Frederick Harris, 1711 Spring Drive. >> You, sir. >> Tom Fox with Brisbane Law Council for Respondence. And we just wanted to briefly clarify through Fred why there was the delay in handling this
violation. just on that cruise at the time and without the Wi-Fi, the internet package to speak and stuff, it wasn't able to. They had somebody we had another district manager trying to help out, but it just didn't get done in them
three days with the landscaper. As he said, they was trying to find it. The workers don't work with the um water. We got a landscaper and I wish they knew what it was so they could cut it off. Like that'll be something to train them
like with the elderly when they came and told them, "Hey, you ain't supposed to be water." What if they told them we don't know how to change it? Just for the future reference. >> Thank you. Any questions? >> Thank you. You can have a seat. >> Thank you. >> There's no other questions. I'll
entertain a motion. >> All right. I can do another one. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, in case number 26-1389, 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 8800 North 56th Street, code section 22-161, subsection C. This motion is based on the sw testimony the sport has received from cordon for cordon enforcement officer Doug Allen 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 uh the violation is irreparable and irreversible as defined by city code section 1-63. Therefore, I move that a fine of $100 be
imposed for this violation. >> You have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion and second. Any further discussion? >> Yes. Uh, I'll vote on this one if you do it 50 because that's the same address, the same person and you heard what they said. >> I I can I speak on that? Like that
again? It's they had 3 days between the two violations. It's a business. Uh, there's always red tape to go through. Uh, you have to get to the right person to get it done. I understand that. Um
the water shortage is a big deal, but at the same time couple of days >> it it's tough. Um I wouldn't mind if it was lowered as well. >> I would mind I wouldn't mind if it was zero. >> Serious. Because you see, you know, I
mean, we got an attorney, we got a business owner on a cruise ship and they could not communicate and we're now hitting them with another $100. This is, you know, it's just making me not want to vote on any of these cases. >> You are voting. Just >> Yeah, I'm voting. Voting. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> You're not. You are voting. >> Um, so it's your your call. >> Um, I'm I'm open to $50 if if that's if that >> you're not open to zero. >> I'm not open to zero. >> Okay. Yeah. I to be honest, I wouldn't
be open to zero either. uh to lower it. I'd be okay with um but uh >> I'm good with with lowering it to 50. >> So you just revise your motion to >> Okay. Uh how do I go? Just >> just say you'd like to revise your
motion to lower the $100 fine to $50. >> Like Okay, I'm going to revise my motion to lower the fine from $100 to $50. >> And then whoever seconded the first one should second. >> Okay, we have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? I I
>> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. So, there's been two cases. The first case was a $100 fine. Second case was a $50 fine. Just so you're aware. Um the next if it happens again is considered a repeat violation and the fines go way up from there. Okay. Good luck. Thank you.
You're welcome to stay or leave, whatever. We don't have any more cases with this one, right? Okay. So, you're welcome to stay or leave. Up to you. Thank you. Next case would be um 261344. city versus Roy W. Seed and String and
Sarah A. Seed and String for the property located at 12601 Rainforest Street. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 22-161 subsection C water shortage declaration.
The case will be prosecuted this evening by Daniel Danielle Bat and the city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing of property served. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Good evening. I'm officer Bat with Code Compliance. This case case this evening
was initiated by myself on April 20th, 2026. At this time, the city is in phase three water shortage order per the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The property was found in violation of city ordinance violation
22-161 for watering outside the allowed time and date permitted and is irreparable, irreversible. Per Southwest Florida Water Management, the property is only allowed to water on Mondays between 12:01 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.
or 8:00 PM and 11:59 p.m. A notice of violation, notice of hearing was posted to the subject property requested, posted to city hall in the electronic board, and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the address of record on April 20th, 2026. The notice of violation, notice of
hearing was also posted on April 29th, 2026 to the subject property requested post city hall on the electronic board for the 10 day requirement and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the address of record. At this time, I'd like to submit evidence for case number
26-1344 supporting the case and asking for a ruling and a onetime fine of $250 to be assessed. We'll >> accept that. Thank you. Any questions for the code officer? >> Yeah, I'm going to ask the same one that I usually ask that I've been asking so
far. Uh, so any have you observed any any violations after this particular? >> Not after. No. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? Is the respondent here? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Have you been sworn in? Yes. >> Okay. Did you want to come up and speak?
>> No, not really. >> Okay. That's your prerogative. Okay. Um, if there's no other questions, I'll entertain a motion. >> All right. I can >> I'll do this one. >> Okay. You can do it. >> Thank you. Hold
>> on. Okay. In case number 26-1344, I move that the city is proven by a greater weight of the evidence following violations of the city of Temple Terrace city code existed on the property located at 12601 Rainforest Street. Uh
violation is section 22-161 subsection C. 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 all of which is
received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that violation is irreparable and irreversible as defined by city code section 1-63. Therefore, I move that a fine of $100 be imposed for each violation. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second.
>> Motion and second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I >> I >> one nay. Motion carries. So, you haven't found a violation. There's a $100 fine. Um, just like I told everybody else, if if if it happens again, it becomes a repeat violation and the fines go up
from there. Thank you for coming. You're welcome to stay or you can go. Whatever your prerogative. >> Next case, please. >> City versus I'm sorry. Case number 261426. City versus sad investment. >> Microphone. Oh, sorry about that. City
versus Saw Investment, Inc. Na Nationwide Realy Group for the property located at 6408 North Queensway Drive. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 22-161 subsection C, Water Shortage
Declaration. This case will be prosecuted this evening by code 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 on April 24th, 2026. At this time, the city is in a phase 3 water shortage order per the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The property was found in violation of city ordinance violation 22-161 for watering outside the allowed
time and date permitted and is irreparable, irreversible. Per Southwest Florida Water Management, the property is only allowed to water on Fridays between 12:01 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. or 8:00 PM and 11:59 p.m. A notice of violation notice of hearing was posted to the
subject property requested posting city hall on the electronic board and simple certified mail and regular mail to the address of record on April 24th, 2026. The notice of violation notice of hearing was also posted on April 29th, 2026 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. At this time, I would like to submit evidence for case number 26-1426 supporting the case, asking for a ruling and a onetime fine of $250 be assessed.
>> We'll accept that. Thank you. >> Any questions for the code officer? So in any observed violations since April 24th on the property, >> any other questions? >> Is the respondent here? >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. If there's no other questions, I'll entertain a motion. >> All right. This one All right. All right.
In case 26-1426, 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 6408
Queensway Drive. This code section 22-161 subsection C. 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 the violation is irreparable and irrevers irreversible as defined by city code section 1-63. Therefore, I move that a fine of $100 be imposed for this violation. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I >> opposed. One nay. Motion carries. So again, sir, you have been found in violation. Um before you leave, um you have been found in violation. There's a
$100 fine. If in fact it happens again, I'm sure it won't. But if it does, it's it's considered a repeat violation and the fines go up from there. >> Okay. Have a good night. Thank you. Next case, please. Case number 261462.
City versus Joshua. Van, this was a hard one, y'all. >> Yeah, I don't know. >> Uh, Vandena. Vandena. We going with that. And Heather, sorry for messing up your name. for the property located at 6312 East
112th Avenue. The case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 22-161 subsection C water shortage declaration. This case will be prosecuted this evening by Danielle Bat. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly
served. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Good evening. I'm officer Bat with Code Compliance. This case this evening was initiated by myself on April 28th, 2026. At this time, the city is in a phase three water shortage order per the Southwest Florida Water Management
District. The property was found in violation of city ordinance violation 22-161 for watering outside the allowed time and date permitted and is irreparable, irreversible. Per Southwest Florida Water Management, the property is only allowed to water on Tuesdays between
12:01 am and 4 am or 800 pm and 11:59 p.m. A notice of violation notice of hearing was posted to the subject property requested posting city hall in the electronic board and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the address of record on April 28th, 2026. The notice of violation notice of
hearing was also posted on April 29th, 2026 to the subject property requesting posted city hall on the electronic board for the 10day requirement and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the address of record. At this time, I would like to submit evidence for case number 26-1462
supporting the case asking for a ruling and a onetime fine of $250 be assessed. >> Any questions? >> Same one. Any >> Thank you. any observed violations since April 28th. Okay, thank you. >> Any other questions?
>> The respondent here. >> Name and address first, please. >> Yeah, Josh Vaninda. Um, address is 6312 East 112th Avenue. >> Great. Thank you. Floor is yours. >> Um, so I I moved to Temple Terrace about a year and a half ago and uh the house that I bought here in Temple Terrace was
in desperate need of repair. um went through all the city uh processes of getting permits and and worked with the city very well to make that happen. I did run out of money in trying to make repairs to my sprinkler system. So, my sprinkler system is only operable
through the hand or manual function and I was aware that there was uh water restrictions from my neighbor across the street. Um so, I was very careful to water on my watering day which was Tuesday and and that's the day that this fine was issued. However, um because I
had to water in the hand mode or manual mode, I I left it on and it stayed on for longer than it should have. So, um I definitely want to take responsibility for the uh violation, but I appreciate your clemency.
>> Thank you. Any questions? >> Thank you. You can have a seat, sir. >> Thank you. There's no other questions. I'll entertain a motion. >> All right. Yeah, cuz I'm this this is this is my job tonight. So, apparently.
>> All right. So, uh in case 26-1462, 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 6312 East 112th
Avenue, code section 22-161, subsection C. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from code enforcement officer Danielle Bat. Uh 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 vi the violation is irreparable and irreversible as defined by city code section 1-63. Therefore, I move that a fine of $100 be imposed for this violation. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Motion to second. any further discussion. >> Yeah. Can I ask you just a question? >> Sure. >> I mean hated it and you heard that's why I'm I'm you know you're just having um I'm having difficult very difficult time with this that we cannot you know like
how long did it stay on? He watered on the same day he knew about the and it's manual operated. So he the intention was not there to water or overwater or to he is aware of the his word with this city
fix the property the property by the way looks really beautiful but we have no way except hitting him with $100 that's what all I want to voice but to everybody to hear you know we're having we we cannot vate because we were told
minimum $100. Can you put the picture up of the the time stamp stamp picture up? >> Yeah, it's 9:59 a.m. I can tell you that. You can read it right off the >> Yeah. So, it was >> So, it was after >> it was it was 10:00 in the morning. >> So, it wasn't he he was on the right day, but he he left the right time.
>> I don't know that that he could have left. It was It was 6 hours after the right time. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, >> probably he did not realize that it's going to keep running or he >> No, he knows he had to turn it on manually. you had to turn it off manually.
>> He he he testified to that. >> But sometimes you just you make the wrong ones. >> So, >> and you know how hard to op uh to adjust these uh sprinkler system, by the way. No, >> it's very hard. It's not for the >> But it's not it's not hard if you're turning it on manually. >> Yeah. Well, turn it off completely.
