Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Okay. Little late, but the November 12th, 2025 meeting of Mutual Code Enforcement Board is now called to order. Our next meeting will be December 10th. Everybody, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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. Before we get started, I want to remind the board that once we do get started,
no side conversations. Everything has to be on the record. Okay. Thank you. Um, ladies and gentlemen, the municipal code enforcement board is charged with conducting hearings to determine whether an alleged violation of the city code has occurred. Decisions made by this quasi judicial board will be based on
the evidence and facts presented this evening. Our meetings are conducted in accordance with Robert's rules of order and each case will begin with the city presenting its evidence of the alleged violation. The respondent will then present his or her case. Both parties will have an opportunity to
cross-examine all witnesses. The board members may question any witness. Comments by both parties must be relevant to the case. Persons wishing to speak will be given an opportunity to do so by the chair and must address the board from the podium after giving their name and address. Upon request, copies
of material submitted by staff are available for review. Board members are reminded to obtain permission to speak from the chair and questions of the city should be directed to the attorney for the city. At this time, I'll ask all persons who expect to give testimony tonight to please stand and be sworn in
by the clerk. >> Please raise your right hand and answer after I swear you in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will provide the board tonight will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? >> Thank you. >> At this time, I'd like to ask all board members if they had any exparte communications regarding any matters coming before the code enforcement board this evening. If you've had verbal communications, please disclose the sub and substance of the communications,
when and where the communications occurred, and with whom it occurred. If you received any written communications, please disclose the nature of the communications, and provide a copy to the city clerk to be filed in the record. Starting at this end, >> I had none. >> I've had none. >> Had none. >> I've had none.
>> I've had none. >> Very good. Thank you. Uh, minutes of meetings. If there are no edits or changes to the meetings of October 8th, I'll entertain a motion to approve. Motion to approve. >> We have a motion and a second. >> Any further discussion? Seeing none, all
those in favor? >> Opposed? No. Nays. Motion carries. Okay. As per our usual, we will be taking cases out of order. Um, our first case will be under old business, unfinished business. It's case number 25-2911.
Our second case will also be under unfinished 25-2841. Our third case is also under old uh unfinished business 25-2866. Our fourth case >> slow down. Slow down. Okay.
>> So 29 2911 >> Yep. >> 2841 2866. >> Got it. Okay. >> And then our fourth case will be 299. uh >> on the first page. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> Our fifth case will be five 000072 also on the first page >> and and then we'll clean up the rest. >> Quick question. Chair, you have his
number one. >> Mhm. >> Same property as >> Mike. Your mic's not on. Sorry. uh you have as the first case 25-2911 for 6125 Liberty Avenue. I also you want
to note that that is the sixth ca that same property is the sixth case on >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I was going to ask about that. >> It's the sixth case under new business. >> Yes. Yep. The two 4048 4048 same
address. So 20 2420 >> that case 25-2420 >> no 25-448 >> oh 4048 >> yeah so we probably >> should do those together then I guess
>> in you in your cases >> yeah he's got it >> okay so you would like to would you like to do them both at the same time >> well we I think we should do one right after the other I mean the here >> okay we can do that so we'll do >> one a one a will be will be 291 111 and
1B will be um 4048. Does that work? >> That works. Thank you. I didn't put the two together. All right, let's get started on 1 A.
Hang on. We have a late arrival. Which which case are you here for sir? >> Um this for river park. >> Is there do you have a number? >> What's the address?
>> That is case number 252930. >> 2930. >> That's old business. Is that on >> under business? >> That's old business. >> Okay. So that'll be >> down the list. >> That'll be our sixth one. >> Number six. That'll be number six, guys.
Okay. >> Yep. >> All right. Um, we're going to need to get you sworn in. Okay. So, would you please stand? You can swear him in. Please raise your right hand and answer and then affirming it. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you provide the board tonight will be the truth, the old truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Affirmative. >> Yeah, I do. >> I will. >> I do. >> Great. Thank you. Okay. On to case 1 A. Thank you.
Case number 25. Case number 25-2911 city versus Eddie Barbbero Mestra for the property located at 6125 Liberty Avenue. The deadline for the compliance
was November 12th, 2025. Fine. of $25 per day beginning November 13, 2025. Violation section 8-28 A1 permits permits app required. Deadline
for compliance is midnight tonight. >> Okay. Since this is unfinished business, um you can come up and give us an update. >> Hi. Yes. Uh Mr. Pogorich and the rest of the board. My name is Karina Fuller. I represent Eddie Mestra in the property
located at 6125. I was present before the board back on October 8th um where we conceded to the violation and I understand that the board gave us 30 days to remedy it. I do want to advise that this particular violation is due to the driveway. That's my understanding.
Um, on October 10th, we received the survey because in order to submit the application for the driveway, we had to get a survey just to make sure that the driveway, what we wanted to do with the driveway was not going to be more than 25% of the total um, property. Um, we
got the survey on October 10th. After that, my client had attempted to um, turn in plans with the survey for the driveway. At that time he was notified that because there is a stop work order for other issues with the property he
couldn't submit the plans for the driveway at that time unless he submitted all the plans for everything. So then thereafter we get then met with the general contractor who is helping us remedy the other violations purported
violations that has nothing to do with this particular driveway issue. Um and then they came a second time by they my client and the general contractor uh which with all of the plans and the applications for the permit. It was at that time they were informed that they
couldn't accept it unless they did an inspection with I believe the main inspector. I believe it was that gentleman over there. I wasn't present. This is what my client has informed me and he's here and he doesn't speak English. So I'm I'm I swore to basically tell y'all everything that I am aware
of. I believe after that second time of trying to submit not only the plans for the driveway but for other violations, my client and the general contractor were informed that the the main guy needed to look inside of the home and the property. It was my understanding
that that inspection occurred and after that inspection occurred, I believe this gentleman over here, and I forget your name, I'm so sorry. >> Dallas. >> Dallas. Dallas informed the general contractor of certain other things he needed to comply with as it related to the plans because my client also had to
pay an architect to get some plans done. Um the general contractor along with my client has been working with the architect. However, the architect had a family issue. But there's a lot of things. There's so many moving pieces that's not in my control and not in my client's control. We're working with the
>> Let me see if I can summarize this for you. >> Okay. So this particular case is about just the driveway, right? >> However, there are other mitigating circumstances that have prevented you from getting a permit for the driveway, which is probably going to come to light in the next case. >> Correct.
>> So I'm just So basically, we're simply asking for another extension before fines are imposed on the driveway issue for many reasons. We are in good faith trying to comply with the city and doing everything I I believe Dallas could
vouch that we you know my client and and all the people have been here at least twice in the this building twice in the last 30 days to try to submit permits we're working and I want from a you know a humane perspective on this it's very expensive for my client to get the
architect the general contractor and then now to have to endure $25 fines per day it's just very taxing times are tough and so we're simply asking for an extension before fines are imposed as to the driveway issue simply because we can't remedy the driveway unless
everything else is remedied and there's other bigger bigger problems than the driveway. So >> So Ernie, let me ask you a question. Um I know we haven't heard the other case yet, but is there a way to consolidate all this? Oh, >> well,
I think I don't think we can consolidate them because one of the cases was heard last month and then we have this one today. But if you want to hold on making a decision on this continuence request and go ahead and hear the other case and that way you kind of have the full
>> Okay, we'll do that. So, we're going to we're going to do two reserve judgment on this particular case until after we >> uh rule on the next case >> and at that time we'll be able to kind of make it all work. Okay. >> Thank you. Do you want me to have another? >> Yeah, have a seat and then because the
uh code enforcement officer is going to come up next. So, um I need a motion to hold this in until we after we hear the next case. Basically, >> I I'll in in case number uh 25-2911, I make a motion to hold until we hear
the additional case. >> I name it 25-448. >> You're right. Well, I'm holding the first until we hear the second. So, we're holding case 25-2911 until we hear case 2548.
>> Very good. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Okay. On to case 1B. Case number 25448. Yep. Good evening. I'm officer Bat with Code Compliance. This case this evening
was initiated by Officer Smith due to a complaint through community development on October 17, 2025. Before you before you go on, can we >> determine whether or not all the stuff's been submitted and all that good stuff? >> Excuse me. Case number 25-448-
city versus Eddie Ferero Mestra for the property located at 6125 Liberty Avenue. This case is before the board based on alleged violation of section 8-28A1 permits app required. The case will be
prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Danielle Bat. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay, floor is yours >> again. Officer Bat with code compliance.
This case this evening was initiated by officer Smith due to a complaint through community development on October 17th, 2025 for work without a permit. Notice of violation was prepared, posted to the property, requested, posted to city hall electronic board, and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the
address of record on October 17, 2025. The compliance date for this case was set for October 23rd, 2025, and was not in compliance on or by this date. Notice the hearing was prepared, posted the property, requested to post city hall electronic board for the 10-day requirement, and sent both certified
mail and regular mail to the address of record on October 30th for tonight's hearing. As of Monday, November 10th, 2025, records still show the property is still not in compliance. At this time, I ask permission to present evidence showing to bring this property into full compliance. The property would need to
be restored to the original approved site plan from 2020 2007. I apologize. And a ruling and I would like to refer any questions to the city building official Dallas Foss. Okay. So, I have a question. Um, she
mentioned that the property needs to be brought back to the original site plan which is dated 2007. Is that correct? And what can we give us a general nature of what what what needs to be done to bring it back to
2007? So the original exhibit or in the exhibits that are being looked through, there's actually a site plan from 2007, the only site plan that was ever approved. Okay. >> Um in 2024, there was an alleged approved site plan,
but it was never approved to move forward prior to purchase. At that point in time, that was when the stop work orders got submitted. Well, those submitted work order or that stop work order that was submitted was
used as a permit but wasn't actual permit because it was actually a stop work order to change the Hillsboro County property appraisers site. So, the property that we're actually speaking about is meant to be a two-bedroom, two bath, not a fourbedroom, three bath. >> Okay.
>> Um, and the exhibits once gone through um actually show photo of the approved 2000 site plan. uh Google photo Google photo showing the carport was enclosed prior to March 2011. A copy of the appro proposed site plan
and I put red markings on showing the differences. Um the changes made a copy of the proposed site plan prior to that with the writing on it from the proposal. Um, and a copy of the Hillsboro County
property appraisers as well as a copy of the stop work order number so it all matches link. >> We get those put up on the screen. >> Okay. Yeah. Did you catch that?
>> Yeah. You might have a question. >> Yeah. I just found out >> Dallas now. Is that the residence? >> That's the residence >> as it stands today. >> This was taken. >> There's no date on it. So,
>> this one was taken about two months ago. >> Okay. >> Um, this one here is is more recent. >> Yeah. That one says October 30th. Okay. Any other questions? Go ahead. >> Yes. Uh for Dallas, this this uh photo
in front of me, uh it's dated 2007. I just wanted to be clear on that. Uh it's a site plan. It says approved site plan. This is the approved site plan with the >> in 2007. >> 2007.
>> Right. Apparently we have different layout inside uh inside >> more bedrooms more it's completely remodeled inside >> the I haven't consider I'll go through
it with you the other the first page is a 2007 Seven. This is the floor plan of what the house looked like. The third page, you come to this. The red line you'll see across the back of the building. The carpet was enclosed for
master bedroom as well as an addition on the back of the home was put in place. That was never permitted. Never. Okay. >> But when was that completed? In 2024 or >> No, 2024. There was renovation work going on at the home >> without permits.
>> Without permits and they got cited. Okay. >> So, yeah, you you'll get your opportunity this question. Let let him finish first. >> So, it was cited for work without a permit. When we did the research, now we found out the carpet was enclosed. The addition on the rear of the home was put
on. So, in order to bring it into compliance, we have to permits and after engineer reports or something to cover all the work that is done at the home at this time. >> Okay. >> Because there's no permits for any additions or anything. >> So, there was so there was work done in there was work done prior to 2020. 24
>> that wasn't permitted. >> It was not permitted. >> Then we have work that was done in 2024 that was started that wasn't permitted. And in order to bring everything into compliance, you need some sort of engineers report to tie it all together. >> Tie it all back together. >> Yes, sir.
>> But I I I do want to point out it uh was not this property owner that did the changes back >> the original changes. Yeah, >> they were done. >> I just want to make sure that's clear that that >> How long it was done prior ownership? >> Uh one year. I just want to clarify that
my client purchased a property in June of 2025 and he purchased it as is. So all of this work that was done without Excuse me. >> She's got to step up the mic. >> She's got to if you're allowing her to speak, she needs to come to the podium. >> I just want to clarify that my client
purchased a property in June of 2025 and he purchased a property as is. So he in basically inherited a property that was already in violation of of city code. Um so before I ask further questions, I just wanted
to make that. >> That's good to know. >> Okay. Thank you. >> But bottom line is in order to bring the property into compliance, you need some sort of documentation that that ties whatever was done before he purchased it. >> It's a permanent application for all the
work that's been done, >> right? Whether it's >> after the fact, it's an after the fact, >> right? But it was doesn't matter what it was done. >> Whomever, >> whoever did it, whenever they did it, it all needs to get permitted. >> With his purchasing of the home as is, he's now basically assumed the clearing of everything else.
>> Gotcha. Any other questions? >> So, I I think we got some I want to make sure it's clear for the record. The violations we're here on that we originally were here on have not even
been really addressed yet by Dallas, which is all the work that was done on the interior. What we're trying to say is as we were looking at this, we saw, oh, wait a minute, there were additions that were never permitted before this gentleman. But but when they do do the
permits, they're going to have to take care of all >> take care of all that. I still have what they're really here on is all the changes that have been made in the last 6 months or so. >> And what were those? >> They've enter installed removed windows, put
doors in those places and created uh additional living space. We have two bedrooms that were converted to separate space. They're not part of the main home. You have to go outside to get back into the main part of the house. So, it's being used. I don't know if it's an
Airbnb or what have you, but it's that's what caught it. They did uh air conditioning systems, plumbing, electrical work, as well as building work and structural work on the home without permits. >> But but the bottom line is
a something has to be documented to tie everything together. >> Tie it all together >> whether it was done before his purchase or after the purchase. Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. And something to take note of, uh, by by doing that, they've created a
>> I guess you can stay up. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh, a multi multif family home in a single family zoned area, which is another issue that's going to have to be resolved by fixing the renovations that were performed in the
home. >> So that's kind of what I was. So the house as it stands right now won't get a what you're saying it won't get an approved site plan just because it's it's in violation of whatever the >> it's it's now as a multif family versus
a single family residence. >> Okay. So that's why you're saying that they have to revert back to the 2007 site plan in order to be in compliance. When I met with the owner as well as a GC on site, he was saying he would be opening up doorways that were closed off
would be open reopen so it' be one floor space open all all access to everywhere in the home would be done from interior. We haven't received plans because he needs structural details for what they have completed with the doors and everything to be added to the plans.
So the bottom line is the house has to go back to >> either go back to where we were, go back to where it was or get all the paperwork to put it to where it is currently. But the multif family thing is what's going to hold it up with zoning. >> Well, that's what I'm saying. It can't it can't be a multif family if it's >> correct >> because of the zoning.
>> The zoning in the area. >> I guess multif family just means that I mean I guess he could live there. I mean one family could live there, right? But I guess that's what you were trying to >> Well, that I just wanted to clarify what you're saying is again with the 2007 site plan we have.
Work was done without permits in the last 6 months. So, they're working on getting those permits. what's kind of been added on here now is not really a part of this case, but making them aware, gee, you
also have this other work that was done years ago. So, when you're getting the permit work done now, you're going to have to include that stuff, too, or take those, you know, those those additions out, one of the two. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure they don't, you know, we're not saying you
have to take it back to the 2007 site plan. You're going to have to get permits for it or you're going to have to remove the stuff. It's either take it back to 2007 or get permits for everything. >> Yes. >> But how does the zone how does if it if it Well, okay. Never >> that's a different violation. If they
don't if they don't make the changes and bring it back to a single family home and get the permits for all that, then there's going to be a subsequent violation for a zoning violation of having multifamily in a single family. Okay. >> Were the changes that made it from
single family to multifamily made in the last 6 months? Yes. >> Okay. >> Rod. >> Yes. Uh Dallas, how long do you think their process would take? >> And is it doable? Right. >> Is this doable? >> Well, and and keep in mind it's not the
construction is not the violation. They had to get the permit. >> I know. I know. That's But it's going to require uh architectural plans, engineers to certify whatever been done is done. >> Once it's done with that and everything's submitted, it'll come it
can move quickly. because at that point the engineer of record that does that report is when one assumes our responsibility. So it's a fairly quick process to get that closed out and close it. With the stop work order being placed on the home for the work being done, no permits can be issued for the
driveway or anything until that stop work order is satisfied. >> That's that's what's holding the driveway up. Go ahead. >> Uh given the scope of the work that's been done since 2007, would they need to get additional permits to undo that work? We can do it since it's we're
basically doing it after the fact on this. It can all get tied into one set of permits instead of doing two. >> But the the thing is is that they're going to have to get an inspection regardless because they're going to undo pretty significant work to the house. So there's no >> or well you can get a forensic engineer.
They can come in and do the research, do the checking of everything and basically certify that it's all in compliance with codes at that time. Well, so I I guess I guess my question is then that they're kind of in a a catch22, right? They can't really take it back to 2007 unless they get engineers to come in and
inspect >> and they can't bring it current unless they get an engineer to come in and inspect. So >> at this point, the as far as the owner would be the best probably would be as a current condition versus demoing out the half of the house and >> going back to it. But that's the owner's decision.
>> That was going to be like what is it? What's the intent? Do they want to keep it as a multif family home or do they want to keep it as a single family? >> It doesn't matter to us as long as they either >> zone. >> It doesn't It doesn't matter. That's not the appropriate It's not appropriate. I
mean, it's their decision on what they want to do and there are methodologies in place to do whatever they want to do. As long as they follow those methodologies and get the right permits, it doesn't matter. >> Well, no, but if we know what kind of what their intent is, then we can guide them the right way. Oh, that's not our
job isn't to guide them. That's Dallas's job. >> Well, right. But so, >> one more. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. So, basically what we're looking at is we're not going to look at the permits for the stuff that's happened in the last 6 months until the rest of the house is brought current. But that's all going to get bundled together and then >> it's bundled up as one one set and that
would clear the stopwork orders and the whole everything at that time. >> Okay. In your estimation, I mean, what what kind of timeline would they be looking at to get that that amount of like say they wanted to bring it current, like they just wanted to have an engineer come out and certify everything that's been done and get all
the permits to make all of that stuff kosher. I mean, are we looking at like six months or we looking at like two weeks? I mean, >> depending upon the engineer you get, some of, you know, they're busy, so it's a matter of well, they're dealing with an architect already. The architect can certify it also. >> Okay. that maybe haven't come out to do
a walk through and write the letters. And >> I think what he's asking is can get that can that get done in the next 30 days. >> Probably not in 30 days. >> Yeah, that's I mean ultimately what I'm getting after is that if we're going to grant an extension, I want it to be >> I don't want it to be dumb. Like you got 30 days to do a year's worth of work.
Sounds ridiculous. >> Got the holidays coming up >> of permits, right? Not >> Yeah. This is Well, yeah, but he's got to have it's it's not just a matter of submitting drawings. They need a forensic engineer to come in and certify that what was done >> can stay, >> right? >> So that's that's really what the
probably what the the bigger piece is. >> Look looking at this time of the year, you're probably looking probably 60 to 90 days where they can get it together to get it in with the holidays and coming up. I can see that. >> David, >> and does that >> hang on one on the end? Go ahead.
>> Does that include time for permits and inspections and everything else? Once it once it's submitted with the reports, it's a fairly quick process for on our side to get it taken care of. >> Go ahead. >> Yes. I have a question for the lady over here. Um,
>> yes. >> You got step up step up to >> answer his question then you can ask your question. >> Just just a quick question. Uh, do you think 60 days >> you will remedy all what's going on?
>> Well, it's not remedy. It's it's permits. permits. >> But in order to submit the permits, we need um we need updated plans from the architect. We need an engineer and um and so that that's the holdup. It it's we have been here well my client and the
GC has been here twice here in this building in the last 30 days since the last uh hearing to sub try to submit plans. After the second attempt, they informed whoever the office staff was informed the GC and my client that
Dallas needed to walk in to the house. Dallas was invited into the house. Do you recall what date that was? >> Not that ahead. It's been in the last couple of weeks. >> At least in the last two weeks. >> Two weeks, I was there. >> Okay. And then upon your review, you were able to look at the plans that they
proposed by the architect. Correct. >> Correct. and there were there's information that's missing that they're going to go get taken care of. >> So, and then according to Dallas's inspection and then him reviewing the plans that they had at that time by the architect, there was additional items
that my client needed at that point. That's when the GC contacted the architect and now we're just waiting for the architect to fix or add what Dallas said needed to be added. And then now, did you inform the GC that they needed an engineer? We just found this out
today doing the research today. >> This is news to me. So when I got all this today, >> um I got all this. The GC doesn't even know about this. The the GC is the one who's spearheading all of this and I'm just the messenger >> um showing up here today. Um I also just
wanted to put here I understand that my client and did work with auto permit. We have been here. I've been in constant communications with uh Mr. Mueller. I've met with this gentleman. We're we're trying to do the right thing. However, I don't think it's fair that my client is
also having to do work on a house that was done that he purchased a house in June of 2025 for work that was previously done without a permit as well. Um, and so I I want all y'all to consider that this is very expensive. I understand, you know, if he did the
right thing from the very beginning, it wouldn't have been that expensive, but unfortunately, here we are. We're trying to do the right thing and getting as easy it is to say loosely we got to get a forensic engineer. We got to get an architect. We got to get a GC. All of that costs a lot of money. The holidays
are coming up. So I I'm just simply asking for an extension. I I believe that y'all are willing to give the extension, but also be considerate of of that regard as well. >> Okay. Are there anybody else in the audience that has anything to say on this particular case? Anything else? I'm
not >> on this particular case there. >> Okay. >> And again, Mr. Chair, it has to be, you know, they have to be able to talk about >> Yes, understood. And they have three minutes, right? >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> State your name and address, please. >> Andrew Logan, 6121 Liberty Avenue. And I've been living there for 32 years. And it's been a wonderful neighborhood, but now we have and this is all the permits because we're now living
with a motel in our neighborhood because there are exterior doors and all of that work's been done since June and there are cars, several cars there um during the weekend especially. So, no one seems
to be checking on it during the weekend, but there are separate outdoor doors with uh porch lights next to them for people to go into those areas of the house and
evidently there was a lot of electrical and plumbing work done. So, that would be part of the permitting issue, I suppose. But, you know, it is a single family neighborhood and we have a motel there and that's what we're not happy
about. >> Thank you. Anybody else? >> Okay. I've got another question, Dave, uh, for Dallas. Sorry. Um, you mentioned earlier that uh I mean it's or or I'm sorry, one of you guys
mentioned earlier that it's a it's now a multi- family house and it needs to and it's in a zone for single family. Correct. >> Is that part of this? >> If they want to keep it as a multifamily, yeah, they'd have to go through a reszoning of the property and all that that process which is
>> has started. But if they're going to keep it as a single family with opening the rooms back up, then the multi would go away. >> I got you. >> I I could advise. >> Hang hang on, hang on, Brian. >> Is it I guess within city code to
continue using it as a multif family until then or would it have to be like >> stop work orders? >> Yeah. Well, it's not stop work, but I would living there. >> Correct. if people are living there and if it's going on would that have to be stopped as well? >> I don't know that anybody
>> the bottom line is no they can't use it as multifamily >> uh as a multifamily uh >> okay >> dwelling at this time it's the wrong zoning. >> So what can this Sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you. >> No no that >> so what what is the city's next step? I mean, we got neighbors here that are
that are here complaining about the problem and what what is the city what what's the >> right now we're the case in front of you has to do with the permits, >> right? >> And it has been indicated that they plan on getting rid of those um separate
little units and again put it back to being one single family home. That's the plan and that's what the permits are going to reflect I believe. So, >> okay. Is that the >> But I guess the question is does the stop work order stop it stops the
construction work. Does it also stop the the use as a multif family? >> So we need >> it will not but that may be a that'll probably be a new case that'll be brought forward if they continue using it as a multifamily. We were under the
impression they were going to stop doing that. Um but if they do not then there'll be another case brought for a zoning violation. representative. >> Okay. That's not that's not what's here. >> No, no, I'm I just meant the intent. What What are there
>> I mean we we got we got neighbors here. >> I guess she I guess I mean she's going to come. >> I just Yeah, >> the the intent is not for multifamily. Uh the intent is to remain it as a single family. I believe that the plans that were previously shown to Dallas
show a single family, not multi-unit. The one that the GC >> it still had multi we still had 10 spaces that weren't all opened up. >> The one that the GC plant show so it was still >> for multi you have to open two doors.
There was a small hallway. There were doors there. Okay. >> They had been it's closed off as a closet now. Okay. Open. >> So that's that's another discussion that we can discuss. >> My understanding the intent was to be a single family. So >> okay. But is he is he going to cease >> from here from tonight forward? Is he
gonna whatever tenants he has there, are they going to continue to stay there or >> I have to I haven't had that conversation with Michael. >> You should have that conversation. >> Rod, you're that one of the but sorry >> that's been one of the the bigger issues
and I get daily phone calls from neighbors and rightfully so that there is multiple people coming in and going out of the home when it's supposed to be a single family neighborhood and we've had the discussions in the past that was supposed to have stopped. Um but from the neighbors they're telling us that
that's continuing. >> Okay. >> Go ahead, Ron. >> Yes. Um so currently that's a good question for Jack. Currently we have people living there. Not the owner. >> It's not the owner.
>> Correct. Well, I I can't say the owner is living there or not. I I don't know. >> But there are other tenants coming and going. We see different cars all the time, different people coming and going. Um, it's still open for business as as recently as a couple days ago anyway.
>> Okay. So, what what is the city prepared to do about that? I mean, is there a just for the benefit of the people that came here to to >> we're we're going one step at a time. So, right now we're working on the stop work orders. Uh, we're trying to go
about this logically to make sure that we don't get >> there there's so many violations and different things going. we make make we have to make sure things going in a logical order. The next step will be uh to look at the zoning violations if things don't change. >> Okay.
>> All right. Thank >> any other questions? >> Seeing none, I I entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion. >> One one second. >> Did you have anything else you wanted to address the board on before they make a go into deliberations and make a ruling?
You get the last word. Well, the zoning issue. >> Come on up. >> We're not here for the zoning issue. So, there's been a lot like that's just been thrown at me today. We're here for the a continu requesting a continuence on the driveway and then now we have the new violation for the permit. So, we're
respectfully requesting in light of everything that you've heard for what's here on the agenda today for an extension of time. That's all. >> I Okay. motion >> in case number 2540448.
I move that the city >> Do we have to include both? >> Don't you have to do the first one? >> No. Well, >> no, that's >> I recommend we do this one. Then you'll know what your deadline is and then you have to continue. >> Go back to that and >> Yep. makes sense. >> I was thinking the same thing and I like had déja vu about that exact conversation happening.
>> That's why all over again. >> All right. In case number 2540448, I move that the city has proven by the by a greater wedding weight of the evidence, the following violations of the city of Temple Terrace city code exist on the property located at 6125
Liberty Avenue. The violation is 8-28 subsection A subsection 1. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from code enforcement officers along with any evidence including photos, affidavit, and the notice of violation. All which is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move
that said violation be corrected on or before January 14th, 2026. If the respondent does not comply with this order on or before that day, they are ordered to pay a fine for each and every day the violations continue past the date set for compliance. Upon
considering the following factors, the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, and any previous violations committed by the violator, I move that the fine be $50 per day. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second >> motion second. Any further discussion? >> Yes. >> Go.