>> Yeah. >> We have water charging. >> Any further discussion? >> No. >> Seeing none. All those in favor? >> I one nay. Motion carries. So, sir, you have been found uh in violation. The fine was $100. If it if it happens again in the next five years, actually, um
it's considered a repeat violation. And if it's a repeat violation, the fines go up drastically from from what they are tonight. >> Question. >> Sure. >> Will we be notified when you need to come up? >> You need to come up to the state your name again, please. >> Yeah. Josh Vandanda. U my question is
will we be notified when the restrictions are lifted? You'll be when the if if and when the restrictions get lifted, it will be on the website. It it'll be on the news. Um it'll be on social media. Um you will not get a
personal notice at your home or in your water bill or anything. Um but it'll be on the news. It'll be in social media. It'll be on our website. Um so you just keep track. And I, you know, I quite frankly I also sit on the Riverw watch task force and it doesn't look like it's
going away anytime soon. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, if I may, that's a perfect segue for this. I was asked to uh to show the the website again and how to access it and all that good stuff. So, um if we can get this brought back up one more time. Go ahead. >> Um so, anybody can can do do this. Um
you can Google Southwest Florida Water Management District as you know, Swift mud water restrictions, Florida water restrictions. It'll it'll pull down to this. Um this web page will come up. It's one of the first things that's going to pop up. Um, and it shows
everything. Now, these are going to run currently through July 1st. >> As of right now, July 1st, the restrictions end. Will they be extended? I don't know. Don't know. Probably. Probably. But, um, that's up for SwiftM to to to determine. Um, and it it spells
out everything. Now, also on here towards the bottom is uh phase three water restrictions. And there's also um at the top some really good FAQs which I've brought up here that go a little bit deeper. It it's again breaks down the days, the
times. Um what about my plants and shrubs? They've actually done a really really good job explaining a lot of the intric um the word I'm trying to say I can't. Thank you. >> Uh now further there's also a link. It's a
little bit deeper if you really want to read it directly to their code uh that spells out everything even down to testing, you know, to to test your water system. You can do 10 minutes per uh zone and somebody has to be there
watching it. So, if any anybody's out there is is operating a water uh management company or or whatever >> repair or anything. >> Exactly. Please know that you know you're you're doing your people wrong if you just let it run. So there's very
tight restrictions and again we're we are mandated to site without warning going forward until the end of these uh these uh restrictions. >> July what? >> July 1st. >> As of right now 31st
>> 31st >> as of right now but they may be extended >> if it doesn't rain. >> Um >> and if that changes we will we will put out word. >> Sure. I no fireworks this year. >> Fireworks? Oh, there's probably going to be fireworks. >> I That's not our call. >> We have a drought.
>> That's not our call. >> Okay. Any other questions, sir? >> That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next case. >> Well, actually, can I ask a quick question about that? >> So, with watering restrictions, uh there are a lot of codes on um shrubbery and
and foliage around businesses. Are we is code going a little easier on that if they can't? No. Okay. >> No. Um, not only are are we not going easier, it's across the board. Across the board. Uh, and we're not the only
one. So, all Hillsboro County, um, Manatee County, Penelis County, and all the the cities within are all doing the same exact thing. We're all out looking for these these violations. Now, each one is going to have different fine levels, right? Um,
>> so $100 is is >> pretty on on actually kind of on the lower to mid end. >> Okay. Another question. >> Yeah, I see Brian's fine too. Um, like those shrubberies sometimes if you don't water them as usual, they'll die and that's a violation.
>> So, okay. So, to that point, we are we are not going after people right now for for that kind of stuff because it we we can't, right? That wouldn't make sense. um further once the water restrictions do end and we get the rains and things start coming back to life there there's going to be some some grace given to
things like that um now other things like grass cutting you know still has to happen right um people talk about mowing dirt right now we're not really concerned about the the actual grass growing brown spots are going to happen
further HOAs and uh communities like that are also restricted from citing the people within their communities. So they cannot force watering because that's a violation of swift mud. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> All right. Let's um move on to 261463.
>> City versus Christy Ed Reeves. >> All right. >> I'll step away. Microphone. >> Oh, sorry. >> So he's >> he's recruiting. Yes. >> This is the >> Yeah, this is the last one. >> Brian. Yeah. 2616463 >> city versus Christy and Reeves for the
property located at 11309 Limbanks Place. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 12-192 subsection B off streetet parking/driveway. The case will be prosecuted this evening by officer
Danielle Bat. >> And before she begins, I heard you say 12-192B. Did I I'm sorry. >> That should be 12921B. >> That's correct. Section D- section 12-921 subsection B.
>> Very good. Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you for that. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served. >> Thank you. >> An affidavit of compliance, >> yes, >> was received May 11th by code officer
Danielle Bat. >> Good evening. I'm officer Bat with Code Compliance. This case this evening was initiated by myself on April 28th, 2026 in violation of code section 12-921 subsection B as a repeat violation from
previous case number 25-4599. An amended order of finding was issued on January 14th, 2026 recording there was a violation and upon the date of hearing it was in compliance. A notice of repeat violation was posted subject property requested posted to city hall
on the electronic board in simple certified mail and regular mail to the address of record on April 28th, 2026. A notice of hearing for tonight's hearing was posted on the subject property requesting posted to city hall and the electronic board for the required 10 days and sent both certified mail and
regular mail to the address of record on April 29th, 2026. At this time, I would like to submit evidence for case number 26-1463, supporting the case and asking for a ruling of repeat violation. I'm going to only ask also ask that a onetime fine of
$125 per time the violation was found on property be assessed as this is a repeat violation instead of a daily fine. This is a violation that can easily be brought in and out of compliance within an hour's time. And what's the um h >> time period between the the when you
when you saw the violation and when it was brought in compliance? >> It was brought into compliance >> on May 11th. >> May 11th and originating I was there on April 28th. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for the code officer?
>> Yes. Go ahead. >> When was the last time they did this? >> What? >> I know within the five years. like last year or last 6 months. >> No, it's January. >> This is a >> Oh, just so soon. >> Yeah, >> this is a repeat of a repeat. >> Oh, okay.
>> Exhibit A, you're going to see a copy of amended order showing a finding issued and timeline for the case 25-4599. And exhibit B are photos of the violation on April 28th, 2026, making this a repeat violation.
And I have not seen it since then. I don't know. >> So, if I remember right, last time is the same property. I think the same property is where we had the uh we fined him $1,000, right? For >> for the trailer >> for the >> That's not this.
>> Oh, this is a different case. >> Different vehicle. >> Yes. >> Okay. And it was it out of compliance that full the 428 through through May 11 >> in January. The amended order shows a timeline showing that it was found in
violation but was in compliance prior to the hearing. So we just did a finding of violation. So by finding the violation again on April 28th puts it in a repeat violation. >> Okay. Well, how long was that out of compliance? That's that's
>> the question was when you saw it on the 28th, >> was it immediately rectified or did it take until May 11th? No, it was I don't know what day exactly it left. I just know it wasn't there on May 11th. >> Okay. >> It was identified the one time. >> Okay. So, it's a one time. Well,
>> yeah. >> One incident. >> One one incident. And you're asking for $125. And if you had any more I know the last I don't want to get out too far away from uh last time we basically there was some
problem with the person that followed you. Was there any problem with uh with >> that? Doesn't >> I know it's a different case, but I'm just curious. >> I I can speak to that. Um the the property owners uh did come and
speak with me. We spoke for a long time. We um we discussed the violations. We discussed perspective. We discussed a lot. Um, I I believe we have a a very deep understanding of what the future is
going to look like and I I don't expect that we'll have any additional issues with this going forward. >> Okay. Thanks. That's that was you answered my question. >> Any other questions for the code officer? >> Is the respondent here? >> Come on up.
>> Okay. to begin with Christie. >> I think >> he's coming up >> getting his notes. >> Have you both been sworn in? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Name and address, please. >> Christy Reeves 11309. Lyn Banks, please. >> Paul, same address. So, um, we've
spoken, like you said, um, we did have a long, very long conversation. Uh, I want to thank Brian for reclusing himself today because the other three times that we have been up here, he hasn't reclused himself. that or David reading didn't recluse himself and uh we know both of
them. I know Dave Reading because I did tree work and Brian is business partners with Ryan Gusman which lives across the street from us and Taylor his wife is also a board member and the only reason that you guys are finding us $1,000 is
because every time I park there, she'll call code enforcement on me and do selective enforcement on our house when I was just unloading something. You know, I don't want to drag it through my driveway and up into my house. I'm going to back it into my grass. I'm going to unload it and I'm going to move the
truck. You understand what I'm saying? In my agreement, I think that's perfectly legal, especially in this country. We can mow our lawn, pay our taxes, but I can't park on my grass to unload something. I'll get a code violation. Meanwhile, Officer Bats drives by, gives us a violation, but
doesn't look across the street on a flat tire that Ryan Gusman has on his e-mobile vehicle that doesn't move. the registration on his dad vehicle which lives right next door expired. She don't see none of that violation. She just comes to us because Taylor calls her on
the phone to rat us out to get us harassed and violated because she doesn't like my wife. It's the only reason. and Brian Reading or not Brian Reing, uh, David Reading, he was the one that imposed the violation to go up to $1,000, which I don't think is fair
because in that little USB thing that we have, every other parking violation has been $25 a day, but why is ours at a,000? Is it because Taylor has an influence on you guys or what's going on? I think it's unfair. So, I'm hoping
that we can resolve this properly. It kind of went off her saying that we f or he followed and I was in the car. >> It wasn't it wasn't but that was part of them saying the fine was higher and that was not the case. >> She was a victim. >> We're not just
>> one at a time. One at a time. Go ahead. >> We we she drove by. We Yes, we did follow her in the sense to talk to her >> and you know ask her questions which we did. It wasn't in any kind of wrong
manner or anything. And then she came up here and made it seem like we followed her and we said all these terrible things and and I knew and I was smiling. I was smiling because it wasn't a bad conversation. It wasn't it wasn't any kind of anything. >> I pointed out more violations across the
street that she could go look at. >> Yeah. And that's it. There's a violation right down the street from my house. There's a trailer. It's been sitting there for 2 weeks that I've noticed. And there's I don't see them up here. We'll find out if they're here. But, you know, not to rat anybody out cuz I'm not going to, but it's a box trailer sitting in a
driveway, plain sight, and it's been at least two weeks there. >> So, I'm just saying I feel like we're being unfairly treated. Listen, my husband came in late last night, 10:30. At 7:30 to the house, >> one at a time. Go ahead. at at 7:30 she
comes by, you know, obviously because I'm sure she got a phone call from Taylor because that was the only time that it's been there since we had that violation. Literally, we were going to move it right first thing in the morning, but she already came by and and gave us. So, I mean, like I said, the
truck was gone at 8:00, a half an hour after she took the picture. So, I mean, I'm, you know, I don't know. We're at your mercy, but I feel like it's just a little bit of unfair treatment. That's all. >> Anything else?
>> No. >> I was going to ask. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. So, are you in agreement with what Director Shank said that you guys are Have you come to some >> Oh, yeah. >> agreement on how you're going to move forward from this and >> Oh, for sure. >> We ask permission if we ever need to come over and do some work in the yard,
we'll ask permission to park the trailer and >> we do all that. you know, >> he said to give him a call. And if you look at those other violations, the truck and trailer are in our driveway. >> We've got violations, pictures of violations of them across the street from us. >> And I don't see them up here getting
fined $1,000 if if if any fines at all because they're on the board. I don't >> You guys don't find anybody $1,000? I went back and looked at the stuff and nobody nobody gets a $250 fine for parking a trailer. Even the guy that had
it what, a hundred times almost. Do you guys find them $25 per day? >> Oh my god. >> With the semi. And I only had four. But someone that can do 75 or whatever, however many days it was, you charge 25. And I feel like like it's just it's
totally unfair. There's I mean, can you guys think of one that you've done $250 for for a trailer? >> I don't think it was for the trailer. >> Oh, no. That's what it was for. No, the re, if I remember it correctly, the
reason we imposed a a heavier fine was because of what was told to us by the code enforcement officer and it was um presented um she was she was
concerned and um it was >> let me let me stop you right there. It that was a previous case. That price that case has been adjudicated. We're here for this particular case here tonight and that's really what we should be doing. >> But it's under the same. But like she said it, you didn't find us for the
trailer. You find us because she said that he followed threatened. >> She felt threatened or whatever she said. And then she imposed a fine with two guys that should have been recused. >> And he recused himself the first time on the very original case. Brian recused himself. That's why he's doing it again.