>> I was I was gearing towards because it's it's a complex situation. I was gearing towards as uh I don't know who mentioned the holidays going through Christmas and New Year. You're talking, you know, even
though we're looking at 60 days, I was thinking February, you know. I don't know. >> You can always come back and ask for an extension. >> Of course. Of course. I know that. But it's just to get it over with. I think it it'll need that much time. >> You know, but whenever neighbors are
complaining, um, we want to keep keep we want to keep the keep the ball moving forward. >> I don't think the intention is going to be renting it anymore. >> We'll see. >> We'll see. >> We'll see. Hopefully. >> Okay. Any So, any other questions for discussion? Seeing none, all those in
favor? >> I opposed. No nays. Motion carries. So, um, you mentioned that he doesn't speak English. Does he understand English? >> No. >> Okay. So, would you please explain to him that he has been found in violation for this particular case? He has 60 days
to bring the property into compliance or a fine of $50 per day will begin to acrue. Okay. And you will certify as his legal representation that he understands what we just said. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. On to case one A. Well, do we
have to >> All we have to do on 1 A is is is um >> extension >> make a motion to either extend it because of what we just heard on 1A or not extend it up to you guys. >> Yeah, and I'll make a motion on that. Uh case number 25-2911
uh to extend until it was January. We'll continue them together. Um January 14th of >> 2026. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. Motion in a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I
>> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Okay. So, tell him now the driveway issue needs to be rectified the same time as everything else. >> Okay. And so we're done except a word of caution. If he still wants to keep tennis there, he's going to face another
violation. Yes. >> So, thank you. You're welcome to stay or you can go. Um, whatever. Please. >> Thank you. >> All right. On to case number two. >> Case number 25-2841.
City versus Terrace Oaks. Ma'am, you can have a seat. >> HOA incororated in care of West Coast Management and Realy Incorporated for the property located at 10325 Council's Way. The deadline for compliance was
November 12th, 2025. Fine of $25 per day began November will begin November 13, 2025. Violations section 12-91. pools duty to maintain. Deadline for
compliance is midnight tonight. >> Okay. Do we know whether or not the property is currently in or out of compliance? >> It's not yet in compliance. >> Not yet. Okay. >> But >> and and I assume the respondent is here to tell us about that.
>> You you can come on up now. >> Name and address, please. >> I am Judy Brown. My address is 10324 Council's Way and I am the president of the HOA in that community. And the pool company, we are um working
on getting the pool up to date, but the pool company that we were dealing with, they just stopped coming. So, we've been um as a matter of fact, I had a couple of people come out this week to come out and give us some bid on getting the pool up and running.
So you had somebody but they stopped showing up. >> Yes. >> Has any work at all been done? >> Yes. They a couple of probably about two or three weeks ago it was clear and then because it just stopped coming it went back into
>> not being operable. It's not but we are definitely working on it trying to get some >> Any other questions? Yeah, I guess what what is it that needs to be done to in order to for the the pool to be to meet to comply with this violation? >> The person that came out that I had come
out yesterday that gave me a bid um that's well that looked at it. He said just need to be shocked. I guess it need to be the >> Oh, yeah. >> So, there's no there's no pool equipment that needs to be replaced or >> No, we had all that replaced. Okay. >> We had the the electric replaced and the
filters replaced. We just need to get a company out there to maintain it. >> Okay. >> And so I assume you're here to ask for an extension. >> Yes, please. >> Um what's your pleasure, guys? Well,
>> I I just have one question. So, everything was done. The pool is ready just some company to come and just maintain it. >> Yes. >> And do you think in 30 days you can locate one I mean get one or get it going? >> Uh we're trying. And I I I placed a bid.
I I'm just waiting on them to send their bid in because I had another company come out last week to get their price. They gave us a price and I'm waiting on this company that just came out yesterday to get his price and we're going to make a decision from there to see which company we want to go with.
>> What is your internal process once you get all the bids? You have to wait for you have to wait for a board meeting to approve it or can you do you approve it or how's that work? Um, I can approve it, you know, based on what they're going to be charging. Yes. But we have a board me meeting coming up on November
20th. >> Okay. >> And you'll have all the bids by then. >> Hopefully. Yes. >> Yes. Just I just need a motion one way the other. >> I got one more. It just needs to be shocked. >> That's what he told me. The guy told me yesterday said it looks like it just
needs to be shocked. And the reason you can't get it shacked is because you're you're waiting to set up basically a subscription service or a >> to get someone to come out there to service it >> on a regular basis, right? >> So you're waiting on a maintenance contract, but in the meantime, is it possible to get somebody to come out
there and do the shock >> like pinch pen or something? >> We can ask. I don't know how we can I can check with our um management company to see if they can contact somebody. It's going to start getting a little warmer after next week and bugs, right?
So, if the the pool is growing algae and all it needs is to be shocked, >> that takes that takes about half an hour to do. So, >> that's what I've been told. Yep. >> Um, so waiting on a maintenance contract while it sits and kind of >> Yeah. And and keep in mind, you don't have to extend it 30 days. You can
extend it a week, two weeks, three weeks, whatever you whatever your pleasure. >> Yeah. It'll it'll most likely after shock probably have to be vacuumed and cleaned because all that algae falls down >> bottom. So >> yeah, we're still
>> throwing some chemicals in it. But >> that's a couple of That's a couple of hours at most. >> Not much more than that, >> right? But yeah, that's like a couple of hours at most work. It's not >> any other questions. I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll do it. >> Yeah. Um,
in case number 258 252841. >> No, no. 29529. >> Okay. All right. Yeah. Sorry. It was cuz All right. Let me start over. Uh, in case number 252841, I move that the city is proven by the greater weight of evidence the following by.
>> We're an unfinished. >> Shoot. Um, >> all you got to do is extend it or not. >> Motion to extend. I move that we grant an extension of two weeks, which should pass the next board meeting, right? November 20th. >> Give me give me a date, certain.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Um uh I don't have November calendar up here. >> We don't. >> All right. Um >> honestly, you just said December. >> Yeah, let's just say December 1st. That's basically the same. >> December 1st. >> Yes. So, 2025. Okay. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second?
>> Motion and a second. Any further discussion, Rod? I mean let's let's just keep it uh consistent with why two weeks just let's do it 10th I know two weeks probably they'll be done >> I'll tell you why because I I I don't I don't
>> I'm talking about few days till our other meeting hopefully she'll be done and approved and all that >> because and and now this is purely my opinion but it's also based on the gravity of the situation the pool sat in disrepair for a while it got fixed and then it went back into disrepair with to
what is fair just basic maintenance, not heavy duty maintenance to shock a pool and to maintain it. I think anybody in here that owns a pool has to do that on a regular basis if it gets dirty. That's that's why I'd like to see it done and I don't I don't personally want to wait on HOA bureaucracy to make sure it gets
shocked. Uh I understand the need for a maintenance contract, but at the same time, this is a very simple thing to do that requires very little overhead to do it. That's why >> I would agree. I would say if they have, you know, a handyman or a guy who works
at the HOA, that's something they should >> go and buy some. >> Yeah. >> No, we don't have a handyman. >> No, >> we just have a food maintenance company. >> No, the thing is, Brian, what I'm trying to say, she would not have a chance to
come back and tell us what happened. That's why I gear towards the 10th of December. At that point, >> again, we're going onto holidays. A lot of people take off. Companies don't work. Some of them don't work. I'm trying to have her a little bit more
comfortable. She's the home association president, so you know, she showed up. She's telling us the case. This just I personal opinion and I'd like to see it done. It's just few days. You're talking December 1st till the 10th. You're talking nine more days. to be fair. The
>> only reason I said December 1st is because I don't have the November calendar in front of me. >> What is it? >> Um but but so it was just easier math-wise, but um I would say that uh I understand we're not going to be able to meet, but I don't think this is something that warrants more discussion. Shock the pool. I mean, that's it's it's
a it's a very straightforward thing to do and to get it cleaned up. It's not a matter of like getting permits or getting it reopened or revisiting the conversation or, you know, contractors coming and going like the new. It's it's a matter of just do it. >> And to be fair, that two weeks would
have been basically the day before Thanksgiving. >> Well, there you go. >> It's buying a couple gallons of chemicals and >> and >> Okay, that's it's enough. Everybody's made their point. >> Motion, we got the second. >> We got a motion. We got a second. >> I have a point of order. Can I ask who
was the second, please? Okay, thank you. >> Okay, we have a motion, a second. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Okay. So, you have until December 1st uh that's your extension uh to bring the
bring the pool into compliance. Okay. >> Good luck. Thank you. >> Okay. But I have the second issue also. The second case. >> You do. >> Oh, >> the third case. >> Oh, just Yep. >> Okay. Here we go. Same. All right. Um
let her read the case and then we'll get to you. Okay. Okay. Case number 25-2866 city versus Terrace Oaks Homeowners Association Incorporated and care of West Coast Management and Realy Incorporated for the property located at
10325 Council's Way. The deadline for compliance is November 12th, 2025. Fine of $50 per day beginning November 13, 2025. Violations section 12-62,
storm water discharge control and section 12-619E, storm water enforcement and legal. Deadline for compliance is midnight tonight. >> I assume the property is not in compliance.
It is not but they are working towards it. The uh the our engineer has been working with uh a contractor of theirs uh in the communication has been as recently as 2 p.m. today. So they are working that direction. It's a it's a complicated project. >> Okay.
Do you want to add anything? >> No, that's basically what is that's happening. We coordinated with a company to um they I guess going through trying to get the permits to get the um depression fixed. >> So you have a contractor
>> and he's been working with our staff to get a get the permits. So that's in process. >> Um >> yes. >> So yes, the permits are going to come from other areas, not just Temple Terrace. Oh, >> and that's that's where it's getting a little bit convoluted and our engineer is trying to walk them through the
process to make sure it it gets done >> right. >> Well, then I guess I'll ask you um I assume again I assume you're here for an extension. >> Yes. >> Okay. Does the city have a problem with 30 days? >> I don't think so. No. I mean, it's it's been ongoing and we want to make sure
it's done right. Yeah, >> especially the proximity to the home next door as well as the road um and impacting the right of way uh areas. So, we want to make sure it's done right. >> Any other questions? >> Is this just the permitting issue?
>> Yes. >> In this case, it's about permits, right? >> Because it says storm water discharge. It doesn't say permits. >> No, that's just part of the process. So, the the entire thing needs to be excavated, replaced. There's a huge ditch about five six foot deep that's
going to need to be filled. Uh the the storm water drain area near the right ofway that belongs to the city is going to need to be cleaned. It's it's a pretty laborous >> Okay. So, she's going to be back here in 30 days then. >> Well, right. Well, that's what I was Is there like an estimated time of
completion or >> if if you're asking my opinion, I I think that 30 the 30-day mark would be a good opportunity for an update. um if not completion once they get going the the job itself shouldn't take long but getting everything set up is and getting
the engineering right is what's taking the longest. >> Okay, any other questions? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion and again it's just an extension or not. >> I'll go ahead. In case number uh 252866,
uh I move to extend to uh >> it's I'm sorry, you're right. >> Yep. Uh we'll say December 10th, 2025. We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion and second. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all those in favor?
>> I opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Okay. So, for this particular case, you have until December 10th. Um should you need additional time or something comes up, you'll need to come back and see us and ask for another extension. There is no guarantee you will receive another extension, but you can you can come and
ask. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Good luck. Thank you. >> Next case, please. >> Case number 25-299 >> 299. City versus Edison. Yau Jermao Mononttoya. It's continued
for the property located at 11002 Ridgedale Road. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 12-763 tree removal penalty and section 12-768
tree removal regulations. The case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Danielle Bat. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served.
>> Good evening. I'm officer Bat with Code Compliance. This case this evening was initiated with officer by officer Smith proactively on July 24th, 2025 due to multiple tree oak trees being removed. Officer Smith contacted the city's arborist
Joe Ferris who met with her on site. Upon her initial inspection on July 25th, 2025, they found a total of 14 trees had been removed from the property. 13 sand oak trees and one crepe myrtle throughout the property without permits or permission to do so.
A notice of violation, notice of hearing was prepared, posted the property, requested, posted to the city hall electronic board, and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the address of record on July 25th, 2025. This case has been in front of the board two times previously on September 10th,
2025 and October 8th, 2025, in which this case was continued to tonight's hearing. As of Monday, November 10th, 2025, records show that the property is still not still not in compliance and no work has been done towards compliance. At this time, we're seeking a ruling seeing
as this case has been ongoing since July and still nothing has been done towards compliance and would also like to refer any questions to the city arborist Joe Ferris. >> Thank you. >> Any questions? >> I will for Joe. Yeah. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members. Uh
Joe Fair City Arborist. Um do we want to go through the PowerPoint again just to refresh everyone on on the case? It's been a month now. Um on the 24th of July, Lorie Smith had called me asking if any trees
had been approved for removal at the address. Um I met her out there and we found that there were 13 sandlive oaks removed on the property and one crepe myrtle. Uh there were two gentlemen there working on the house. Um I asked them if they had any contact information
for the homeowner. Excuse me. He uh one of the gentlemen uh called the homeowner. I spoke to him. He had the homeowner had said that they had a topographic survey done on the property. So I had requested that to be emailed to
me. So in the meantime, uh Lori and I took photos of all the stumps of the trees that were there. After lunch, I received the boundary survey. Um, it did not include the topographic did not include the trees that were removed. So,
I went back out to get the measurements, which is what you see here, the the trees uh numbered and um of each stump and the sizes of those DBH's. Um, so it was a total of 123 in that were removed in those 13 sand live oaks.