And and like I said, Dave Reading, we worked for him. I know him very well. um could show you text messages, work and whatnot. Should have recused himself, but he jumped up there and that's their best friend. And actually at the time video of them hanging out with Ryan Gusman across the street in their driveway.
>> At the time we when the storms came, we cleaned up our street and 113th for the city so they could go deal with whatever >> deal with you guys. >> And at the time, my neighbors Taylor, they were happy. They liked us. They sent us Dave Reading >> referred us >> referred us over to him because he had a tree that was
>> split >> split >> and had to be taken down. >> So, I mean, you don't see how this can kind of be a little unfair and how Taylor made a little fit last time and recused herself >> from the last meeting
>> because I'm sure you guys remember she kind of made a scene about it when she left. Oh, I have to recuse myself and walk out like a two-year-old who can't be in the room. Anyways, >> so we're here for this particular case. >> Yes. >> Let's let's try. >> It's only been there once and it hasn't been there since. And like I said, it
was just overnight for a few hours. And >> so, >> you have a question? >> Yes. I I just also uh I wanted to ask officer that I even though I don't think our city code enforcement officers are
very professional and I don't think they target anybody in particular >> and I don't think they sit next to their phone they got a lot of work they we have very very small even staff but let me continue I don't think >> any of them you know I you cannot say
somebody called him and said come here because two women don't like each other. >> I have text messages from Taylor. >> My question is for officer Pat. Did you get on call from anybody? >> That day. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. If there's is there any other questions? >> That's it. >> You guys can have a seat. Thank you. There's no other questions. I'll entertain. I >> I apologize. Um I was asked for the record, Mr. Paul. Can we get your uh your full name for the record, please? Paul.
>> Last name? >> Smith. And your address? >> The Lin Bank's address. You know it. >> Good enough. >> No, but >> Okay. >> He's not going to cooperate. So, >> your last name is Smith.
>> Yes, sir. >> All right. Anything else? >> No. >> Okay. >> I had a question for Go ahead. >> Director Shanks. So, are you comfortable with the $125 fine that that uh Officer Bats was
asking for? >> I am. >> Okay. I I I think I think it's fitting. And like I said, we we we did have a discussion, very long conversation about everything and uh they have since done exactly what what they said they were going to do. And we had a conversation
about uh some some things that had to be done to this house. He needed the trailer, took it. He was kind enough to let me know once they were done and everything moved on. So, we're good. >> Okay. >> Do this one. >> You'll do. Okay. Thank you. >> Ready? >> Yeah. In case
26-1463, I move that the city has proven by the greater weight of evidence the following violation of the city of Timultterrace city code exist on the property located at 11309 Limbanks Place with the applicable code
violations section 12-921 subsection B of street parking driveway This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer Pat along
with any other evidence including photos avid and the notice of violation of which rece is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that the respondent to be found to be a repeat violator as defined
by city code section 1-63 because the respondent has been found to vi uh to have violated the same provision of the city code within the previous 5 years regardless of the property address. I further move the
daily fine be assessed for the repeat violation from the time of notice of the repeat violation until time repeat violation are corrected 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 that be the fine be $125. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> A second. >> Motion and second. Any further discussion? >> That's not for per day. Not per day, just flat. >> Any further discussion?
>> Did not say per day. >> Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. So, you have been found in viol in violation of a repeat violation. The fine is $125. Um, if if if it happens again, it's
considered a repeat of a repeat. Um, that and that that that time period is five years, just so you understand. >> And um and the fines go up from there. All right. >> Okay. Thank you. Have a good night. All right. Where are we here? Um
>> I think we're going to go to 260734. Does that match your records? >> Which one? >> Sir 4741. >> 26734. >> Yeah, that's going backward. >> That makes sense. >> Okay. >> Case number 2607
34. city versus M. >> You are it is um Salem mod for the property located at 7539 Terrace River Drive. This case is before the board based on
an alleged violation of section 12-763. Tree removal penalty in section 12-768 subsection A subsection one tree removal tree unlawful removal. This case will be prosecuted this evening by code officer Doug Allen. The city has evidence that
the notice of violation and the notice of hearing were properly served. >> You welcome. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. Doug Allen, code compliance officer. On March 4th, 2026, city arborist Joe Ferris asked me to inspect the front yard of the site for any trees
being removed. My re my inspection showed no trees present in the front yard. I created a notice of violation notice of hearing for irreparable irreversible violations on March 6, 2026, and the case was scheduled for the May Municipal Code Enforcement Board
meeting. I posted the notice of the on the property 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 mailed to the owner of record. This time I'd like to submit photographic evidence taken by myself on March 6, 2026.
>> We'll accept those. Thank you. Exhibit number one shows the posting of the notice of violation. Exhibit number two shows no trees present on the site. Exhibit number three shows an email chain from the resident and city arborist Joe Ferris. Exhibit number four shows a screenshot from Google map
showing a tree on the site. Mr. Ferris is here to answer any questions and at this time the site is not in compliance and seeking a ruling. Any questions for the code officer? Can >> we go back to that one picture real quick?
>> Yeah, we didn't see we didn't see the remaining. >> So, I see two trees on on in the vicinity. One one looks like it's on the property. One looks like maybe it's not. Is there Where was the other tree that was taken down? >> It was right in the middle of the front yard.
>> Wait, by the mailbox or behind the mailbox? >> Behind the mailbox. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> There's a picture. Just we're just talking about one tree. >> Yeah. >> Okay. It's >> closer to the right side of the property >> missing. >> So it's kind of right of the front yard. >> Okay.
>> So on um Joe Ferris City Arbor, sorry. Um January 29th, 2026, I received an email from the homeowner asking to have this tree removed as soon as possible. I had responded to the email asking what
the issue was with the tree, concerns. Um he came back with a series of different um issues he felt were justifiable for removal. I had denied that removal in the email. My next response was denial that those reasons were not justifiable for removing a
protected uh oak, live oak. Um and gave reasons or um solutions for some of the problems that he was concerned with. Um, he then responded that the suggestions I made would be too cost uh not costefficient enough and would rather be
able to take the tree down. I explained again the reasons were not justifiable for removal. He asked what those uh justifications would be. I said diseased, dead or dying trees. And then as um Doug had mentioned, I had mentioned to him I had gotten the email
from a a homeowner in the community who asked if I had permitted a tree for removal. And that's when I asked Doug to take a look at it to see if that tree was there or not. >> And you've not received any um notice from any other arborist that the tree
was dead or dying? >> No. >> Okay. Any other questions for Joe or Go ahead. >> That was my question. Did you Did any other What was the reason they asked you they're going to remove it? I did not I missed that. I must have missed that. Did they have reasons?
>> Their response was many issues. It's very much affecting the grass on my lawn. I have no grass at all because of it. My HOA is starting f starting finding me because I do not have grass. The roots are affecting the sidewalk and there is wood growing in my irrigation
for my sprinklers. It's also right next to my neighbor's house and drops a lot of branches and debris on my neighbor's walkway. The acid that the trees left also affects the paint on my car. Many issues. I'd like to set up appointment to come and see um I'd be happy to meet
so and so. So those justifications were not enough for removal. >> Not enough uh because I know roots sometimes they grow on the >> So some of those solutions. >> Yeah, we should have >> lack of sod you can plant ground cover. Jasmine is jasmine is a ground cover.
>> Okay, >> that's a solution for your sod. >> The roots along the edge of the sidewalk can be cut vertically to solve that problem. The irrigation lines can be rerouted to solve those problems. Regular trimming of limbs can avoid any dropping on adjacent properties and
occasional wash of your car through a car wash will solve any problems with acid. >> That's I understand that. But uh some of the some of these issues uh I'm I'm I'm curious with the uh irrigation system being you know like they have one in ground and the tree has a mind of its
own. >> Yes. And but we're talking about irrigation systems. >> Then that's that's very very costly. >> So irrigation system is not what you need to survive in your house. You don't need irrigation to flush your toilet, to do your laundry, to cook a dinner, wash dishes. It's not a life safety.
Irrigation is a luxury to water your lawn. So there's not justification for removal of a tree >> of a tree that was required to be there when this development was done. And per our code, any development that's done with trees that are required to be there
have to be there through per perpetuity. So >> is it on their property or our property? The city. >> It's on their property. >> Property. And there's nothing stopping them from trimming them if he had dead limbs falling contrib. There was other things he could do. >> Yes. >> The email you just read from, I don't
see it in the package that we have. >> It was in No, not not all of it. All of it. >> Not all of it. No, >> it was just what are the the true need to be diseased and it was like a few sentences.
>> One more question. >> Any other question? Go ahead. >> What's your recommendation? What should we >> um as far as the fine goes that I'm not quite sure is a live oak being that I didn't see the tree to know the size. The average sizes in that neighborhood
because it was developed around the same time are no less than probably 18 inches in diameter and no greater than 23 inches in diameter. Um so whatever fine you feel is appropriate in that range and then a replanting of another tree in
the front yard or the rear yard. >> And you said it was a live oak. >> Yes, live oak. >> So >> but we don't know the size. >> Don't know the size cuz the tree was gone. I didn't see the tree itself. You can't tell from what the >> he's but based on >> there was not there this stump left
>> there was sad all already covered over that by the time >> but based on the other trees in the same area was all built about the same time. >> Yeah all it was in somewhere in the 16 to 18 inch diame to 23 >> 18 to 20. Okay. >> That would be about the average that's out there in that neighborhood and would
be appropriate for that time frame of when that was developed. >> Any other questions? Is the respondent here? Come on up if you want to. >> Have you been sworn in? >> Yes. >> Okay. Name and address, please. >> Assad 7539 Terrace River Drive.
>> Okay. Floor is yours. >> Um, so firstly, um, I did contact him. I feel like he's just focusing a lot about like a lot of the bads. I did kind of tell him that I could plant a new tree if that's possible. Um, I had a lot of
problems with the front yard. Uh there was wood growing in the irrigation system, so I had to completely replace that. That was about $1,500. I had to get new sod um and the the tree was kind of curving towards the house. So even if I was um
getting a cut every now and then, it's about $400, $500 job every time, but even if there is a hurricane, for example, the tree is just going to just fall on my house. And that's where the master bedroom is on the top floor. Um, so also I do have a car. Um, it's not
easy to just do a car wash every week. It's a little bit costly and I do have a wrap on my car. So, you can't just do a regular car wash. It's $20. Um, with a wrap, you have to have like a detailer do a spotless wash and stuff like that. So, just maintaining the the tree being there itself would have been a
reoccurring payment of about couple it the the sods the sod grass is about a,000. irrigation was about 1,500 and then having to maintain cutting the branches every single month was about $400. Um it was just a lot more expensive
rather keeping it than just cutting it. >> Any questions for the respondent? >> Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> This is we'll do this as a u irreverable reversible. And there's a there should be a tree matrix in your
>> and uh the uh you're you're recommending uh we we have a fine and they plant a tree in the backyard >> if that's possible. >> You have any specific tree? It has to be a live oak. >> It's required to be a canopy type tree. >> Canopy one of the options.
>> Okay. >> And the plan should be in accordance with the matrix. >> Um quick question if I could for uh Joe. Um because this was a PD, correct? And these trees were supposed to be part of the the plan.