Um, I think the next photo shows this is a topographic survey that I received in the uh email that day on the 24th. The next slide shows what I marked up um as far as the rough estimation of where the location of the stumps were. Um the next
slide shows the highlight of the bottom left side um is the date that the survey was performed which was 717 and then the date of 724. That same day was the date that that was signed by the
surveyor. I believe I don't know if there's any other slides. >> Do you remind me why we continued this case? I believe it was the property had trans >> changed ownership. >> The property had transferred um but the
uh property appraisers database wasn't showing the new property owners. So we had cited the previous property owners. >> Okay. So we >> and so when we found that out we we made sure we got the right property owners. >> Okay. >> So none of the facts of the case
changed. It was just a mix up with the address and the >> with the with the who the owner of the property was. >> All right. Any other questions for the uh for Joe >> is the Well, I was going to say, have we had contact with the owners yet? >> No. >> Yeah, they are here. They were here last month as well.
>> Okay, perfect. Yeah, >> but they are here tonight. >> Heading to that. >> Okay. >> Um, you want to come up and bring us up to date? Name and address, please. >> Yeah, my name is Edison Hanigio Montoya. I'm the owner of 11002 Richdale Road. Uh
basically I was here last month uh be present for the citation. Um I purchased this house on 7-Eleven on 7:24 I think was the citation made.
Um there was some tree removal in my part um on the front yard of the house. Later I find out there was some trees that were also in the back of the house that were removed. So it's see there's supposed to
be 13. I'm aware only about seven that we that I understand we were taken off. Um the other thing was um yes it was some type of misunderstanding on the trees. The trees were dead. That's what
my landscaping when I sent them over to clean the yards. They were dying. We have some pictures of that I brought last time. I don't still have record. I didn't bring again. Show the trees were really decayed. Some of them, not all of them, but out of the ones on the front
about three of them were really decayed. You see the pictures that Mr. He put in. >> Yeah. Pictures for you. I have it on my phone if you need it, but I brought him last time 299.
Mhm. You can you can continue. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, there was uh in my part that I understand from landscaping remove was some three on the front and I think by looking at the picture there were seven seven of the oaks. I think they were I'm not sure which one or I don't know
anything about trees. They were removed. Uh, out of seven or eight that were in the front, two of them were that I know they were really rotted. Um, another one was leaning against the house which had damaged on the roof. That was the whole reason for me to get him done because I
need to fix the roof which I haven't able to get him done yet. Still trying to get permits to get all the stuff but I can get permits until I resolve this matter first. Um, basically, um, last time I was here, I'm aware that we did some removal some
trees. Um, I don't think they were all part of my and it was in doing transition on the uh on the purchase of the house. So, here are the some of the trees pictures showing how rot they were. And
even in the pictures that he provides on 2012, you can see the trees were in very bad shape. That's all I can uh I don't know how bad they were, either was Sabo or not. I uh talking to my landscaping my instruction one is clean the yard
because we were under a citation that was aware of because the trees were bad. They were overgrown landscaping and we needed to clean the house. So, um, >> we pass those photos around again. >> Yeah, I pass.
>> Yeah, those are the ones showing the front. >> Are you done, sir? Are you done? >> Yeah. >> Okay. You have a seat. Joe, I have a question for you. >> Yeah. Yeah. I just keep
it. >> Does the the 120 123 in that include the crate myrtle? >> No crate myrtle is not included only because crepe murdles are not mitigable trees. They're protected but as far as removal they would need to be mitigated. >> Other questions on the end?
>> Whether the tree is rotten or not, don't they need a permit? >> It still needs my eyes on it to see to make that call. It's one of those things. I mean, without seeing it >> when there's just a stump left, there's no way of making that judgment call. >> But it still would need
dead. It's irrelevant >> to this case. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> It's for the owner. >> Yeah. I I have >> Okay, then. >> So, so if I remember right, the restitution you're recommending that or not I guess the restitution is that they
have to plant 13 trees, right? 13 what? 45 whatever there was some I I looked at the the meeting the notes from the last meeting. So, is that what that you need? They need 13 to to replant 13 trees
>> and possibly a fine. And that's where I um >> What category does sand a sand live oak >> other live oaks? >> I believe it's on the It's in >> the top one. It should be the top one, isn't it? >> Is it live oaks?
>> It says live oaks. So, $5,000 50 plus. >> Do they not have this? >> Yeah. No, we do have I just didn't know. I didn't know if it >> didn't know what the what if a sand category fell. >> Yeah. Sand live oak versus a live oak.
And >> they're essentially the similar trees. They're the same in as far as the tree itself goes. They're very similar. So, they would fall in the same category. Sand live oak and live oak. And so the the the matrix doesn't go beyond I mean it's 50 50 dBH is what is the is the
max. So I just really wasn't sure what you >> The only thing is that matrix is per tree. So we didn't go beyond a 50 in tree. >> Yeah. Uh >> we don't have redwoods here. So it's per
>> and that's also because we >> make me do some math. I mean >> a five maximum $5,000 fine per tree. Oh, >> so that's why that max is out of one tree if it's 50 in or greater. The max is the 5,000, >> right?
>> But that matrix based on 100 per inch. >> Okay. So, we we'd have to go and actually based on the information you gave us earlier, if we wanted to use the matrix, we'd have to >> figure out per >> What would you say the average would be
for each trait? Average size. >> I'd have to look through all the photos. I don't know what the average on most of them are. >> Is it more than six or less than six? >> More than six. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. More than six.
>> Any other questions for the arburist? You said you had a question for the owner. >> You want to step up, please? >> Um, I just >> No, no, before you talk, name and address. >> Okay. Montoya is gentleman Mononttoya 11002 Road. And hold on. He has a question
then you can respond. >> Yes sir. >> Uh did you obtain any arborist or talk to first before you did you you said you cut >> on the front of the property? Yes. >> You removed seven trees. >> Yeah I did. I did my landscaping
told me that he did one on the front. There was some on the back. I think they were cut previously >> before you owned the house. >> Yes. And I can that's that's all I I I can go by my uh landscape told me. Did you discuss anything with >> No, not before. Not before that.
>> And your your landscape person is he qualified arborist. He knew can he have uh >> I I what I understood I hired from you know >> cuz you said some of them sick and they were
>> that's what that's that was when I came that day to the house in the afternoon. Uh he was still working there. I was not there during the whole process. So when I got there, I said, you know, what have you done? So he showed me what we take the wrong on the tree. He's the one that
were bad because my instruction unfortunat was whatever is dead, we got to clean it up and whatever, you know, clean the house, clean whatever is there. And and if he told me I cut this one, he showed me the one on the front. Um they were about seven or eight on the
front. I'm not mistaken about something like that. I got the pictures and a couple of them were really um they were rot. Uh how bad the rot I cannot tell you. I'm not an arborist either. So I'm just going by here with me. Um I also want to mention I have about about over 40 trees in the property still which
about 20ome still oaks and out those 40 something bu uh trees that I have I still which I still need to get removed because they're bad. They rotted and they cause
a danger to a property and to anybody >> and and Mr. Ferris looked at them. >> I spoke to him earlier um when we started during this process. >> These trees are not part of this. >> They're not they're not they're not until I resolve this. You cannot >> remind you that you your questions about
the arbur the letter that you're referring to is something that you supply before you cut the trees down >> to get the permit not use it as an excuse afterwards. I had an arborist >> or you have it and then you don't need the permit. >> Yeah. Or you have it, you don't need the permit, right?
>> Any other questions? >> One actually. >> Go ahead. >> Do you have an invoice that list cuz you know the city is saying 13 trees. You're saying seven or eight. >> Yes. >> Do you have an invoice at list what? >> No, I didn't I didn't I didn't. He just charged me with what I got there for the
day work. >> Yeah, >> that was a day work. I don't know. He just charged me for the day to where I took off the day and stuff like that. >> Any other questions? And u I have a question for one of you. Uh you say about replanting more trees. Uh I have no problem putting another 13 trees in
the property, but I say I have 40 trees. How many more trees do I need to have in the property? >> Well, Joe can answer that. >> Uh um do I do I need to replant them if
needed? >> I don't have an answer to that for right now. He's talking about wanting to remove more trees. We haven't even discussed looking at that and the reason for those trees. Is it because he plans to do something else with the property back there? Is it the condition of the trees? None of that's been evaluated
yet. >> So, >> but the remedy is to is >> if if they can't all be planted on the property, then it has to be paid into the fund at 300 per tree. But it's a is plant 14 trees. >> It's every attempt to it has to be made to plant as many as possible.
>> A quick little trees >> 13 trees and a great murder or put money into the tree fund. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Well, I I point of order. I think he if I'm understanding you, Joe, an attempt needs to be made at planning
or any consideration is made to putting money into the fund. >> Yeah. Our code is not written as a andor situation. You either meaning that you plant or you pay it. The it's written that you plant as many as you possibly can. That difference >> whatever you put into it.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> But again, not knowing what the plan is for the rest of the yard and the other trees that he is concerned with. >> I haven't looked at that because this needs to be dealt with first before we move forward with any of that. >> Got it. Any other questions? >> Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.
>> Bill. >> Bill. I don't know. I This is all right. >> So, I can do it >> somebody >> question first. Um,
so there's a fine that >> let's wait for the motion then you can during discussion you can ask. >> Okay. >> If you want to do a go in I mean I you're usually ahead. >> Let me attempt it. >> Yeah.
Let's not let's let's do it. Let's not do it. Case number 25-2999. I move that the city has proven by the greater weight of evidence the following violations of the city of simple terrace city code exist on the property located at 1102
ridale road with the applicable code violation section 12-763 and section 12-768. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the code enforcement officer along with
any other evidence including photos, affidavits, and the notice of violation. All of which received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that the violation is irreparable, irreversible as defined by city code section 1-63.
Therefore, I move that the fine be >> $200 per tree be imposed for each violation, not to exceed 5,000 per violation. I further move that the uh respondent replace the
pro uh uh the improperly removed trees by planting 14 trees on the uh 13 sorry 13 trees on or before January 14th 2026.
If the respondent does not comply with the order or on or before that day, they are ordered to pay a fine for each and every day that the violation continues past the date set for compliance. I've been 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 the fine be uh to plant the replacement trees by the
deadline date to be um $25 per day. >> Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second for discussion. Motion and second. Further discussion on the ends.
>> His proposed uh fine is $200 per tree, >> right? So you can't put a daily. >> Our our chart starts at 500 for a 5 inch tree and Joe mentioned that they ex each
one on average exceeded 6 in. So at a minimum there would be $600 per tree times 13. >> But we can't exceed five grand anyway. >> You can't exceed five grand per tree.
>> Right. Well, that that was my question for Ernie perhaps. Is it It says per violation. Is that >> correct? And each tree is a vi separate >> Each tree is a separate violation. Okay. >> Oh. Um I I consider the fact first of
all this is not a commercial property. It was not done intentionally. I believe from these photos a lot of these trees were sick. Unfortunately, he did not know the right way to, you know, but I can't give him that excuse, but to go to
an arborist and get a letter from him before his landscape person he who he instructed him to clean and take out the bad trees, the falling tree over the house. That's why I man this chart I'm
>> you know I love it. It's good if somebody is doing something intentional, but we cannot go and have our residents in city of Timeras that don't know. They just send a landscape person, anybody to cut these
trees, trim these trees, and these people just come for a day and just, you know, cause a lot of havoc. So, this is my my opinion. And >> you can't also you can't tell the health of a tree by looking at a picture. Well, some some people do, especially
landscape people. >> They've been around trees a lot. >> You can't make that decision sitting up here at the DAS looking at a picture and determine whether a particular tree is sick or not. >> Sometimes you do. >> No. Well, I I would just again, no tree expert, but you know, some of the cuts
look older. Some of you can tell they're fresh. I I would hate to penalize somebody for something they didn't do. He's saying he bought the property in the summer. Like, why? >> You know, that's not fair. I don't >> so admits that his that his guy cut down
seven or eight trees. So even if we >> if we take him at his word of seven or eight trees at a 6 in >> well well again that's that's for discussion. I'm just saying it's >> you know you can look at some and you can tell that they're older. Um you can
tell that others aren't. And I think Joe could probably look in obviously he can't give a perfect forensic date, >> but you can say this one is older than that and I don't think it's fair to penalize somebody for something they didn't do.
>> And and 40 trees taking out 13 15. You still have >> 25 trees on a property. How many acres? >> He has a big property. That's a big >> wonderful property. So, so it's that's what I took in consideration in in doing my motion. Please, you know, that's
>> so >> Okay. So, right now, just to clarify, we've got his original motion that says 13 trees* 200 is 2600. We've got a suggestion of 13 trees times the minimum
of 600, which is 7,800. And then we've got discussion that, well, maybe he didn't cut them all down and it's only seven trees. 7 trees times 600 is 4,200. So we've got three numbers on the board. Um
so you guys decide what you want to do. >> And also require him to plant 13 trees. >> Yeah. >> So that's addition. >> Yeah. That that's the that's consistent. >> Yes. Well, to that end, do you believe because you seem to be a
voice of reason, do you do you believe it's reasonable for him to to plant 13 trees in 30 days? >> Well, if if not, he can ask for an extension. That's that's that's basic. It's it's, you know, >> I mean, we've already had this case. We've already had this case. This is the
third time it's been in front of us. >> Yeah. It depends on the weather and I don't know how the tree can survive. the tree thing that we do. Could we wait for that? >> And there are also tree bank and all that. So, you know, there's a lot of avenues for that uh remedy. So, >> so,
so we again we have original motion 13 trees time $200. We've had people suggest or board members suggest 13 trees 600. We've had a board member suggest seven trees times 600. Um, is is
there any official request to amend the motion? >> I would request to amend the motion to 13 trees at $600 per trial. >> Can make a new motion. I disagree. >> I'd like to read this from the city of
Temple Terrace's website. Temple Terrace is renowned for its plush landscape of trees, especi especially its many varieties of oak. The city's replete with grand oak, laurel oak, water oaks, as well as many other species. And it goes on to continue more. If we under
under oath that we he the guy >> if we don't if we don't protect our trees according to the rules that we've set in place to do so, then we run the risk of losing them. I I understand your point. I I understand that, you know, this this feels like a common sense,
like, you know, look, the trees didn't appear to be safe in the pictures, but there's a reason we have a process to these things, and it's because of that. >> The only way I'll admit I'll I'll amend my if I meet you, you say in 600, I'll I'll do 50%, that's 300. That's my
bottom one. I don't want to put impose in this hardship, a big hardship on the property owner. Just that's my personal opinion as I told you. So >> you said >> it's big hardship. Big hard >> What was the what was the the new proposal? 13.
>> So there's been there's three there's three there's three proposals essentially on the table. Yeah. The original motion 13* 200 equals $2,600. I believe you said okay we're going to do the 13 trees. The minimum was 6 in. That would be 7,800. Right.
>> And then you said I can understand maybe he will only cut down seven. So 7* 600 is 4,200. >> I personally believe tying to your find him for the for the seven trees
that he he admits he cut down. Whether it's 600 or or less, I I'll leave that up to somebody else. But I I I agree that the number should be should be seven at this point. >> Yeah.
Because again, I I just I don't feel it's fair to penalize someone for something they didn't do. If they bought the property, the trees were cut down. Just because didn't see it prior to that, doesn't mean that they should now be penalized for it. >> Let's call let's call the question and we'll do a roll call vote starting on
your end. >> The mo on the original motion. Original motion. >> Original motion. The original motion of 13 trees times $200 replace the trees $25 per day. >> Yes, sir. That's I made the motion. >> Yeah. So, vote. >> Yes. >> Nay.
>> Nay. >> I would say I to it. I'd still go with it. >> Nay. >> Okay. Motion fails. We need a new motion. >> All right. I love the threes fairs. >> All right. In case number 25-2999,
I move the city as proven by the greater weight of the evidence the following violations of the city of Temple Terrace Code exists on the property located at 11002 Ridgedale Road. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has
received from code enforcement officer Daniel Bat along with any other evidence including photos, affidavits, and 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 irrevers irreversible as defined by city code
1-63. Therefore, I move that the fine be $4,200. A fine of $4,200 be imposed uh for not 4,200, but uh
what what was $600 for seven trees, which would be a total of $4,200. I further move that the respondent replace their improperly removed trees by planting 13 trees on or before uh was it was it December
30 days of December 10th, right? December 10th, 2025. If the respondent does not comply with this order on or before that day, they are ordered to pay a fine for each and every day. The violations continue past the date set for compliance upon considering the following factors. The gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, and
any previous violations committed by the violator. I move that the fine for failing to plant the replacement trees by the dead deadline date to be $25 per day. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in
favor? >> I >> I. Any nays? No. Nays. Motion carries. Okay. So, you have been found in violation. Um, you have 30 days to bring the property into compliance. If in fact you cannot bring the property into compliance within 30 days of December
10th, you're welcome to come back here and ask for an extension. You were not guaranteed an extension, but you have the right to ask for one. Any questions? >> Yes. Um the only question I have is and I I don't know if I can address this in the next u time will come here but the
13 trees I have to planted 13 trees and like I said before I have 40 summoning trees in the property right now. I I >> that's a question that you need to talk to Joe about. >> Okay. >> And that's not for our perview tonight >> because I got to find a place to put him. >> Yeah. But talk to Joe.
>> Okay. If I can put him, can I donate it somewhere else? Anybody need a tree? >> Out to Joe. >> Thank you. >> That's fair. >> That's fair. Can I give you a tree? Nice case. >> Like like Oprah. A tree for you. A tree for you. >> If you look under your chair, >> you'll find that it's a tree.
>> That's a great question. >> Trees for Oprah. >> Next case, please. >> Case number 25-50072. City versus Blue Rock Premier Properties for property located at 6900
Aruba Avenue. This case is before the board based on the alleged violation of section 8-56A fire alarm system not operational. Section 8-57B4
fire hydrant access manage maintenance. Section 8-57B1, fire safety emergency lighting. Section 8-57B2, fire safety extinguisher inspection. Section 8-57D,
fire safety hosting addresses. Section 8-56, fire suppression systems. Section 8-55, fire grills. and section 8-55A2. The case will be prosecuted this evening
by fire inspector Cletus Squires. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and notice of hearing were properly served. >> Thank you. >> Good evening members of the board. My name is Cletus Squires, fire inspector with the city of Temple Terrace. There's
a lot So, I'm bringing this case forward tonight. It's a commercial violation as stated at uh I did it as a single case for 6900 Aruba Avenue. It's the uh Park
of Valenca apartment complex. So, this case was originated back May 22nd of 2025 during an annual periodic uh fire safety inspection. Before initiating the annual periodic inspection, I met with property management representative at that time
was Quinn Bartlett. The inspection identified multiple fire code violations noted in the respect inspection reports. The report was provided to the property management contact of record Quint
Martlet and Meredith Graves via email. On September 25th, 2025, I served a notice of violation after several reinspections of the property revealed that corrections had not been made and the property was not in
compliance. A notice of violation was sent. Certified mail receipt handd delivered by me to Quinn Bartlett property contact of record. Notice was also posted at city hall by the clerk's office.
The notice gave the notice of violation gave 30 days for the property to come into compliance. As stated, there were eight violations. Fire alarm panel not being maintained.
The eight fire hydrants on the property uh not being inspected and maintained. Backup emergency lighting for uh the buildings uh and disrepair and not operational.
Fire extinguisher certification not verified uh on that. They have had some work done progress on that violation only but it's still not in compliance.
Uh posting at the address there were some buildings that they there are doing work on there but uh as far as putting uh new sighting on some of the buildings. So there's a lot of work going on inside the complex and uh some of the buildings addresses and numbers
were missing. There's still people living in those buildings and uh emergency vehicles sort of got to guess if they get at the right building. Okay. Uh six violation the uh automatic fire sprinklers are not uh maintained. Uh
that they haven't been inspected within the last 12 months and their last inspection the uh the majority of them the high percentage of the sprinkler systems um did fail that inspection. um they were working with uh a vendor who
who has since moved on um to do that work. There's there's u 78 fire different fire sprinklers and there are 78 apartment buildings and two club houses. So all 78 residential buildings, multif family buildings do have their
individual fire sprinkler system. Um, violation 7. Um, I noted uh cooking devices on numerous uh balconies, which is against fire code, basically grills on on balconies. And um also cooking
devices stowed. Violation number eight is cooking devices stowed underneath the emergency stairwell exits. Uh which is a separate violation. A reinspection was conducted on October 27th revealed that
the property was not in compliance after the 30 days. So on that date a notice of uh hearing was initiated. same the same process. The hearing was served by certified mail and posted at
city hall by the clerk's office and handd delivered by myself to the property representative uh record uh which is now John who stated that uh Quint Bartlett was no longer associated with the property and that he would hand
deliver it to the uh a maintenance supervisor gentleman named Frank. At this time, I'd like to approach and and u submit photo u evidence of the property.
>> We'll accept that. Thank you. >> You don't want to see Marty. Do you want me to read through them or you be able to show you? Okay. So, um, just the photos, uh, believe me, the these are repetitive per building, but
I'm just showing some and they're consistent multiple times over. Okay, the first the first photo uh, shows on building 13. That's that red tag that you see uh, on that one. That's uh, that the fire alarm is not in compliance.
There wasn't even power supply to the fire alarm for that building. There was no power supply, so it couldn't work. And uh photo photo uh exhibit number two shows uh just the fire alarm tagged of last
inspection date and shows us out of compliance from from that. Obviously they can't even inspect it if it doesn't have power. And that's the same building on 13 photo. Exhibit three shows automatic fire sprinkler system red tag
signifying that that the system had failed its last inspection which which was conducted by Fox fire inspection on 411 2024. That's uh that picture comes from building 10. But once again that's
consistent with the majority of the 78 buildings out there. Actually all 78 buildings. Okay. Photo exhibit number four uh shows uh FDC for building 10 U fire sprinkler not maintained. The photo just
gives you uh why it's not maintained. It shows the uh corrosion and rust inside the internal uh piping to the fire sprinkler system along with a missing cap there. That's building 10 as well. Photo exhibit six shows the fire
hydrants on the complex. Last inspected uh date was um and I had to go through several to find was um Oh, excuse me. I missed one. This is photo exhibit 5 shows a grill underneath the uh exit stairway. That's the people from the
upstairs. That's their only exit, by the way. and they got to come down and somebody's cooking on a grill right over a grill that's either stowed or being used uh underneath the stairway. There's no loud combustibles, much less a grill underneath the exit stair, emergency
exit stair, the only exit. Uh okay, so uh photo exhibit six shows the fire hydrant. That's the only one I found with a tag. The rest were not tagged that they they had been removed probably by line maintenance or storm. Uh, but it
shows that it was last serviced by Wayne Fire on November 8th, 2022. Photo exhibit seven shows a grill on the upper level U balcony as you can see there in the corner along with the tires stored. So,
uh, yeah, there that's not allowed by code either that you can't cook them on balconies. our our stove uh of any grills. It's not only the use, it's also the storing because they have changed that over the years saying if they have them, they're
going to use them. So, they can't even have them. Okay. So, photo exhibit 8 is just again a failed fire uh sprinkler alarm system. That's on building 54. Just to showing consistency
uh that they're repeat uh violations. Photo exhibit nine. Same thing. Same building 54. Just shows it's out of date. It hadn't been inspected at it's out of date more than 12 months.
Uh photo exhibit 10. Same thing. Shows a stair underneath the emergency exit stairway. Photo exhibit 11 shows I think I missed one, but okay. So that
that's actually going to be 12 here, which is going to show that fire alarm was detached from the wall sitting on top of the air condition. And that's been since May. And as of Friday, I took that picture and it's in the same location. Uh and it's also deemed to be
nonoperational, so there's no fire alarm for that building. Photo exhibit 14 shows battery backup emergency lighting and disrepair on building 39. Uh, okay. Oh, that's 13. That that just shows the address that one that is
there. Like I said, there are some that are missing. Okay. So, that was a building 34 with a firearm. That's not a violation there. Okay. That goes back to the one we missed. Sort of got out of order. That's uh that just shows the grill at a different angle with a with a staircase. I guess that's being
repaired. As you can see, uh the handrails been rem removed and a temporary one has been put up. uh a non-treated uh wood with a fire grill right underneath there. And it's and it's not secured at all. I can actually
just push on it and it would fall over. That's the exit. Just one example of a emergency backup lighting with exit site hanging from the ceiling. Okay. with a by by just the wiring holding up. Uh the last the these pictures were all
taken as per my last uh inspection um prior to this meeting and they're taken on November 7th. It confirms the property is still out of compliance. >> Any questions for the officer? So all sorry so so all the violations
are still out of compliance. So, uh, yes, the property is not in compliance on all all all violations as we speak. There there and there's only there's only one of the violations that an attempt to to address it since and 6
months now, uh, next week be 6 months since my original inspection has been attempted and that was to have the fire extinguisher serviced. And I did receive a receipt from property management showing that they paid for a service.
uh of the extinguishers, but uh there were several hundred that were had to be replaced because they're out of date, not just be reertified. And uh my last visit uh to the property, I was told they had 380 of them that were being delivered, but they weren't sure
where they went and they were sitting in a room in the uh in the maintenance office. So that does no good if they're not in the actual units. Is that >> man? >> Oh, I was going to ask >> all of this. Yes, >> you will >> times 78 >> times each violation. Yeah, that that be
the max if you want to address it. That's >> 78 units. >> All of these all these violations times >> Well, well, no. So, so it won't be quite the fire hydrants there. There's not 78 fire hydrants. >> Okay. >> Um I I can I can report that back. I
believe there's eight hydrants. Okay. Fire alarm, fire sprinkler times 78. All the buildings, the the two twostory buildings and the town homes towards the back of the complex do not have the emergency backup lighting. Only the three-story buildings do in the center
of the complex. Um the grills, it's not going to be every building either. uh I have an individual report but uh due to my past experience here or whatever and through uh my bosses we consolidated it
all as one instead of bringing each 78 uh cases to you. Okay. I'm just trying to I'm just trying to understand >> scope it out. How how how we're >> so the the property had violations >> fine >> in in the past and we always been
working towards we set up with past management phases and they're doing so much work because there is a lot of work and I realized the expense of it and to get the critical life safety issues addressed and we're working but but
since May uh it's nothing and the the new ownership and new management uh is not very responsive or or uh to to to addressing the issues. There there are some new new uh people here tonight to represent who I just met tonight during
uh uh right before the meeting. Okay. So >> So I I just had a hypothetical question. So >> okay, >> if if if a fire were to occur at this in this complex, would would there would there would be
no alarm. the fire department wouldn't know about it or is there any >> It's a good chance depending on which building it's a good chance that the alarm may or may not go off. >> Okay. >> Um it hadn't been inspected at the very least. So it's out with that. Some of
them are not functional at all. So there's 78 fire alarms in the buildings. The sprinklers, some are going to go off. We've had since I've done my inspection, the fire crews have been out there several times for for sprinkler breaks. Part some due to construction, some due to maintenance, and some just
due to lack of maintenance, and they just break on their own like emergency situation that we had to deal with that that flowing water inside the units. Um, >> so so it's not 100% that that none of it will go off, right? >> None of it will go off as designed and
as the intent of the code. And in your estimation, how how long would it take to get all this to to to remedy this situation? Just rough. >> Well, I heard some of the discussion earlier. Uh if if if the finances were out of the
equation and and they hired and and and and got a uh a good contractor, it's it's it's really hard to say. I would I it's going to be months. You've been dealing with this issue since May, right? >> Correct. >> Yeah. Six months.