>> Uh can it go in the backyard or does it have to stay in the >> No, it can because it's it's part of the development. >> So it can be in the backyard. >> Okay. >> Because it it would have been x amount of trees per property at the time. So >> Well, Joe, while you're up there, let me ask you this. If he had come to you and
said he's going to plant a tree in the backyard, can he could he have planted a tree and then cut it down? >> No. >> No. It's again the >> but it's alive cuz it's a health it was a healthy tree. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> So he mentioned also that it was a possibly the tree could have fallen into
his house. Is did you Well, I guess you don't know, right? Because you didn't see that the tree was gone by the time you were there. So there's no way to know if it was maybe that's a question for you. Did you feel like the tree was diseased and it was had a possibility of falling into your house?
>> Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I did also forget to mention one thing. Um, obviously, you know, with a fully grown tree, the roots can come under the sidewalks and kind of push the sidewalk up. My realtor two houses down, she kind of had a similar problem and she tripped on one of the sidewalks and she had to get stitches on
her um right above her eyebrow. Um, so just also safety precautions. >> So, are you willing to plant a tree, a new tree in in your backyard? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> No problem with that. Okay. >> Okay. Rod, you were going to do the motion. >> Yes.
>> And you know, I I did similar motion before that on this. >> Okay. So, >> um it's a um I got to go to the right uh verbiage. Let me go to the case number. Sorry.
In case number 26-0734, 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 7539
Terrace River Drive with applicable code violation section 12-763. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer and the arburst uh along with any other evidence
including photos, affidavit and the notice of violation of which received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that the violation is irreable and irreversible as defined by the city of Tim city code. I move that the fine be
$200 along with planting a tree in the backyard. >> How long do they have to plant the tree? >> Uh one month. >> 30 days. >> Uh I should mention the day.
>> I say 30 day. >> 30 days in within 30 days of this motion. >> We have a we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. motion in a second. Um, so I'm going to remind you that we do have a a tree fine matrix.
>> Yes, I I looked at it >> and under the tree fine matrix, a live oak with an 18 to 20 in um diameter is somewhere between $1,800 and $2,000 as a fine. I I agree if it was intentional
and I the gentleman came here and also I believe on everything he's mentioning about the sidewalk about your yard you always get citations from the association put the grass people tripping and I mentioned that before and
on similar case this is this is you know to prevent it and also hurricanes are always happening here and if these trees start leaning they got a mind of their own they start leaning towards your house. What What are we going to do? >> That may all well be true, but the first
of all, it was intentional. He intentionally cut the tree down. Let me finish. >> He they he had the opportunity to get an independent arborist to corroborate the fact that he thought it was dead or dying or was a danger to his house. He
didn't do that. He decided on his own to cut the tree down. >> Yeah. He may not have known that was that that's that that is one thing that most people don't know, but >> I wish that they did. We would think that they do with all the things that
the city does, but that is something that much of the city is still ignorant of. >> Didn't he have email correspondence with >> with the disease cutting the tree? >> It had to be diseased or Yeah, I guess he did. >> I asked him to come and look at it. I
mean, I don't know what a disease or dying tree looks like, but he didn't want to come at all. I >> And and also planting a tree in the backyard that would you have room he has room in his
backyard and I think it's going to be looking nice. >> I want to ask Joe is is is what he's did you refuse to come look at the tree or what? >> No, I didn't go look at the tree. I'd asked the reason for wanting the tree removed, >> right?
>> If they had said that there's limbs falling, it's rotting, it's that type of thing, then okay, I'll go look at it. But the reasons for removal is not still not justification for removing a healthy live oak. And when it comes to storms, live oaks are found to be the least
likely to fail. They're the most windresistant trees we have around. >> Thanks. And again, he's he was making these decisions on his own without the benefit of any arborist. He decided, >> do you have that email? Any other emails
um between you and >> it was just I I think it was just constant back and forth emails. Um >> cuz literally the only thing we have is like the tree would need to be diseased. What qualifications? >> I could look for it. >> Um like it's pretty limited. like we're
we're hearing discussion on both sides and what we have been given is pretty limited. I think with planting the tree in the back is going to put a cost on him. It had a cost on him removing this tree. >> So, you know, uh I think $200 is
reasonable for a private residence. uh probably he did not go through the rules knowing what the trees he just thought I'll remove it and prevent all this from reoccurring again and again as
he's you know >> he did it after after he was told that was not the reasons he gave in his email were not >> yeah a lot of people as Brian said not educated on the people I'm not also waving any fines this is >> I know you're not but my point is it's
not like he went that he didn't know. He he said, "Here's my reasons." The arborist told him those were not good enough reasons to cut the tree down. >> They're good enough for me, by the way. >> Well, you're not an arborist. >> I'm not an ar. >> Um and he cut it down anyway. >> But let's remind remember remember the
uh chick filt situation. They removed the trees. They did a big mess and you know they went and planted the trees instead. So, you know, this is and it was a commercial property and they had no fine, by the way. I don't think the fine
was even at all. >> Well, if I recall, no fine or >> they had a fine. >> They had a fine but was >> they had to plant several trees. >> Yes. Well, that's what imposing on him. >> The message that's being sent is cut a live oak. >> Yes. >> 200 bucks.
>> Yeah. >> That's a bad message, especially when we're have a tree canopy study going on. have the urban canopy. >> I think it's just a very bad very bad >> Well, I don't I don't think it's a bad message, uh, Ernie, because >> Rod, even if it was a even even if it
was a 5 in tree, it' be $500. >> Okay. I don't mind revising it to 500, but I think to go to the chart itself on a residential property and we're imposing again him planting a tree in
the backyard. I think that's, you know, to me the $100 $200 attorneys. >> Go ahead. >> There's a reason we have a chart. We are not arborists. We don't understand. >> Um, and there's another point I wanted to make.
Everybody's been talking. Hey, you represent >> I went through the chart. The chart is >> hang one at a time. One at a time. >> Has there been a second to the motion, by the way? I didn't >> Yeah, there was a second. Yeah, we didn't start We didn't start deliberation. >> Do you have anything else you want to say? >> Uh, no. No, no. >> Yeah, I say one more thing.
>> No. Um, so we've had deliberation. The suggestion for you is to is to raise the fine. It's certainly up to you whether or not you do that. We can vote on the motion as stated or you can raise you can revise it. call. That's up to you.
>> I, as I told you, I'm willing to revise it. Looking at the chart up to $500 max, but beyond that, if I went by the chart, David, that's that's hardship, you know. I I cannot tell him
to plant a tree, just take it. Ernie, with respect, I hate cutting the trees without any viable reason, but there is a lot of reasons, especially in these subdivisions, especially the sidewalk and tripping over the sidewalk and roots sticking out of the ground. >> There when you were when you finally
went out there, did you see any raised sidewalks? >> I don't recall seeing any. That doesn't mean that they're not there. >> Yeah, I've got raised sidewalks by my house. I'm not going to cut down the oak in front of my house. I've seen I've seen a lot of trees.
>> Yeah, that's not reason enough. >> The driveway and the foundation. >> It's not reason enough to cut it. >> The city has come. >> I know it's not a reason. I'm not I'm not putting a president as a reason, but I'm trying to pick a fine that would have him plant a tree, rectify his, and
also educate the public and him. >> Okay. Let's let's let's get to the point. Are you going to revise your motion? >> I'll revise it and I I'll up it up to $500. >> Okay. Who made the second the first time? >> I did. >> You will you second it second time.
>> I don't think it's enough. >> Well, then you vote against it. >> Okay, I'll I'll second the motion. >> Okay, we have a motion. We have a We have a new revised motion. We have a new revised second. Any further discussion from anybody? Seeing none, we're going to do roll call vote starting with you.
>> No. >> Yeah. >> No. >> No. >> I would say no. >> Okay. Motion fails. We need a new motion. Okay, I'll try this if I'm in the right place. >> So repeat
260734, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So in case number 260734, I move that the city has proven by greater weight of the evidence the following violations of the city of Temple Terrace Code existed on the
property located >> You can have a seat >> at 7539 Terrace River Drive. Code violations are 735 734 sorry
section 12-763 tree removal penalty and section 12-768 subsection A subsection 1 tree unlawful removal. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer,
our arborist and the owner of the property 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 violation is irreparable and irreversible as
defined by city code section 1-63. Therefore, I move that a fine of $1,000 be imposed for each violation. Um, as well as a tree to be planted within 30 days. >> A what was the what was the word you used?
>> Live oak. >> Well, it doesn't have to be a live oak vote. Has to be a tree. >> Canopy. >> Canopy tree. Canopy tree be planted on the property within 30 days. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Yeah. I just uh was curious
uh why you didn't follow the uh >> I know because I don't have it first of all. Um but looking at it, I just you know, we've got $1,000 at 10 in since we didn't see the tree. We don't really know, but um I
just >> I trying to be fair. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I would say Yeah. In in a case like this, it's better to underestimate than over. We don't want to, as Rod would always say, we don't want to a fine has to be imposed. We don't want to over
fine. So, okay, we Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Motion carries. So, you have been found in violation. The fine is $1,000 and you are required to plant a canopy
type tree within 30 days. Okay. By the way, the city code has what the uh ex acceptable trees are, does it? Yes. >> And if you have any questions about what type of tree and you can't find it in the city code, you can call the aers and he'll tell you.
>> Next case. >> We should be on unfinished business, I think. >> No. 47. >> No. No. But I think >> we have somebody that's here. >> Oh, we have somebody. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Sorry. I know you got the other guy. >> You want You need a break. Okay, five
minute break while we get our cases together. -0865. >> This is 865. >> Whenever you're ready. >> All right. Case number 260865, City versus Metro Plaza LLC for the
property located at 10602 North 56th Street. This case is before the board on an alleged violation of section 8-28 subsection A subsection 1. Permits app required. This case will be
prosecuted by code officer Lori Smith. Don't >> they have several? >> The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members. Lori Smith Code Compliance. This case originated by Community Development on March the 16th, 2026,
requesting a notice of violation referencing the open stop work order for commercial egress enclosure without a permit. I prepared a notice of violation on the 23rd of March, 2026 with a compliance date of April the 8th, 2026. No one was at the business, so I posted
a 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 10day requirement. At this time, I'd like to submit photographic evidence of the violation taken by me on March the
23rd, 2026 and a copy of the stop work order in Central Square. Accept that. Thank you. Exhibit number one shows a notice letter posted at the front door. Exhibit number two shows commercial egress enclosure at the site. Exhibit number three shows
original construction prior to unpermitted work. Exhibit number four shows original construction prior to un unpermitted work modified sometime between 2013 and 2014. As of today's date, the site is not in compliance and I'm seeking a ruling.
>> Very good. Any questions for the code officer? >> So, yeah, go ahead. >> I'm a little confused on what we're seeing here. So, the egress I >> So, something new was built in >> Yes.
to this in between >> the building official the please back up to the existing the previous pictures pre >> right here well you see there the back is a stairwell from the second floor
which the egress for the second floor areas what they did is they closed that whole area off >> okay >> now you'd have don't have proper egress >> ah >> as well as it's being used well we stopped them and told them cease all operations
post stop or recorder. At that time they were advised everything has to be removed, >> take it out, put it back to original conditions. >> So they built they built that >> they put a storefront on the front >> as well as a door on the back. >> So now you can't no permits
>> and now you can't get you can't get >> can't get out. >> You can't get to the >> front of the front the front of the building. You can go to the rear. >> Question. Did you say this was done in 2013 or 14? 2013 to 2014 they put the roof over that area. It was open. >> Oh, it was still open >> to put the roof.
>> Okay. Okay. >> Still open. >> And they closed it. >> Now they enclosed it. Okay. Which became that's when it became a violation. >> Okay. >> Violation. >> And were they planning to put a a >> business? >> Thank you. >> Far as far as we know. Yes. But we have
no permits at all. the owners as well as the I met with the property manager and told him this has to be removed. >> So we have no idea why they just decided to enclose it. >> No per no applications, nothing in order to do this as well as the permits that
required they have to go through zoning because now you've changed your site and all this. So that can take six months, two years, we don't know. >> So >> get it, we have to get it back to original conditions. then they can apply and go through that process.
>> Big, but we got life safety issue we're worried about. >> A permitting problem or is it it sounds like they just need >> they got zoning issues, permitting as well as fire safety, >> the life safety issues. >> So, they've been advised >> the only way to
>> the only remedy is put it back the way it was. >> Conditions go through the proper channels >> to do what convert through. The other issue we have is >> you can't get a permit for what they have there now. >> No. >> Yeah, that's what I was. Yeah. >> So, it's really Yeah. >> The other issue is is the singlestory
structure that's in between the two two stories is fully sprinkled fire protected. The twotory is not once you connect it, which would do you have to sprinkle the twotory structure to make the whole thing compliant. And that's
through zoning and everything else. >> And you can't leave the just the cover the top up. We want if if we're going to do this to go back to original condition, the roof comes out. >> Any other questions? >> Uh I have a question. Um
the um I I looked the original I've never seen this before. So uh just guide me in the back there. There is a upstairs >> there's a stairwell second floor. >> Okay. Uh but this is in no way they
cannot can they can extend their building or whatever business they can do there unless they make sure it has to go through zoning or redevis the plan re revise the plans and have an an to the
left of that an egress to the staircase and they have to remove the roof and >> the whole work goes back to like it looks here compared to the storefront and the roof that's there. >> Yes, like this one. >> But I've spoken with the tenant that's in the restaurant that's right to the
right. Their intention is to use this area as a dining areas from what they would be told me. >> Okay. >> They're trying to expand their business. >> Okay. >> They've also modified the sidewalk in front where the storefront is and put a
raise the sidewalk everything which is an ADA violation. >> This question. Go ahead. >> For something like this, there's no after the fact permit option, correct? >> No, cuz it has they have to get zoning clearance first. >> Okay. Yep. >> So,
>> just to clarify, >> we're way down the road for that. >> Yep. >> Uh, one more question. Go ahead. >> Is there an a minimum width they have to provide as a corridor to get to the >> 42 in? 42 inches at least to get to the
stair. Like if they flip the staircase or make >> not gonna flip that staircase >> once we're not going to redesign this for >> No, no. I'm just saying >> it sounds like that's what we're trying to do here. I mean >> No, no. I'm just saying, you know, >> wait the only >> to remove >> the only way to come into compliance is
for it to be removed. >> Y >> and start and start the proper process of reszoning, etc., etc. >> Okay. >> So, do you understand why it's a it's under a permit? There is no permit. >> But I mean this that it says that the violation the violation is
>> because they didn't get one. >> But why why is it not like a zoning or >> there should be a another multiple violations I guess is the question. >> This is the overarching co code violation is no permits were
pulled. Um had they attempted to pull permits they would have found out that there's other requirements have to go in. So this is the code that best fits the situation and the only way to rectify the situation is to restore the building
back to its original condition. And actually if you go to this this this strip mall, this plaza just down from that. So that you have two buildings here. You have one to the right, one to the left, there's another opening exactly the same next to that building. So there's actually three
sections, >> okay, >> to this building. One is the original. This one's been modified. >> Okay. >> And any discussions with the uh property owners, management? >> I've met with the property owners. I've met with the site manager and they've all advised every time take it back to
original conditions. It needs to be removed. >> Any >> then we didn't want to start the process of permitting without going through zoning. And you can't go to zoning till we go through this process. >> Right. So, it's >> we're spinning around. >> Just curious, what was their response
when you told them that they needed to take it? >> Uh, they've had an attorney that called said, "Oh, somebody said it was okay." No, it's not. >> Okay. >> The respondent here. >> Any other qu before you come up, any other questions for the code officer?
>> Not for the code officer. For you, David. This is this is we have to impose a removal immediate removal within 30 days, right? on this if we do a when we do the motion >> question for Ernie. I don't think I don't think we can do that
>> require just for the violation to be corrected. >> Yeah. >> Uh within whatever days if you find that there's a violation. Let's not get the cart in front of the horse. >> Yeah. I mean, we're not telling them how this how to rectify the situation. We're just telling them whether or not our job
is to determine whether or not a violation occurred. >> End the story. Let's let the uh respondents speak. >> Yeah. Come on up. >> Name and address, please. >> Members of the board, uh my name is HD Kater. I am a council for the respondent. Uh I work for Cater Legal.
I'll say your first name, last name. >> Before you have both of you guys been um sworn in? >> Uh I we got sworn in with the >> Okay, you did. Okay. Thank you. My name is Khalil Abuajad and uh the address is 10700 North 56 and
this is Hamdi my lawyer is going to be representing me. Okay. >> Uh sir basically the confusion that you you all see today is the confusion that we face as well. What we were told when he called me frantically because he did not know what to do is I tried to follow the steps per the notice of violation. I
called the code compliance staff and they told me that the only that the only problem was the fact that there was no permit pulled. So, we submitted the permit and now as I sit here in the back, I find that there's multiple different processes and multiple different steps and nobody knows exactly
what is going on. My question is if we can't even figure out what's going on, how's somebody with English with a second language who this is their livelihood supposed to know what is going on? So, I mean, what we're looking to do is all all we're asking is just if you the board could graciously grant us
just some time in us in order just not to only fix the problem, but to figure out how to fix the problem. >> Well, I think you've been told how to fix the problem. And this al this all started with a structure that was built with no permit.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So had he gone down to get a permit to do what he ultimately did, he it would have been denied. >> Oh, and 100% we're not arguing that he should have that he should have that he should actually have went and applied for the permit. We're not arguing against that. That was an oversight and
that should have been done. But what I'm trying to say is the fact that we are right now in the situation and we're trying to rectify the situation. So all that we're asking for is just some time to allow us to rectify the situation. >> And what what's your plan to rectify? Well, you know, based on what we're
hearing right now is that we have to knock down uh the roof, if I'm not mistaken, in order to make sure that there is ingress and eress. Am I mistaken? >> Knock down the entire whatever has been built there that's come down. >> And is that the And is that the opinion of of who is that the formal opinion or
are there other opinions out there who would say differently? Because it seems like we're getting answers from different places. >> No, that is the opinion. and it has to come down. And what they're saying is if you want to try and connect these buildings, you then have to start from scratch after it's gone and you're going
to have to get with our community development people and start planning it out because this was this plaza was built pursuant to a plan with certain things and that would have to get modified. So you have to go through that process through our community development. But first we got to rectify
what the situation is now where we the structure was built. it needs to come down. There is >> and maybe this is not the right forum to ask about these questions but I just want to make sure that I even understand this correctly. So in order the next step for them to do even though we've already applied for the permit is to
without a permit rectify the situation. you I let me ask the build that's something for the building official as to >> whether or not the question is this has gone up is whether or not a permit's going to be needed to demolish it and I
don't know because I don't know if electrical work's been done or any type of plumbing work >> okay >> and and again the building official is the expert on that certainly not the building official I don't know if they need a permit to demolish it or whether they can demolish it
without a permit At this point, I wouldn't require a permit to get it. It's a storefront. They can pop the back out. The door, the storefront, all the marble that's on the walls, the floors, all come out as well as the roof. >> Can we have that in writing so we can know that we when we actually start doing that, we won't be in violation of
any other ordinance. >> I'm the one that's going to do it. >> I know, but we need that in writing. We can't just >> No one's applying for a permit for this project at all. >> I know, but I'm saying that I understand that and I'm not denying that. But what I'm trying to ask front of the board is can we have that which shouldn't be a
problem. Can we have in writing that we are he is allowed to operate and remedy the situation without a permit. >> We can get you something in writing. >> That's all we're asking for. We're trying to do the right thing. >> And I'll provide you the steps. The first step you do is we go into zoning to start this process. >> Please. That'll be phenomenal. >> Okay.
>> One other thing you didn't mention is did you say the sidewalk was also altered and it might have to be corrected because of ADA issues? >> Sidewalk in front of where the door is. that's going to have to be pulled back. The concreties have to be removed because it's no longer flat surface. >> As long as we have a clear direction of what we need to do step by step that I
can adequately explain to this family who not only depends on the store for their livelihood but came in this country as immigrants and do not understand English that well. So if I can't understand that I have a JD and an MBA from a top 20 school, they won't understand it. Thank you.
>> Any other questions for the respondent? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll try. >> Go ahead. Okay. In case number 26-0865, I move that the city has proven by the greater weight of evidence the following
violation of the city of Timble Terrace City Code exist on the property located at 9228 North 56th Street with the applicable codes violation section 8- 28 subsection A subsection 1.
This motion is based on the swan testimony this sport has received from the code enforcement officer Lorie Smith along with any other evidence including photos, affidavit and the 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 >> sorry >> that was the wrong case. >> That was the wrong case. I'm that yeah was >> it's a metro blaza. There's two cases. >> There's two cases. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> We're at 0865. >> 0865. >> 0865 is the
>> is the first page. Last case last case. >> It's Well, it's page six on mine. I don't know what page it is. >> Okay. Okay. Sorry. Uh, I'll start again. >> Thank you. >> It's this one, right?
in case number 26- >> 0865. >> 0865. I thought I read that. >> No, I'm just >> Okay, I'm sorry. Um, I move that the city has proven by the greater weight of ev evidence the following violation of the city's timble
terrace city code exists on the property located at 10602 North 56th Street with applicable code violation section two uh section 8-28
subsection A subsection 1 permit application required. This motion is based based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforce enforcement officer Lorie Smith along with any other evidence including photos avid and the notice of violation was
received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that the SID violation be corrected on or before June 10th, 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 violator to correct the violation, any previous violations
committed by the violation violator. I I move that the fine be $50 per day. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. Motion in a second. Any further discussion? >> I do have a quick question. >> Sure. >> He mentioned the property 10602.
It says property address 10700 located under >> 10602. Does do we need to clarify that? >> No, the the actual property we checked that. >> Okay. >> The uh 10602 is the overall
>> Thank you. >> All right. Any other discussion? All those in favor? >> I >> oppose. No nazs. So, you have been found in violation. Um, you have been there. You have until June 10th to rectify it.
Um, if you don't rectify it by June 10th, a fine of $50 per day will start until it is rectified. And I will remind you that you also have a stop work order. So, that means you can't do anything other than rectify the situation. You can't occupy that space
um because it's under a stop work order. Any other questions? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Coming back if they >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, if for some reason um by June 10th something got in your way, you didn't get the you you you
couldn't find a contractor. Um whatever the extenduating circumstances are, you're welcome to come back and ask for an extension. There's no guarantee you will get one, but you're welcome to come back and and you do have to come back. You can't just say we had extended range of circumstances and not show up. Okay.
Understood. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Next case, which should be um under unfinished business 254819. >> We have there's another Metro Plaza case. Can we take >> Oh, you want to do that? Okay.
>> The same respondent. >> Yes. >> Okay. What's the case number? >> It's not the same respondent. That's why I asked. Same address. >> Is it the same lawyer? >> It's the same address. >> Okay. This is >> Well, he had a question. I >> Hang on. Stop.
>> Sorry. >> Hang on. We're not We're not there yet. >> Go ahead. >> It's not the text. >> The other one. I know. >> 0499 it would say.