>> But but but I don't really I haven't seen them do anything since May. At first it was Cox. Cox was going to continue. Cox told me on the phone that they refuse to go back out there if they're not getting paid. Then I was heard by property management that Piper, they signed a contract with Piper. Since
then, I've heard they signed again with Cox, but I have seen no movement on the property. >> Bottom line is that this first came up 6 months ago. >> Yeah, >> correct. That's that's when they the the new management was was given the inspection and I gave them quite a bit
of time to to to address it before. >> Any other questions? >> Yes. Go ahead, >> Ron. So, I know Cle, you got you you know that. So, it's a high-risk property. >> We are endangering some >> public. It's mostly occupied or
>> Look at the stairs. I'll be in down the stairs. >> I looked at the stairs. I looked at the codes. Nobody is is enforcing even, you know, not having grilling on the balconies and on the, you know, and without all these safety features, too. >> I had the code for for y'all to attach
to one of the grills w with that about the grills. >> We have apartments all around there. I write them up. >> I go back, I do an inspection and and and and they remove them. When I go back the next year for a lot of them, they're there. They have the ability to find and
and police that themselves. So we can't be in there every day looking for grills on something that size. It takes me multiple days just to do that. >> This is the these buildings are occupied. Correct. >> Correct. >> That's when you all the buildings that that that I wrote up they they may have
something different but what I've seen they are occupied. Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Each building. >> Thank you. And you said the owners the new >> representatives are here. >> Representatives are here. Oh man. Thank you. >> Name and address, please.
>> My name is Rob Sylvia. I'm here for 6900 Aruba Avenue. Um I'm with the new ownership group. We just took over uh miday or midappril of this year. Um we did inherit a property with a lot of uh
deferred maintenance uh not just with the fire system but uh uh throughout the property. Um we are currently working on all a lot of these deferred maintenance uh life safety issues um along with the fire uh system that's out here. Um when
we first took over the property, we were given a deficiency report for this um by the uh previous inspection and we have been working off that deficiency report which does include the um exit emergency lights that are in the threetory
buildings which we did just have replaced um as part of our lagging project. That was the first piece that was replaced on the property. And again, this is for the three fivestory buildings. So, every one of those are are brand new and they're on the second and third floor of these buildings.
First floor doesn't have them. They never did. So, we did install them on the second and third floors. Um, we also had uh 309 fire extinguishers that were out of date. We did order all 309 of those fire extinguishers, had them tagged by a Toz um fire protection, and
our site team has distributed those to all of the units that were on our deficiency list that we received from Cox Fire Protection, who is now PI Barker. Um, on that note, Cox Fire Protection did change and and emerge
into Pi Barker, who is the new fire protection company um that we have moved forward with using for this property. Um, one because we have um a lot of Cox uh uh fire panels out there.
Um they're they're part of the new Py Barker company. So, we're using them. Um we've signed contract with them to move forward with the uh um inspections, the uh um services for the properties. We have caught up on those past due invoices that were past due from the
prior ownership company. We have gotten those caught up with them. Um as far as the um other fire um violations that are on here, and if you don't mind if I go through these as cuz there is a lot on here. Um so starting off with the uh a
fire alarm system, we were brought to our attention that building 14, 15, 16, 32, and 42, those buildings um fire panels did not work. We did have uh our electrical company out here um to get
the electrical repaired on these um and and back to functioning states. Uh there was a couple that had to be replaced. Um, we do have invoice proof showing that we did uh contract this company out. Uh, we do need to get uh the new
fire protection company out to do their inspection and properly tag them now, but those have been fixed. Um it does sound from his showing of uh the pictures that there are other panels that we do need to have our annual inspection go through and and really
give us a good list so we can make sure we're doing the right thing by taking care of these life safety issues. We the we are investing millions into this property. It's not just hundreds of thousands. We are investing tens of millions into this property and we want to make sure we address all life safety
issues um with the fire system, with the balconies, with the staircase systems on these properties and we're we're trying to go through the proper channels to make sure we do this. Um we've had this property about 6 months and I feel like we've gotten a very good dent so far on
it, but there's still so much we still need to address and we're trying to address it in such a short time. Um, I live in Colorado. I moved down here to be a part of this to make sure we get this properties, deficiencies, projects
done properly, and we want to do so to make sure that this community is a a shining part of Temple Terrace. I mean, we we have 776 units at this property. So, we want to make sure that it is a welloiled machine
here and it and it's safe for the residents who are living there. Um, and we do want to make sure we address all of these issues. Um, as far as moving down that list because there is a lot to still go over. Um, the fire alarm systems we talked about, we
did address the ones that we were presented by our deficiency report from Cox. Um we will make sure that we jump on these other ones that are um were given over by the fire marshall. Um the fire hydrant access we will um be
communicating to residents to make sure the access is uh sufficient enough for uh any fire um for them to have the full access to those. Those are located underneath staircases and um phase one and two. and we'll make sure that the residents understand that if they put
anything around those that it will be a violation that we will, you know, enforce on to them as well. So, we will make sure to take those proper steps. Um, and then as far as the um inspections of those, we will be moving forward with PI Barker on our annual
inspections and we will make sure that that is a part of our annual inspections and any deficiencies that come from that inspection from Py Barker, we will make sure to address from there. Um and then uh the fire safety the uh
extinguishers um as said we did purchase the 309. We've distributed those throughout all of the residents that were on that deficiency report. Um that was recently. Uh we did purchase it. It was in a room. We were waiting for that list of units that they needed
to go to from Cox. Uh I'm sorry, Py Barker. Now, uh we did get that from them and it has been distributed throughout the property. Um our uh fire safety posting addresses, I will address it with our our contractors working on
these buildings that at the end of each day we need to have those signs rehung up on there. Um we do plan on doing once we uh paint each phase of the property, which painting is pretty much saying like, hey, we're done with that phase. Phase three being our fastest phase. It's the newer phase. This where our
town homes are. We are doing a sign edge pro project for the property. We will have updated signs. Um something we're in still the beginning stages, but for the time being, we will make sure that the contractors, if they take it off the building, that they have it up by the end of the day. So that way the um fire
marshall comes through. Um and then I I will go through um and try to identify, make sure if there is any missing that we at least get some kind of a temporary sign up that's sufficient enough and of size. So um
the uh next one is the fire suppression system. We are we do have uh so Cox is uh the one who did the inspection on the all the sprinkler heads on the property. Uh they did identify a great amount of fire
sprinkler heads on property that do need to be replaced. Um the prior ownership group did make a uh a partial payment of that contract. The contract was under that old ownership um with Cox Fire Protection. We have been working with
now PI Barker whose Cox merged into to get a negative change order going get a new contract in place for the remaining dollar amount to finish up the project. cuz what is left is just a couple more buildings in phase 2 and then all of
phase three. The rest of it from my understanding uh from Cox has been taken care of so far. Um it was put on pause because of our sale and then also their merger. So um we are trying to get that going. I talked with Cox. Uh they are
trying to get teams together and be ready to move forward the second week of December. It will take anywhere from 90 to 100 120 days to complete. Um, it is a very intrusive project. You got to go into every resident's home. Uh, some of
these you got to cut out their ceilings to be able to get to the sprinkler head to be able to replace it. Um, some of the pipes get replaced because the sprinkler head doesn't just come out sometimes. So, um it it's going to be a very intrusive project, but uh they they
are committed to have it done within a 90 to 120day time frame. Um starting the second week of December is what they're saying. Um, with all of that being said, we are trying to take the the proper steps and it has been a great deal we've had to
deal with at this property and we we definitely want to partner up with all all parties in the city, the fire marshall. I've gotten to know the inspector because we're doing poly pipe replacement throughout all of phase 2, which is another very intrusive project.
We're working through that pretty quick. We've replaced roofs on property. We're doing siding and you know we got balconies throughout phase one. All of those need to be replaced. We're getting engineering going right now working with the inspector. We met with them last week when my boss was in town. I mean there's a great deal of work here and
we're trying to work through it all to make sure that this property is safe first and foremost >> and and while all this is going on, you haven't moved anybody out. >> Um there has been moveouts um on I mean people do move out, people give notice. allowing them to stay there while their
balcony is is in disrepair. While >> No, I mean if their balcony is unsafe, we do shore it up. We have temporary shoring put in place on those balconies until we get those going. At least the ones we we know for sure. We did do destructive testing with the engineer
when we before we even took over the property to go around all underneath all of the balconies, inspected all the uh joists there to see if any of them needed shoring. We were shoring them up right then and there, but it was main goal was to also be able to put our
plans together for those balconies. And we did that to all the entryways as well, not just balconies in phase one and two. >> Concisely explain to me, you said you took over in April. >> Yes, midappril. >> But what's what stopped you from doing
all this stuff you say you're now going to do? >> We have been doing it. I mean, we've been working with the engineer on getting these drawings going um for the the the balconies, the third threetory staircases, the landings. Um we got a
plan set prior uh once already. It ended up being way higher than we had planned on budgeting for it. It was to go back for like for like. Now, we're looking at a different type of scope with the engineer, which is to do a full replacement, but um more open face or
more wood construction um balconies. So, we just got those plans. Uh got the plans back. We did find some issues. We sent them back to the engineer with some RFIs to get some more information so that way we can get our proper bids from our contractors. Um we've collected many
bids for just that project. Um as far as the other projects, we've been working on them. um since we've been taken over. Uh as far as like underground vi valves that were uh left there not functioning
for four or five years uh for say building 67 uh fire suppression system. We got that valve replaced underground with first impressions. We worked with first impressions on building 61 to get that underground valve replaced because it was something Cox was working on
prior to us taking over. but it ended up stopping because they found that the job was way out of their scope of being able to take care of for us. So, we had our plumbers come in and take care of that. So, there's been a lot of this stuff we
have taken care of since day one as well. >> Any other questions? Yeah. >> How long has your contract with Cox been in place? >> Um, the contract uh are you familiar with this? I'm sorry. This
Um, I know we just signed a new one which was within the past couple of weeks for the annual for the inspections. >> Had one and you had one in place with them prior. >> There was one in place prior. We've had a monitoring one in place. Um, and it from my understanding it was supposed to expire in December. We just signed a new
one with >> uh Py Barker. >> I'm sorry. >> What are they monitoring? >> The they're they're fire panels. >> The the alarm panels that don't work. >> Yeah. Yeah. From my understanding, they that's what they're doing. Yes. >> May
>> I have three questions? >> Yes, sir. >> How many residents do you have? >> How many people that are citizens of the city of Temple Terrace live in these apartments? >> I'm not sure of the exact count or the exact occasion here. our this is our management company
that we use for this property um to help with those questions. I I don't know those exact numbers. I I focus more on the construction side of >> roughly how many citizens of the city of Temple Terrace are in danger because of the lack of life-saving equipment
working on your properties roughly. Are we talking a thousand 2,000? >> You said 666 units. >> There is 776 units. >> But how many units how many how many people are in those units? You have one bedrooms up to three bedrooms. Do you have families? You have kids? >> 26 three bedrooms. Um, off the top of
your head. >> I mean, we are 75% occupied out of 776. Um, I mean, we have >> that can be up to 1500 >> three or 26 threebedrooms, a lot of onebedrooms. Um,
>> that's a significant portion of the population of city of Temple Terrace. It's projected to be about 26,000. So, if you have 1500 people living under these conditions that you're responsible for, that's saying something. Um, why are you not actively policing the
grills? Why is the policing the grills? Why is the fire inspector able to see these on a regular basis, every visit? >> Um, that is something we've given direction to our community manager to make sure that they're communicating this with the resident. It is in our least that they can't have these type of
grills on the patio. um they're supposed to be enforcing this with the residents and we have since uh we have a new manager who uh we're looking to hire right now for the property. So, we are working with our RMS right now who are
going to be communicating. I I can't speak for the property management team if they have yet or not, but I know that they will be communicating with these residents to make sure that there is no b no p uh barbecues on balconies underneath staircases. there shouldn't
even be on property. We don't allow those. >> Okay. And uh you you spoke through a lot of these violations in addition to a lot of the construction projects that you have on the property. It seems like you're working off of a list. Is that right? You got a list when you first
bought the property that you were working through. What was that called? >> Deficiency. >> The deficiency list. >> The deficiency list for the fire system. >> And that was Oh, that was just for the fire assistance. Okay. But you're >> the rest of it is something we put together during our due diligence. We did due diligence for about a year before we purchased the property. Um,
that's all based off of what we saw during multiple walks, uh, putting our budgets together based off of those walks. Um, as far as the fire codes issues, I've been basing it off of the deficiency report that I was given and that's what I have been focusing on
trying to complete. I I truthfully was unaware of a lot of the issues and I should have been more active at looking at these tags or opening up these panels and looking to see what's going on. I was based generally just going off of my
deficiency report that I had. Um, the reason I asked that is it sounds like you're making a lot of progress in other parallel things that have to do with beautifification of the property or repairing older pieces of property. While you have non- workinging fire safety equipment, so if there is a fire,
the fire alarms don't work in some cases. The sprinklers don't work in some cases. And if the fire department were to get there to try to hook up to a fire hydrant, there's no guarantee they're going to get water. That puts so many lives at risk, but you're redoing the railings. it it doesn't seem like the
priorities are aligned with the safety of our population that chooses to live at your your apartment complex. Is there anything that's going to happen after this discussion tonight that would cause your company to rep prioritize the safety of your residents over
beautifification projects? >> Yeah, we can get our annual inspection going and get a better idea as far as exactly what we need to take care of on the entire property. Um, we could also explore new fire companies who will be more responsive for us. Um,
that's been our biggest struggle is trying to get Cox or Py Barker to to to be responsive for us. But we've been going with them because that's the type of systems we have on property. >> Yeah. But I just asked you the question of how long you've had a contract and you've told me you've had a contract for
at least the last six months >> for monitor. For the monitoring. >> Just the monitoring. Yeah. Okay. Well, that doesn't do squat if the systems don't work. >> Yeah. Any other questions? >> Yes. >> Go ahead, Rod.
>> For the gentleman, um, you mentioned 90 to 120 days to uh fix all these aid violations. >> That's just for the sprinklers. I'm sorry. For the sprinkler? >> Yeah, that that's the timeline they gave me just for the sprinklers.
>> Yes. Uh, so 100, so 90 to 120 days just the sprinklers because they're more tedious. You got to go into the ceiling and all that. My other question is just probably general. I don't know if it's Do you have insurance? >> Oh, yeah. We we have insurance >> with all these violations in place.
Well, we need to get reinspected to see where we're at with these violations cuz from what I am understanding is we we took care of the deficiencies that we were given um from the Cox who did the last inspection who does those tags that he was showing. That's what we worked
off of. We need to get them out there to do another inspection to see exactly where we're at now for the move forward. Um, my understanding is that Cox did do some of the minor repairs on the fire system when I first showed up. Uh, there's been several calls out to them
to take care of those repairs. Um, I took care of the defi the five buildings that were on the deficiency for the fire um panels. Um, there's been numerous calls by the actual property management team to get them out there to do other repairs. Um, and then we just need to
get the annual inspection going so we know where we need to go forward from here. >> So, you think in 30 days, if we gave you 30 days to correct the most significant life-saving issues, you think it's doable
cuz we're very concerned. I I agree. I mean, I agree with everybody. We're very concerned for safety, >> fire, we will be held even the city of Temple Terrace if we let this go around. It's held sometimes liable. I don't know.
>> Lawyer Ernie can tell us. >> It's a very very important issue. Very >> I know within the next we can get a better understanding of what we need to do within the next within for sure within 30 days we can have our annual inspection. Um, we can work with Cox or
Pipe AR now uh to get that annual inspection scheduled and see exactly where we are from here, get another deficiency report from them and work off of that to make sure we correct every known issue that we have. >> Can I hang on? Are you done?
>> Yes, sir. >> Well, and that might be something that you could work with code and and fire with to prioritize if they're called out to save the people in your apartments. What do they need? Exactly. >> You know, that's that that's what's important to us. >> They if they get a call.
>> Well, yeah, if they get if they Well, someone's going to call eventually, but um you know, hopefully sooner than later, but you know, prioritize with them what you need to do. I If they can't get water, what you know, that's that that's awful.
>> Yeah. But we we need to get those inspections going so we can test them and see if >> any other questions. Lead us can come back. Have a seat, sir. >> Oh, yeah. >> I just need >> fire inspector.
>> Yes. I just need a quick summary of how concerned you are, just on the record. >> Very concerned. It's it's um uh it's a it's it's one of the worst condition properties for fire violations
that I do in the city and I do uh essentially 100% of commercial fire inspections for the city. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> I'd like to make a motion. >> Go ahead. >> I have a question first. Go ahead.
>> $250 per day. Is that per violation or is that per according to the code. Yes, >> it's time to >> So, I mean, I realize we've had testimony. >> Um, Mike, >> sorry. >> Uh, that would be $250
per violation per day is what the code and the statute allows. Um, and I've been looking at this how, you know, we would do that. I see that there's eight, if I count correctly, eight >> there is >> code sections
that are on here. >> Um I think and that's probably going to be the best way for you to calculate. >> 78. >> Well, >> that's going to be very difficult. We don't know whether, you know, we already heard the fire hydrants. There aren't 78 of those. There's it's that's going to
be a difficult count. So, I'm looking at probably eight code sections. Um, and also, and I think you guys are already on this, I think that the deadline cannot be more than 30 days. Now, granted, they may not be able to get it done in that time, but they need
to be coming back to you >> for status checks and telling you what the progress is. >> Again, I'll remind you, they said they took over in April, >> first inspection was May, >> and there's really been zero progress since then.
>> Very little. I want a I want a weekly practice. >> You have you been sworn in, sir? >> Yes, sir. >> Name and address, please. >> Good evening. Uh John Jones, uh 6900 Aruba Avenue.
>> Thank you. Um I just wanted to reiterate um what my colleague Rob was mentioning. We have every intention to rectify this situation. Life safety of our residents is of uh utmost importance. We faced a unfortunate and challenging issue, very
frustrating issue. The property was in pretty deplorable condition from all aspects uh including fire life safety when we or when the owners purchased it and we managed the property. Um as Rob was saying, Cox Fire uh has a kind of um
it's their systems uh other vendors can't work on it. We rely on these fire vendors. We can't unfortunately do the work ourselves. And so we had reached out to Cox to get pricing and get the contract process going for all of these repairs. They were completely
nonresponsive to us. Uh we called and called. They then later explained to us that they were going through some kind of merger, not that it's an excuse, with um Py Barker. And so we kept reaching out trying to get to Pi Barker's contact information. We finally did as of maybe
two 3 weeks ago. Um then Py Barker said the original contracts that we assumed from Cox is now expired. It's it's lapsed and we need to send you a new contract. So they send us a contract and it's incorrect. Um all of which we can't execute with a fire vendor and we need a
fire vendor to come out and do these deficiency repairs. Um so they finally fixed the contract. We executed it approximately two three weeks ago. It's fully executed now. Um and so they're the company that can come out. they can complete all these deficiencies. Uh we
want them to do so as soon as humanly possible. We would have loved to get this done um you know months ago when we found out about it. Uh we have been on fire watch um so we have an associate on property that walks the entire property. They monitor um the entire complex so
that if they notice a fire they can immediately dispatch the fire department by calling it in. Um, as Rob mentioned, we did distribute the 300 plus fire extinguishers to all the individual tenants. Uh, for the fire um or the barbecue grills, we absolutely do not
let those on property. Um, it's sometimes a little bit tricky of a situation. If we notice it, we send a lease violation notice to the tenant. They have a certain number of days to either cure or um we would move to an eviction. A lot of times what happens
with the tenants is they'll put it inside their apartment, cure the lease violation notice, and then we have to start that lease violation notice over if we see it again. And it kind of goes in a circle um with the tenants. But I just wanted to reiterate the contractual issues really held us up and we wanted
to go with Cox and Piparker because they have the longest kind of history with it and proprietary systems uh which are the fire panels on the property. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> Nope. >> I have a question for for Ernie. >> Okay.
>> Quick question, please. >> Yes. >> Is there any way to there there's eight potentially eight violations here. U and if if we give them a 30-day, you know,
not or time to comply, is there any way and let's say they they they can't is there any way to like prioritize the the violations in terms of some of the violations are going to take months. We've already heard that, right?
Sprinklers are going to take months. Is there some way to specify partial compliance? uh you know if if we have a large you know we give them a >> tier deadline. >> Yeah. Yeah. Some kind of tiered deadline where if I don't know I mean I'm just
throwing it out there because it seems like they're going to come back and they're going to ask maybe maybe they got something that we don't consider important or something that's way out you not going to be they're not going to be in total compliance. But is there a way to say, "Okay, well, you you know, we're
going to we're going to grant you, you know, an an extension, but not for this particular, you know, this violation." I don't know. >> I think that's just going to be real weird >> hard to administer >> uh to try and uh uh monitor. But of
course, the priorities I believe >> you know, Inspector Squires can, >> you know, make the priorities for them. They should be working with him daily >> or you know as often as possible and taking his direction.
>> That's agreed. >> Okay. Yeah. I just I just we have to we keep giving them extensions uh and then >> well I think that one one would hope that the inspector squires will be here >> and we'll tell you whether they're >> you know making appropriate progress and
whether the >> the risks have been reduced. >> Okay. >> Um and then you will make your determination at that time whether you're going to extend or not. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Not a guarantee. >> Right. That's all I have. >> Any other questions? I think none. Go ahead. Yeah, I'd like No, I'd like to
move forward with my motion. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Uh, in case number 25-50072, I move that the city has proven by a greater weight of the evidence the following violations of the city of Temple Terrace City Code exist on the
property located at 6900 Aruba Avenue. The violations are section 8-56 subsection A 8-57 subsection B subsection 4 8-57 subsection B subsection 1 8-57
subsection B subsection 2 section 8-57 subsection D section 8-56 section 8-55 section 8-55 subsection A subsection Did I get them all? >> Yes, you did.
>> Got them all. >> Okay. This motion is based on the sworn testimony this board has received from the uh fire inspector >> Cle uh Cleletus Squire 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 Oh, never mind. I was reading the wrong one. Sorry. Um, sorry. I uh got the repeat violation somehow. Sorry. All right. I further move that
the viol said violations be corrected on or before December 10th, the date of our next meeting, 2025. If the respondent does not comply with this order on or before that day, they are ordered to pay a fine for each and every day. The violation continues past
uh past the date set for compliance upon considering the 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 total fine be $2,000 per
day. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? If I can just interject, just to be clear, that is uh $250 per violation per day, which adds up to $2,000
>> beginning on December 10th, assuming yes. >> Eight violations, $250 a day. Okay, we have a motion here, a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. So, you have you guys your property has been
found in violation. you have until December 10th to bring that property into uh compliance. If for some reason you cannot bring the property into compliance by December 10th, uh you are welcome to come back here to to us and request an extension. There is no guarantee you will receive an extension,
but you have every right to ask for one. Any questions? >> Okay, thank you. Good luck. Next case, >> uh David >> 25, I call for five minutes break, please. I'll give you two
>> motion. I I make >> You don't need a motion. Just go without >> box ticking. Go. We have um Okay. All right. Next case, please. 25-2930. Uh, >> 29.
>> Oh, yeah. That's the other one that's over here. >> Case number 25-2930, City versus River Park Community Association, Incorporated, for the property located at 7788 Rosewood Garden Loop. The deadline for compliance was
today, midnight. Fine of $25 per day beginning November 13, 2025. Violation section 28.840 E1. Community buffers good repair deadline
for compliance is midnight tonight. >> On the respondents here, >> yes. >> Yeah, I don't they haven't been sworn in. one had >> I have >> he has you >> okay okay >> does does your partner plan on speaking >> um no >> no >> no okay
>> that's just the board president for the HOA I just manage the community >> you manage okay but if he's long as he's not going to say anything doesn't have to be sworn in >> okay >> okay fair enough and address >> uh my name is Nero Chander um and it's 7788 Rose Garden Loop for River Park HOA
>> okay floor is yours sir >> um so last time we came it was this is all about a perimeter fence. Um the current uh sight sight site plan is for almond PVC along two sides of the
property and then the other two sides are for uh sim composite fencing. Um there's an area on 78 along 78th that needs to get repaired. There are sections that are need that need to get repaired. I think is included in this uh notice. We have that uh I have invoices
here where we've paid for it. We're just waiting on schedule for Florida State Fence. So, that will be repaired in the next few weeks. The um question that we've had is we've also had a preapp meeting. I don't recall his name, but he was uh present for that meeting um se in
September, I believe, at the end of September that we talked about cuz the issue is is that along Temple Terrace Highway at the main entrance of the community, there originally was PVC almond PVC fencing that got blown apart during the hurricanes last year. The
issue is the board does not didn't want to use that same fence because it's not covered by their insurance which was placed by the developer. Right. And so we got new we got new insurance. The insurance can cover other types of material, meaning aluminum, stone,
things of that nature, but not almond PVC. So we were trying to look for alternatives. That pre meeting, which they were gracious enough to give us, we talked about what different possibilities there were. Um, I guess to avoid going through a whole site plan modification process, we would have to
put in a fence I think was communicated that looks similar to Almond PVC. Um, we sent so Florida State Fence sent us an example and I have pictures and I have emails with everything here uh of what it will look like for powdercoated aluminum.
It just for what was communicated to us is we want to put a emphasis on consistency. So having a third type of fence sur around the community, I just it just doesn't make any sense. If we put white fence in the front, white
aluminum in the front and have alum and have a uh almond PVC on one side and sim on one side just doesn't make it doesn't it's not going to look right. And I'm sure we'll get a notice for that as well. But the the uh along the front if
it was the white powder coating, the problem is Florida State Fence has never seen almond almond coating, almond colored coating. Uh so that's our issue. Um we reached out to the planning division to see to get further um um guidance on this. Um because we uh like
I said, we we originally wanted to put in black aluminum because we do have a dog park that goes that is right behind this fence and which is black aluminum. So we wanted to originally put that in. We were told that would not get approved or that if we would have to put in the
site plan modification which then is another timeline. So that's where we at right now. So as far as progress, >> let me see if I can uh condense all this. So where you're at right now is you have a contractor. >> Yes. >> You have tried to get almond colored aluminum fence. Can't do it.
>> So now you're at the point of deciding what else you can do that's cons that you can remain consistent for the entirety of the property and not have three different kinds of fence. >> Exactly. >> Okay. Do you do you anticipate having when what's your timeline for getting
those answers >> um for so we we sent the communication out to planning to see if maybe we can um have that conversation we're just waiting on planning to let us know what they think all we've gotten back is that they would prefer that we just put in
the PVC at >> you say planning that's our our planning >> yeah planning division within Terrace Marissa Robinson is the name that we've been >> Does the city have an issue with another 30 days? >> No, not at this time. Uh we are getting uh phone calls from the school next
door, but I believe he's been in communication >> with you about that. So, I think another 30 days wouldn't wouldn't hurt. >> Hey, go ahead. >> Aside from maintenance,
>> is there any reason why you just can't paint the black fence all color? >> Um, no. But I what we did was we sent the picture to planning to see if this is something that would get approved because the fence for Florida State
Fence did not believe that Temple Terrace would give us the permit >> for the for the for the >> for the white fence >> for the white fence. >> So I don't I can ask him again. I don't know what the difficulty is with painting it almond instead or if we
contract separately for >> issue or is it a material? I think it's what's available. So, he he can get it powder he can get the powder coated and it'll be uh they can order it as with that white, but that's the closest they can get to that almond, I guess, is what he tried to communicate to me.