Sorry. >> What's the case number for the other one? >> 0499. >> It's on the first one. It's >> the second one. >> Okay, I see it. >> That's fine. >> All right. >> It's not the same individuals, but uh if
we can move forward with 260499, get the other metro >> plan. That's fine. Okay, that's fine. Then we'll go to then we'll go to unfinished 4749 >> case number 260499 City versus Metrop Plaza LLC for the
property located at 1062 North 56th Street. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 8-28 subsection A subsection 1 permit app required. This case will be prosecuted
this evening by code officer Lorie Smith. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served. >> Good evening again, Mr. Chairman, board members, Lori Smith, Code Compliance. This case was originated by Community Development on February the 13th, 2026,
requesting a notice of violation referencing the open stop work order for installation of Ballards without a permit. At this time, I prepared a notice of violation with a compliance date of the 3rd of March, 2026. No one was at the business, 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 taken by me on February the 13th, 2026 and a screenshot of the open stop work
order in Central Square. >> Accept that. Thank you. >> Thank you. This is different. >> Exhibit number one shows a notice letter posted at the front door. Exhibit number two shows the Ballards on site at the location. As of today's date, the site
is now in compliance and at this time I'd like to submit an affidavit of compliance. I'm just looking for a finding, sir. >> Okay, we'll accept that. Thank you. >> Any questions for the code officer? So, I'm assuming they removed the uh those >> or was there a permit that they
>> No, hold on just one second. Uh Mr. Posin. No, >> please. The permit was pulled. They have an engineer's report saying that done according to code and it's been issued, paid for, and cloed.
So those ballards are still in place, >> correct? >> Okay, gotcha. But they but they've been confirmed to be >> they installed them without a permit or anything. >> Yeah, but they've been confirmed to be within code and all that good stuff. Okay. >> Okay. >> Any other questions?
Is the uh respondent here? >> Have you been sworn in, sir? >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. Floor is yours. Uh >> name and address >> Mhhammed Yusf uh for 1062 1062 North 56 Street. I am their property
manager. Um I'm only showing up because I had the previous one. They have been taken care of. And now for this one, I have a message from my tenant who's there the one who installed the boulder. According to them, everything has been
taken care of and I have a proof of the permit, but it's digital. >> Great. Okay. And we've got a an I assume we have a notice of compliance, right? >> Compliance. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it's up. It's right. >> Oh, it's right here. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the respondent? You can have a seat, sir.
Thank you. And I'll entertain a motion. If there's no other questions, go ahead. In case number 26-0499, I move that the city has proven by the greater weight of the evidence the following violations of the city of
timble uh terrace city code exist on the property located at 10602 North 56 with the applicable code violation 8-28 subsection A subsection 1. This motion
is based on the swarm testimony this base this board has received from the code enforcement officer Lorie Smith along with any other evidence including photo avid and uh notice of violation of which received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move there that there will 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 in a second. Any further discussion? >> Ernie, it look like you want to say something. >> I'll be after this one. Okay. Um, all those in favor? I
>> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Yes, Ernie. >> Oh, go ahead and read it off. I'll talk after this. >> Okay. >> You want to let him know >> which one are we doing? >> Um, next one should be >> Well, wait. I I thought you were going to brief uh the gentleman. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. So, you've been found in violation, but because it was
brought in compliance before this before this evening, there's no fine. Um should it should this particular violation occur again within the next five years, it's considered a repeat violation and the fines go up from there. Okay. >> You're welcome to stay or you can go either way. >> Oh, this is where I'd like. Could you
come up to the podium, please? >> Um just procedurally, um you're are you the you're rep here representing uh Metro Plaza LLC, correct? >> Correct. And also
>> in the previous case uh the 26-0865 you would have been the representative for the respondent metro plaza there also correct >> as property owner. Yes. >> Yes. Yeah. And we had someone else up here. I want to make sure. Did you understand everything that happened in
that previous case? Yes. >> And do you have anything you want to address the board because you are actually the p person representing the uh property owner there. >> Yes. Um, >> so let before he starts. So the person that was up here before was the tenant. >> He was representing the tenant. Yes.
>> Okay. So the tenant did the work >> just now. >> Okay. And you're and you're the property owner? >> Yes. >> Well, he's the manager. >> Property manager for the property owner. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So the roof where they did the new building, that roof has been existed prior to the tenant right now doing the
work. So we would like to I would like to have make sure that you guys are aware of that because once either when they go ahead with the demolishment that roof has been there prior to even us acquiring the plaza. >> Okay. Well, you have to that's something
you have to work out with Dallas. >> All right. Okay. >> Thank you. >> I mean do you understand an order's been entered on that previous case and what needs to be done? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Very good. >> Thank you. Thank And you understand and you understand it's it needs to be done by June 10th. >> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, I think we're going to move on to 254819. >> Which one? >> That's under unfinished business. >> But we have to we have >> Yeah, but they're here. >> Oh, okay. I forgot.
>> And she's been waiting patiently. >> Yes. Case number 254819, city versus Osenbeck Card and Donia Cadetsive for the property loc located located at 51 06 East 122nd Avenue.
Deadline for compliance was May 13th. The final $50 per day beginning May 14th. violation sections 10-4 subsection B subsection 4 nuisance buildings and section 10-34 sanitation premises
deadline for compliance is midnight tonight >> and she's here >> I see her come on up >> name and address >> good evening with the address 5106 East 122nd How
many of >> um the last time I was here I was talking about like concrete >> something either wrong with your mic or you're speaking low. You're going to have to speak up or move the mic. >> I'm very nervous every time I go here so I don't really go very loud. Um
the last time that I was here uh we were talking about that I was going to pour concrete inside the walls and then there were some fences that I have to put in. So has four right now. Um fence the gates I'm sorry the gates they are
already finished. Uh and then I I started the the concrete pouring. Uh we have to stop half halfway. Uh I showed them the uh the director um that you know we have to we we came
across uh like some some things and it has to stop halfway. the pouring but like half of the house is is pouring. Uh it has poured concrete inside and then I just got just got told that morning they're supposed to finish
and then fix some stuff and then finish pouring the other half of the the house and then has for the sanitation I continue very actively cleaning and throwing away everything that I can possibly throw away and then keeping it keeping it
clean keeping it Who's the code officer for this? >> Officer Bat. >> Would you mind coming up a minute? >> So, and are you okay with she I'm sure she's here to ask for another extension. So, but so um
>> she's coming in front to basically explain the things that she has accomplished in 30 days um to be able to get the grant the extension for 30 days to next meeting. And you're you're satisfied with the progress? >> Absolutely. At this point, >> any other questions?
>> If not, then um just need to make a motion as to whether or not we give her another extension. >> You make a motion that we give her another 30-day extension. >> You want me to say the case number? >> Got to do all that stuff. Yeah. >> And do and make it a date certain, not just say 30 days. >> Okay.
>> Not yet. Hank Hanks. >> Well, you wouldn't want >> What? >> Don't be nervous. We'll be you'll be fine. >> Which number are we on? >> It's 25. That's 41 4819. >> Oh, okay. All right. Where's that? >> No, you don't need to. All you got to do
is say the case number, the address, and say your >> case number 25-48- >> 25-4819. >> 25-4819. uh violation section 10-4 subsection B subsection 4. Uh I mo I make a motion
that we grant a 30-day extension uh to be complied by June 10th, 2026. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion and a second. All those in favor? Opposed? No nays. So you got yet another
extension till June 10th. Um, and you know the drill. If if it's not in compliance by then, we'll we'll see you on June 10th. Okay. >> I'm I have I mean I'm I'm going to check on the weather, but I'm trying to go ahead and just go cuz the next step will
be uh cuz the house it has some part tiles and well so it will be I will have to level up the whole floor. So the framing cuz the framing have to be before the trusses. So the framing and trusses and roof I can do all at once so
nothing going to get water damage. >> That'd be great. Awesome. Good luck. >> That would be Yeah. >> Bring some pictures. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. You're done. >> Thank you so much. You have have a great day. Thanks so much. >> All right. So that's that. Um we have two more for
>> next case is going to be 26-0597. actually um would ask that you remand this case back to the department. We won't be moving forward. This actually is against the wrong respondent and um >> you need a motion for that. >> Uh yeah, just if we can do a quick move
to re remand back to the department. >> Okay, >> I guess I can do that. >> Somebody want to do that? >> Yeah. Uh in case number uh 26-0597, I move that we send this back to the city so that we can um pursue the
correct respondent. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> Opposed? No. Nays. Motion carries. Okay. Um we do have one two respondents here.
Do we know which cases they're for? I know the one gentleman is coming forward. This is the uh gentleman that has the gopher tortoise that took up residence garage. >> So that would be uh
right there >> 25-3917 >> about halfway down page three. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Page three >> under old business. >> Yes. >> How's he doing? >> How are you doing, sir? Very good. Name
and address, please. >> Uh, Shazad Rana, 12605 North 51st Street, Temple Terrace, Florida, 33617. Well, I have been working like I said uh by myself uh uh whatever can I do
achieve. Uh I have fixed the the bend in the roof, the the ridge and I am just uh planning to finish up the the shingles. I just need an extension another a month. Guess I have the pictures. I can
show it to you. I mean, it's straightened out. >> Um, has anybody been out there or we >> No, nobody has been. I haven't called anybody yet because I wasn't ready. >> You can see it from the road. He's he's he's out there working. >> Okay. So, you're good with an extension? >> I've seen him up there. >> You're good with an extension? >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> We don't even need an extension. I mean, we we went through this last time. It's like there's no there's no >> Because if there's no compliance thing >> Yeah. Yeah, he's minding own business. He's on the back. >> Yeah, there's no there's no compliance date. So, it's kind we kind of went through
>> that right. Is that right, Ernie? >> There was also the uh >> we went through this the last time trying to remember what happened last what we did last time. I know that we we understood what was going on. It does say that we're staying for monthly review. So, I think it was just a matter
the gentleman was >> So, we don't need to do a motion to extend anything. >> No, I don't think so. Not without the deadline. >> All right. Great. We'll see you next month. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> sir. What was your case number in the back? >> 4741. >> Say again.
>> 4741. >> First case, >> first case. >> Oh, jeez. >> First case under new business. >> Yes. >> Why do we make him? >> Oh, do they come here or >> you can you can have a seat. We'll call you up. Thank you. All right. Let's take
care of 254741. >> Case number 254741 city versus Peru uh Cranian LLC for the property located at 5315 East Bush Boulevard. This case is before the board on an alleged violation of section 12-983
subsection 2 subsection C signs motion prohibited and section 12-989 science temporary signs. This case will be prosecuted this evening by code officer Doug Allen. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly
served. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. Doug Allen, code compliance officer. This case was originated by me on December 18th, 2025 for four temporary banners installed in an inflatable snowman on the property. I
spoke with the store manager informing her that my reinspection date for removal of the banners would be January 3rd, 2026. My reinspection on February 19th showed no change. So, I generated a notice of violation on that date with a reinspection date of March 6, 2026.
I hand delivered a copy to the of the notice of violation to store manager Alysia Citilinkova and a copy was posted at city hall on the electronic board for 10-day requirement and copies were mailed both certified in regular mail to the address of the owner of record. My reinspection
on April 27th showed no change. So notice of hearing was prepared on that date and the case was scheduled for the May municipal code board meeting. This time I'd like to submit photographic evidence taken by me on March 31st, 2026.
>> We'll accept that. Thank you. >> Exhibit number one shows one of the banners on the front railing. Exhibit number two shows a banner over the drive-thru area. Exhibit number three shows a banner on the side railing. In exhibit number four shows the affidavit of service for the notice of violation.
The banners which were on the rear fence were removed and the banner on the front and side railing were removed and an additional banner above the drive-thru was added and the inflatable snowman was removed but does reappear from time to time. The owner did ask for extensions to remove the banners which I granted
but there does appear to be a slight disregard for the signage regulations. site is in compliance with 12 93 9832C and I'm seeking a finding but is not in compliance with 12-989 and I'm seeking a ruling.
>> Any questions for the code officer? >> Yeah, I'm confused as you as usual. >> So, I guess the question is what what currently is remaining the >> uh one banner above one temporary banner above the drive-thru.
>> Okay, this little over here. Right. >> Is that >> Is this above just the canopy of the drive-thru? >> Correct. I believe I believe it says something about >> And that's a banner. Banner. >> Yes. >> It's easy to remove. >> The yellow yellowish thing that we see.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I think that's it. Yeah. >> A banner. >> It's a banner. >> Yeah, that's a banner. >> Yeah. >> So, all the other banners, the ones that are around the base of the unit and in I guess you said there was one in the back, too. Those have all those are all gone. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. And there there was a snow snowman. >> Snowman. Yes. >> I hear your turn. >> I just was So >> he I let him kept it up over the holidays when I went in in early de or mid December. So they had to remove it
by January. They did finally remove it, but then last week he popped back up again for a little while, but now he's not not there any longer today. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? early one. And I notice the respondent is here. Come on up. Have you been sworn
in, sir? >> Were you Were you sworn in? >> Yes or no? >> Yes, >> you were. >> No, I don't. >> You were not. Okay. Could you swear in? >> Please raise your right hand. The testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Name and address, please. Um, Austo Yubaldo at 5315 East Bush Boulevard. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Okay. Regarding the the snowman,
right? Um, yeah, the an employee took it out in the night uh for a couple of nights uh not too long ago. Um, and I want to know uh they said that I can put different uh inflatable
uh toys are there like uh depends on the holiday. Can I get one for the fourth of July? >> You have to talk to them about that's not why we're here tonight. >> Okay. So, we are here to talk about the one remaining over the dry which is the only one. Yes.
>> Um okay. uh when I build this uh property the I think the the building department told me I cannot put three signs on each tower. I have three towers um same as Salem across the street.
Actually I started as a Salem franchise. Uh so they denied to me to put a sign over the drive-thru and Salem has three. So I was wondering why Salen was allowed to do that and not me, right? We have
the same building uh the same three towers and he's allowed to have three each uh sign on each tower and I wasn't and I wanted to know why. So that's why I said I'm going to come here and explain them and you know maybe they give me a good reason
uh for that. >> Isn't it? Are you looking for us for for Yes. that answer? No. We that's our our role is not to provide you with excuses or reasons or other things. Our job is to determine whether or not a violation
of the city code has occurred. >> Okay. >> And the city presented their case. Okay. As to why there was. Okay. If you have reasons why you think it's not. >> Oh yeah. That's the reason why I think it's not. >> Okay. Tell me. because uh Salem over his
drive-thru has a sign already for a few years since he built it. Why I'm not allowed to do the same. >> Okay. >> That's what I think. Yes. >> Hang on one time. Go ahead. Rod, >> can I ask you a question? Did you Did
you try to get a permit? >> Yes. >> And it was denied to me. Who's can I get some explanation? I don't know. I'm just trying to see. >> I can speak to that. Yes. >> So, uh, Salem's is going through, uh,
talks with community development right now. Pending the outcome of those discussions, if I am told they are in violation and it that sign over the drive-thru is not approved, we will be moving forward with the notice of violation and having them remove that
sign. Um I'm not moving forward until community development comes back and says that this is a violation or um that this is not approved. At that time we'll move. >> Okay. So it's under investigation. >> Yes, it is. But you know um I started as
a Salem franchise. Do you know that Salem Karali the owner of Salm? Okay. I started as franchise. So uh then he um then he built his own restaurant across the street. Uh so as soon as he did that
he as soon as he stand uh the sign over the drive-thru I came here to the city and talked with I don't know who was at that time here the the chief of the building department and he said me yes no that shouldn't be we're going to investigate that was three years ago and
he still has that so and not only that when I um bought my watch fire the watch fire is the LED sign right I got um also notifications s from here from the code enforcement. They told me that it cannot
be moved more than 5 seconds. That was like four or five years ago. And then Salem start to put videos on his own watch fire, right? We have the same equipment because again I started as a Salem franchise. Um so that's why I was wondering why
he's allowed to do things. And then he put also the well the city, you know, I don't he's putting his name under the pole lights. And I have one outside my in my property, you know. I have one pole and they say so over there. I mean,
I know maybe that have that has nothing to do with you, but you know, I'm wondering why he's allowed to do things that I'm not allowed. >> It's under investigation. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. But already for three years. >> Whatever. >> No, no, it's important. >> Um, so again, so our job here tonight is
determine whether or not your particular property >> Yes. Yes. And the code of violations that are mentioned is or is not a violation. >> Yes. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Yeah. One more one more question. >> So you're so so you're investigating >> to find out if Salem is in violation or
not, right? So if he's in he's So if he's f So is his fine not in violation, then I won't be neither in violation. >> Not necessarily. >> Why? It depends on what was originally approved and that there's a whole slew of reasons. >> Me? Okay. Well, you know, if if he's
finding not violation, then I shouldn't be finding violation because I have the same thing that him. >> Each case is going to be taken on its own merits. We're not going to >> the city is not going to >> wait.
>> You have violations have been alleged on your property. If they find that there's a violation, that's the end of it. If >> with the the across the street, the same thing may happen. We're just waiting for it to to, you know, to develop. >> We're just we don't base your case on somebody else's.
>> Okay. Go ahead, Bill. >> So, this is a a banner that's attached. How difficult would it be for you to take the banner down just to just to be in compliance? >> Well, no, it's not really difficult. I just have to hire somebody who put the ladder there. I have the ladder. I I can
I can remove it. I just wanted to have the opportunity to talk with you because when I talked three years ago with the chief of the building right department he told me he was going to investigate then when I came back a year ago he was gone
>> and then nobody helped me at that time I >> given you miss the wrong information. >> Yeah. One one last question is for uh Salem is even open. >> Yeah. >> Are they open for business? >> Yes it is open. on one side and you have this
gentleman's business directly across the street from you. >> Exactly. Across the street. Exactly. >> They're they're in business. >> Oh, okay. I'm I'm not aware of that, but >> you know, but you explained that it's still under investig because if they opened it just opened recently. >> No, no, for been open for a while.
>> Oh, okay. >> They've also violations and they've recently corrected those as well. It's just that that one sign is I'm waiting on word before I >> but you understand you know we cannot compare properties that's what they all
>> explain. I just started at Salem. So, it's the same design. It's the same three towers, you know, because I started at Salem. Uh, >> yeah, but I got it. I got it. >> Got it. Okay. Yes. Any other questions? >> There's no You can have a seat, sir. Thank you. No other questions. I entertain a motion.
>> I'll take this one. >> That is one uh Doug, you said one one of the violations is in compliance. The first one is. And >> 1299 12989 is the one that's out of compliance. >> Yeah. So, okay. All right. Just want to make sure I'm reading the right script
here. All right. So, in case number 25-4741, I move that the city has proven by a greater weight of the evidence the following violations of the city of Temple Terra city code ex exist on the
property located at 5315 East Bush Boulevard code sections 12-983 subsection 2 subsection C. And the other violation is uh 12-989.
This motion is based on the sworn testimony this this board has received from code enforcement officer Doug Allen 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 no fine be
imposed on violation code section uh 12-983 subsection 2 subsection C because the violation was brought into compliance prior to the date of this hearing. I further move that the remaining violation be corrected on or before
>> June 10th >> June 10th 2026. Uh if the respondent does not comply with this order on hon 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 a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor?
>> Oppos? No. Nays. Motion carries. So you Okay, so let me explain to you. You've been you have been found in violation for section 12-989, you have until June 10th to bring the property into compliance. Okay. Should you should the property be found to be
out of compliance again, that becomes a repeat violation. Okay? If it's a repeat violation, the fines go up. Okay? Uh and that includes the blowups, okay? The snowman, whatever. Um so just keep that
in mind as you go forward. Okay? Can I Can I get that one? >> Talk to them. >> Talk talk to them over there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Whatever Whatever you want to do, talk to the code board first. Code Talk to the code enforcement officers first.
>> Okay. But you have been found in violation. You have until June 10th to to bring it into compliance. >> I will remove it. That's >> okay. Thank you. >> All right. Let's see where we are. I think 260755 would be the next one.
>> Yes sir. >> All right. Um if you we can uh we had this case was I believe last month and the city could not move forward. >> Which one? >> Uh 26-0755. >> Okay. >> As you can see it's a continued case.
>> Uh the city cannot move forward last month. You were good enough to continue it. The respondents don't seem to be here. I think it's only fair that we go ahead and continue it again and we make sure that we get notice out to them. Uh next month we'll move it go with it. Uh you know,
>> you need a motion for that. >> Yes. So motion to continue it to the June 10th hearing. >> Okay. You want to do that? >> Yes. Okay. >> Uh I move that the case number 26-0755 uh be heard on June 20 June 10th, 2026.
>> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> Opposed? No. Nays. Motion carries. >> Uh, can I just mention do we want to make that like that's two months in a row. Is there any special circumstances that we should know about?
>> The city's not ready. >> I'm sorry. But the city's not >> It's two months in a row. Is there any special circumstances that should be otherwise like if people >> No, I just better We couldn't move forward last month. They were here. >> Okay. >> I don't think it's very fair if they didn't show up on this one and then we >> Okay. go ahead and and you know bring
the case in their absence. Were >> they notified? >> Uh they were I was just actually talking to Miss Jones, but we'll make sure they get another notice and next month we'll move forward >> one way or another. >> One way or another. But >> sounds good. >> I think we're on to 261158.
>> Yes. Last one business. >> Case number 261158. City versus F and S Home Investment LLC for the property located at 7607 North Santael Circle. This case is before the board based on an alleged
violation of section 12-859 subsection 2 RVs, boats, and trailers. This case will be prosecuted this evening by code officer Doug Allen. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were served. >> Thank you.
>> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members, Doug Allen, code compliance officer. This case was originated by me on April 6th, 2026 for a utility trailer stored in the driveway unscreened from view for an extended period of time. I left a door hanger with a reinspection
date of April 10th, 2026. My reinspection on April 13th showed no change, so a notice of violation was generated on that date with a reinspection date of April 19th, 2026. I posted a copy at the front door and a copy was posted at city hall in the electronic board for the 10-day
requirement and copies were mailed both regular and certified mail to the owner of record. A reinspection on April 22nd showed no change. So I prepared a notice of hearing on that date and scheduled the case for the May municipal code board meeting. I would like to submit photographic evidence taken by me on
April 14th, 2026. The site is in compliance and I'd also like to submit an affidavit compliance and I'm seeking your finding. >> Very good. We'll accept that. Thank you. >> Good news. >> Any questions for the code officer?
>> Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> Let me do this last one. David, >> thank you. Okay. In case number 26-1158, I move that the city has proven by the greater weight of evidence the following violation of the city of double terrace
city code exist on the property located at 7607 North Senel Circle with a code violation section 12-859 subsection 2.
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 the notice of violation of which you received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that the SID
violation be corrected on or before >> I don't know. >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. Yeah, I read the report. >> Yeah, I'm good up to here. 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 the notice of
violation of which received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that there be no fine imposed because the violation were brought into compliance prior to the date of this hearing. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion to second. Any further discussion?
>> Seeing none. All those in favor? >> Oppos? No nays. Motion carries. That finishes new business. On to unfinished. >> Unfinished business. Case number 2526. City versus Dorothy M. Carter Trustee for the property located at 400
Ridgedale Road. Deadline of compliance was November 12th, 2025 and fine of $25 per day beginning November 13, 2025 for violation section 8-102 subsection 13 subsection B minimum
housing exterior walls. Um, affidavit of compliance was received April 7th by code officer Doug Allen. Next case, case number 252930, city versus River Park Community
Association, Inc. for the property located at 7788 Rosewood Garden Loop. Deadline for compliance was December 10th, 2025, a fine of $25 per day beginning December 11th, 2025.
Violation section 28-840 subsection E subsection 1. buffers good repair affidavit of compliance received April 30th, 2026 by code officer Doug Allen. There is a current lean of $3,500
for a total of 140 days. Next case is case number 253640 city versus Abel Lopez for the property located at 5301 Rainbow Drive for the deadline of
compliance was January 14th, 2026. A fine of $50 per day beginning January 15, 2026. Violation section 8-102 subsection B subse I'm sorry subsection 13 subsection
B minimum housing exterior walls section 8-102 um subsection 13 subsection C minimum housing roofs affidavit of compliance received April 1st 2026 by code officer
Doug Allen The next case is case number 254353 city versus Wana Navaro and Primovito Diaz Jr. for the property located at 8701 Coral Dawn Court. Deadline for
compliance is May 13, 2026, a fine of $25 per day beginning May 14th, 2026. Violation section 8-102 subsection 13 subsection C minimum housing roofs deadline for compliance is midnight tonight.
>> Very good. Thank you. >> Any other board action? Anything on the leans report? Okay. Any new business? I have two items. Um the first one I want to read into the record um Taylor Williams um is
resigning >> to um I guess a couple different reason she's when does she start as your intern? >> Uh so I think in June >> in June. Okay. So she starts she'll be interning with Ernie starting in June. So I want to just read her her
resignation letter into the record. Uh dear Mr. Burich and members of the municipal code enforcement board, please accept this letter as my formal resignation from my position as an alternate member of the municipal code enforcement board effective May 13, 2026. Serving as an alternate member for
the past two years has been a privilege. This experience has filled me with deep respect for the tireless work city staff and volunteers performed to keep Temple Terrace an amazing city. Unfortunately, the obligations of law school have become too burdensome to balance with the commitment required for this role. While I must step away from now, I hope
this is only a temporary departure. I look forward to the opportunity to apply for the board again in the future once my schedule allows. Thank you for the opportunity to serve my community. Sincerely, Taylor Taylor Williams. Okay. And then the other um new
business, Jack, you want to talk to us about citations? >> My pleasure. All right. So, uh, at the last council meeting, I I presented an amendment to sections 1-104 and 1-105.
1-104, uh, gives us the authority to write citations u, and discusses uh, how that process works. 1-105 is the schedule of violations. Uh in there I
introduced uh some changes to uh section two I'm sorry u class two violations and I introduced class 4 violations. Um I don't have them off the top of my head but uh class 4 violations uh are going to be two of them are for minimum I'm
sorry uh short-term rental housing issues. Uh one for yard parking, one for assembly uses. The other ones um are for uh I can't remember off the top of my head what they are. >> Clean and cutting your lawn.
>> Well, those are class two violations. So, those are going to be lower. The class 4 violations carry a heavier fine. Watering is one of those. Um so, it's going to be a $250 fine first offense, $500 second offense. The reason is those specific violations are high impact to
the community. the class two violations. Uh, one specifically was was the grass that was um, if you watched the council meeting, there was a lot of questions about the grass. The reason that I added grass in there and uh, the other one was um, duty to maintain property. Those are
two very readily visible, easily easily correctable. Between May 2025 and May 2026, our our officers wrote 661 by uh cases for grass, specifically for grass. Out of those 661,
eight made it to the board. So 661 um I'm sorry, 650 whatever the math is. >> Yep. Uh voluntary complied, no harm, no foul, didn't happen again. They cut their grass. Some of them needed assistance. we provided those assistance
and and put them in the right direction. Eight did not comply. Eight would have received violations. I believe if if I'm not mistaken, the uh the first violation, I think, is $75. Now, remember that comes after a courtesy notice. So, that the process is
still the same. You get a courtesy notice. We look to see if you need assistance. If that time frame goes 10, 15 days. At that moment, you're going to get a citation. If this passes, you would get a citation uh for that. Second offense, same thing. Um the reason that
we added that as a violation uh isn't to take anything away from the board. Remember there there was eight of them. What it is is more about the citizens, the the other residents. It impacts not just the person that's not cutting their grass. It's all the neighbors around it that have to see that on a daily basis.
Uh we get the phone calls. We we know about the complaints. So the board process they get the courtesy notice they they get the notice of violation there's more time they eventually come to the board after the notice of hearing and then they're given another time frame to correct that. So you know 30 60 days that people are having to look at
this grass just grow because people just aren't going to cut it. That was the purpose for the the uh the citations. Um if this passes um we will order the citations. we will get the training that's required per our
code and then we will begin writing the citations. If that's the case, those those specific things will not come here. Yard parking is another one. Yard parking would be u a class 4 violation. Uh so that's going to be a heavy hitter. The reason the overarching reason that
these are so impactful is they can go away and then come back the next day. Yard parking, we go out there, we find them in compliance, two days later they're back out there again. might be a repeat violation, maybe not. But now we have this whole time frame that's allowed again for people to continue
violating without any recourse until the code board. So this is our way for us to impact immediately and we owe that to the residents that have to look at it every day. >> Any questions? >> Yeah. So what was the time frame that you said? 661
grass cutting violations. It was a year. >> That was over 13 months. I went from May 2025 to May 2026. >> Okay, got you. >> Pretty impressive. This is a good record. >> And did you have any similar statistics for the parking the yard parking? >> I actually I I've grafted it all out. I
didn't I didn't know I was going to have to present this. I would have brought it with me, but um yes, I have all the statistics and I'm going to be presenting that at the next council meeting. So basic, so you're still saying even for the yard parking violations that the ve the vast majority of them don't
even make it to the to code board to to us, right? Is that what >> correct? >> The the the biggest one was the grass. That was the the highest uh amount. Um but uh the council did ask some very very good questions um that we're digging for answers for to to make sure
everybody understands. >> Jack, >> come on. >> Yeah. Just I actually have some other information. Go ahead. >> Well, and I I'm sure this was probably asked at council. Um I live in the neighborhood that's adjacent to USF. >> Yes.
>> When the stadium's done, parking in my neighborhood is going to end up being an issue. >> We're already working on that. There's there's a um a whole tasker >> I figure that was given to me. Um I have this giant map blown up of your neighborhood. >> Okay. on my in my in my office and we're
plotting out um areas of concern uh where we know that people are going to park and we're coming up with plans of attack to um to be both uh beneficial to the residents but also deter parking in that in that area. So we have to find a good balance
>> sell $12 hot dogs to water. So like I'm going to buy him a grill if you let let it happen. >> There's there's a permit for that. >> Yeah, I can do that. I I can get one. >> Um so, uh duty to pre keep premises
clean. Uh there were 151 cases. Um 11 were heard at the board. Um RVs, boats, and trailers, there were 41. Now, this is only the ones that went to the MCB. So, uh 41 cases written last year for RVs, boats, trailers, nine went to the
board. Um accessory structures, there was 50. Two came to the board. Uh so there's there's a whole uh slew of violations. Um commercial landscaping, there were two, one came to the board. Um so it would really truly would
benefit the u the residents for the citation program to eliminate things quicker to get compliance faster. Uh that's that's good for the residents and it's also good for the person that's that's violating because it's a it's a
waste of time for them over periods of time to have to come back to the board. Every time we give them a violation, it wastes their time, right? Um we we don't want to waste their time. We don't want their money. We want them to just comply with the code. That's the plan.
>> So here here's here's you and I have talked. So I'm going to I'm going to revoice my objection. It's not up to me. It's up to council. But, you know, first of all, we're talking about a very small percentage of of the total cases.
>> But what you didn't talk about was if someone, you know, the cases that have come in front of us duty to keep premises clean and many of the the long cutting cases, there's always a backstory. Okay? Or mostly there's a backstory. So, in this particular the
way we do it now, we are the their due their due process. Okay, we are their due process. >> If they get a a citation, the due process is you have to go downtown, find
a parking spot in the middle of the day instead of coming here after work, talk to a judge who lives who knows where, tell him your SAB story, and he's probably got 400 cases that night. So, the the the due process is different. You mean if they don't if they decide
not to >> if they decide not to pay the fine. Yeah. If they have a Sabb story and they want to tell somebody what their story is, their due process is is different. It's not it's not as efficient in my in my opinion. And for the small amount of cases that we're talking about, whether
they're sticking their nose at you or whatever they're doing, they're still citizens. And I think we owe them the most efficient due process that we can give them, especially since it's it's a small number of cases. Um, I just don't and
you know, you guys all do a fantastic job, but once it's in the books, it's in the books and if we get somebody different from Jack Shanks or from Lori or from Doug or anybody that want to, you know, create a Nazi atmosphere in
the in the city, they can do that with the citations. They don't have to be as kind as you are. They don't have to look for alternatives. They just boom, citation. End the story. So, I understand, you know, that you get um calls from from
neighbors. I understand that that's no fun. But I just think we owe it to our citizens to give them the most efficient due process that we can. But again, it's not my not my decision. It's it's council decision, but I wanted to get it on the record.
So, right now it's kind of an extended time period because we basically we don't if if they're in compliance uh the first time that they come here, right? Then we we >> compian we give them another 30 days or whatever. >> Well, we have to they have to come back
if Yeah. Well, I thought there's a repeat violation that that's how we usually catch these guys with with the parking stuff. They they have a repeat, >> right? Well, I don't have a problem I don't have a problem with the citations on the parking. I just have it on the with the duty to keep premises clean and the the cutting of the lawn. I know
James, you want to say something, but okay, >> we'll get to that. Um, and I just think because the cases that do come in front of us for those two violations, >> there's always a backstory. Remember the old the old couple that took took months for them to get their yard cleaned up. And it wasn't for, you know, other than
the fact that they were stubborn and wanted to do it themselves. >> Um, there was it just took time. >> They were part of the system. >> Yeah. And they were and they were and they were they were trying to get it done. They were doing what they could. Um should never got that bad to begin with, but it did. Um and the same thing
with lawns. They got, you know, I lost my job. I can't fix my mower, blah blah blah, whatever it is. And I just think we owe that to our citizens. And like I said, these guys all do a great job. They all look out for our citizens. We're always looking for ways to fix things. But once it's on the books, it's
on the books. And if we get a crew in here that is just gung-ho, we're just, you know, going to citate the hell out of everybody. There's there's no remedy. >> There's no one. >> Yeah. So, I just think for those particular two violations, I', you know,
like you to go back and rethink that. That's all. And again, it's not not my decision and we we'll live by whatever you guys and council decides. Uh but that's my two cents. James Thank you. Uh James Chambers, your council liaison. I wanted to explain the
procedure a little bit what happened. So at the last council meeting, uh it was presented to us. Uh it was approved on first reading. So that meant it was approved, but there were questions the council had of staff. They're working on that. Then at the uh first meeting in
June, not the next meeting, but the first meeting in June, it'll be heard again. And then uh that's where changes could be made to what was presented at the first reading or it could be or it could stand. So uh I'm asking as a
council member I not an opinion of the board but member uh opinions of the board members if you guys want to give me your opinions look at what was presented like uh Mr. Porlich said that there's a lot of items uh in the
different two categories being presented. He's voiced as he objects to two of those or has concerns with two of those. There may be other ones that you guys want to or you might like it all. But if you'd like to talk to me about it because I am your council member and your representative or the other council
members, that's the procedure to do it. So anyway, you have the opportunity to talk to me and give me your opinion because we will have to rule on that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That's it. >> Anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion to
adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. All those in favor. >> Okay, we are journ. Thank you.