>> So, it's a so it's a color issue. >> It's a color issue because what they're basically saying it has to be close to what was originally there for them to avoid going through the whole site plan modification process. >> Any other questions?
So in the back you said you if you're going to speak get sworn in. >> Yeah. Yeah. I will do that. >> Okay. Well, stand up and get sworn in. >> Please raise your right hand and answer after I swear you in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will provide the board tonight will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I swear. >> I come on up. State your name and address. >> Hi, this is Cal Islam. Um I'm the president of that um community >> address >> uh 7763 Rose Garden Loop. Yeah. Uh
thanks all of you. So um we we had the fourth side of the fence and our property manager mentioned that. So in the front side we want to put um hurricane um uh proof like uh strong fence the aluminum fence. So we we went
back and forth our management with the city. But so there is a two issue. One of them is the material. So they will not allow us to put aluminum fence in the front. So the black or any color and the second one is the the color coded that we received. So this is a two issue
on the material side uh and also the color wise. So and we we try not to put the PVC fence um because it it's not going to be over it will be overburden for the whole community and uh to address uh on the 78 street that um our
management already mentioned is that that is working in a progress and that's going to be hopefully resolved by within uh next uh 30 days hopefully and uh consider to the fans on the Florida college that's the So our initial plan
was to work with the city and change the fence type. So so the according to our site plan the the fence materials we can put only either PVC or the SIM tech. So as a resident we want to change the
fence type in the front as an aluminum and on the side the Florida college we want to put some kind of chain link fence that is already existing in different places in including Florida college and there is a property in front
of them. So those kind of fence materials is already present in the tumble tourist. So we we we try to contact with them with the site plan but there is like um it seems like that plan will will not be passed. Okay. And so we
have to go back for the Florida college either sim that is going to be more strong and or PVC fence. So the we had a we we got the code from the uh uh Florida state fence for the sim on the
Florida college site. it will cost us more than 100k and that fund we don't have that and we will need an special assessment for that. If we go for the PBC on the Florida college that will
also need a lower budget uh hopefully uh it's around like 1,800 more than around 2 2,000 ft length of fence. So it will cost us around 50k if we go with the PVC. So it will be like more for us um
continuous effort for the repairing on the both front and the Florida college side. Okay. So you're you're weighing your options and I assume you're here tonight for an extension. >> Yes.
>> Any other questions? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll go case number 25-2930. Uh, I move that we extend this case an additional 30 days to December 10th,
2025. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Motion second on the end. Any further comments? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Okay. So, you've been given a 30-day extension. If the property is not
brought into compliance by December 10th, you'll have to come back again to um that night to to explain to us why. And at that point, you can ask for another extension. Although one is not guaranteed. Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, now we're back to the
first page. Case number 25-2420. >> Case number 25-2420. City versus 8727 Equity Group LLC. Continued for the property located at 8727 Overlook Drive.
This case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 10-4 B1 nuisance diminish value. This case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Danielle Bat. The
city has evidence that the notice of violation and the notice of hearing were properly served. >> Good evening. I'm officer Bat with Code Compliance. This case this evening was initiated by me on June 11th, 2025 as directed by pass code director T. Baron.
The property was found in violation of the city's code of ordinance section 10-4 subsection B1 for the overgrowth of grass and weed structure and dwelling in disrepair with broken windows, diminished paint, missing and or broken siding, and the accumulation of tree debris throughout the property creating
a public nuisance which diminishes the value of surrounding properties. On June 12th, 2025, a notice violation was posted to the violation property requesting requested posting to city hall on the electronic board and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the address of
record. On August 11th, 2025, contact was made with Marshall Ryman, the attorney for the registered agent Mau Leaks. And per his request, an email was sent to him with photos for reference and adver advising. If a permit was is
was acquired of work, I apologize, had started towards compliance by September 1st, 2025, I would be happy to work with them on the compliance date. A reinspection was done on September 11th, 2025. and the property remained in violation. A notice
of hearing was posted on September 24th, 2025 to the subject property requesting 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 the hearing of October 8th, 2025, the case was continued to tonight's hearing in
hopes to see something towards compliance. As of my last inspection on Monday, November 10th, 2025, the property was not in compliance, nor has anything been done towards compliance either. Photos were entered into the record with the affidavit of non-compliance from Monday's reinspection. So, at this time, I am
seeking a ruling at this as this property continues to be a blatant safety concern for the community. >> This tell me specifically why we continued this last time. I forgot. There was a question as to whether they
needed a was it a site plan that showed that the built the structure was not there. >> They want to demo the property. The problem is they had the issue between the site plan holding a photo of the current um structure on the property and
not it was a confusion on that aspect. >> I still don't get it. The issue is they have not done an asbestous or lead based paint survey of the structure. That has to be submitted to the city prior to the demolition permit being issued. They
have yet to submit one. >> Okay. So it has nothing to do with the with with the building disappration. We went back with we need this report. The report has not been provided. >> They were aware of this. >> Yes. The owner of the property was here
last at the last meeting. >> When he was here last time, he said he couldn't do it. Couldn't tear it down because it would change the site plan. >> It's there's a plan to put condominiums or town homes on that site. >> Yeah.
>> This the demolition shouldn't hold that process up that I know. Well, I can check with zoning to check to be sure, but it shouldn't. >> Regardless what goes on, the house has to come down. >> I think I remember that's what we talked about. It was a zoning thing. >> Yeah. I mean, it was my my my
recollection was that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but he can't tear the house down because it would change the site plan and then he would have to come back in front of council and get a new site plan approved. >> You have to get a reason. >> As far as I know to date, the site plan for that project has not been approved
by council yet anyway. The only thing I'll say is that's what he said the problem was. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. But I mean, but yeah, that's kind of what the way I recall him saying what the problem was. I think we all were a little confused by that. >> That's why we continued it. But
>> but Dallas, you're you're saying that it's really the lack of a a specialist report, >> correct? Specialist let that survey is the only thing holding up the issuance of a demolition permit. Okay. The >> Yes, sir.
>> The uh the guy is not here tonight. >> He's not here tonight. No. You see him communic? No. No. I'm saying did he communicate with you? That's what I meant. >> Between today the previous last month's meeting now. No. >> Haven't heard from him. >> Nothing. Did not hear anything from him? >> Nope.
>> Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll do it. Okay. >> You want to do it? >> No, you can do it. Just going in case number 25-2420.
I move that city has proven by the greater weight of evidence the following violations of the city of tumble city code exist on the property located at 8727 Overlook Drive with the applicable code
violation section 10-4 subsection B subsection 1. This motion is based on this one testimony this board has received from code enforcement officer along with any other evidence including photos, affidavit and the notice of violation of
which received of which received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that the vi said violation be corrected on or before December 10th, 2025. If the respondent does not comply with
this order on or before that day, they are ordered and uh to pay a fine for each day the the violation continue past the date set for compliance upon considering the fact the following factors. The gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to
correct the violation, any previous violation committed by the violator. I move the the fine be $50 per day. Do >> we have a motion? Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Motion second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor?
>> I >> I no nays. Motion carries. Next case, please. So, >> I think we have one, >> two, two, two more. 253709. >> Case number 25-3709.
City versus Rhettz and Vonhof for the property located at 423 South River Hills Drive. This case is before the board based on an alleged violation of section 8-102 13K MH hardware screens. Section 10-3B
sanitation grass weeds section 10-34 sanitation premises clean. and section 12-860 in ops outdoor storage equipment. The case will be prosecuted this evening by code compliance officer Danielle Bat.
The city has evidence that the notice of violation and the notice of hearing were properly served. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm officer Bat with Code Compliance. This case this evening was initiated by me on September 19th, 2025 in violation of city's code of ordinance
with courtesy door hangers allowing time to correct the pri correct prior to further enforcement. The code sections 8-102 subsection 13K for the keeping and or maintaining of windows to the outside without required window screens. 10-3B
for this overgrowth of grass and weeds exceeding 12 in in height. 10-34 for the accumulation of trash and debris throughout the property and 12-860 for the keeping and/or storage of an inoperable white Acura Integra two-door
car with expired tag 3288 XG expiring 1025 and flat tires. On September 26, 2025, upon reinspection, the violation continued. So, a notice of violation was created with a compliance date of October 11th, 2025, and posted the
subject property, requested posting to city hall on the electronic board, and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the address of record. Upon reinspection on October 13th, 2025, the violation continued. So notice of hiring hearing was created and on
October 29th, 2025 and posted the subject property requested posted city hall and the electronic board for the 10-day requirement and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the address of record. As of my last inspection Monday, November 10th, 2025, the property was still in violation. At this time, I
would like to submit evidence for case number 25-379 supporting the case and asking for a ruling. We'll >> accept those. Thank you. Any questions for the officer? Go ahead, Bill. >> Yeah. So the so uh there's four violations here or code section
violations. So all four are still out of compliance. >> Yes, sir. >> They Okay. Even even the car >> Mhm. >> Exhibit A, the photos of the inspection on September 26, 2025 for issuance of notice of violation. Exhibit B are going
to be the photos of inspection on October 13th, 2025 for issuance of notice of hearing. and exhibit C photos of inspection this past Monday, November 10th, 2025, prior to today's hearing. All those photos will sub will support those
>> the the car under the tarp. You can't >> we're not >> I can't legally lift the back end of it, >> right? >> I can't change it to >> if the was covered in >> it could be any car covered. It could be legal. It cannot be legal unless it's
showing me within view, >> right? Because it's behind another inoperable car, >> but it's doesn't mean it's not inoperable, >> right? That's that's kind of the tr the truth we can get around.
>> Just for my education, what does the MH mean? >> Minimum housing. >> Excuse me. >> Minimum housing. >> Minimum housing. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? I just was going to ask, have you have any contact with with the owner? >> Not at all. >> She is. >> Okay.
>> Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. >> All right. This one. >> Thank you. So, case number 25-3709. I move that the city has proven by greater weight of the evidence the following violations of the city of
Temple Terrace City Code exist on the property located at 423 South River Hills Drive. Violations are section 8-102 subsection 13 subsection K
10-3 subsection B 10-34 and 12-860. This motion is based on the swarten testimony this board is received from code enforcement officer Danielle Bat along with any other evidence including photos, affidavit, and notice of
violation. all of which is received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that said violations be corrected on or before December 10th, 2025. If the respondant does not comply with this order on or before that day, they ordered to pay a fine for each and every day the
violations continue past the date set for compliance. Upon considering the following factors, the gravity of the violation violations, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violations, and any previous violations committed by the violator, I move that the fine be $50 per day.
>> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> Opposed? No. Motion carries. Next case, please. 23-3736. Case number 25-3736
City versus Milton Vernon for the property located at 5417 Rainbow Drive. This case is before the board based on alleged violation of section 12-922A parking commercial vehicle and residential. The case will be prosecuted
this evening by code compliance director Daniel Bat. The city has evidence that the notice of violation and the notice of hearing were properly served. Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm officer Bat with Code Compliance. This case this evening was an issue by is oh initiated by me on
September 22nd, 2025 in violation of city code ordinance. The code section is 19 or 12-922 subsection A for the parking and storage of commercial vehicle semi-truck on residentially zoned property which is prohibited. A notice of violation with the compliance date of September 30th,
2025 was posted to the property requested posting to city hall on the electronic board and sent both certified mail and regular mail to the address of record. A reinspection was done on September 29th, 2025 and seeing as it was the day prior to the compliance
date, went ahead and rescheduled for reinspection. A reinspection was done on October 23rd, 2025, finding the violation continues. So, a notice of hearing was posted to the subject property requested posted in 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. As of my one of my last inspections on Monday, November 10th, 2025, the property was in compliance. As of November 11th, as Director Jack
Shanks has a photo of, it actually was not. At this time, I would like to submit evidence for case number 25-3736 supporting the case and ask a finding a fact. So, I may close upon receiving a copy of the official order. The issue
with it is the simple fact of the truck had disappeared the day on the 10th and then truck re reappeared the next morning. So, There is a affidavit of compliance put in there, but obviously the next day it
had reappeared. It was a case where the truck can come and go. >> Okay. So, is it currently in compliance or out of comp? >> As of yesterday morning, it was not the day before. >> As of this morning, it was still there. Okay.
>> So, as of as of right now, it's not in compliance. >> Correct. >> Okay. I wanted to ask it. >> Go ahead. >> You don't mind. Is that because you issued a compliance certificate? Would that be a repeated violation? >> Yes. >> Not because it was actually
>> the affidavit of compliance was yes issued. But in order for it to be a repeat, it would have to be a different case number. >> It has to come to show it as you know. So it would be a matter of I need a finding of fact so I could turn around and basically reissue another notice of hearing directly because a find a
>> got a hearing already. >> Yes. Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> Want to do it? >> Where's the case?
In case number 25-3736, 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 5417 Rainbow Drive with applicable code
violation section 12-922 subsection A. 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
received and entered as part of the record of this hearing. I further move that the SID violation be corrected on or before December 10th, 2025. If the respondent does not comply with this order on or before that day, they
are ordered to pay a fine for each day and every uh and 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 violator. I move that the fine be $25 per day. We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion is second. Any further discussion? >> Before you vote, can I ask the director a question? >> Sure.
>> No, only turn in the clerk. I don't know if she's right. >> Um, did you issue that affidavit of compliance, meaning mail it out to the uh property owner? I am not aware that it was actually
issued to the property owner. >> All right, then. Go ahead. Proceed. >> Thank you. Okay, we have a motion second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Okay, that completes
um all the new business. On to unfinished case number 25-2526, city versus Dorothy M. Carter, trustee for the property located at 400 Richdale Road. The deadline for compliance was
extended until November 12th, 2025. Fine of $25 per day beginning November 13, 2025. Violations section 8-102 13B MH exterior walls deadline for
compliance is midnight tonight 341 >> we did that one never mind at >> 3 that 4 >> 66. Yeah. >> Case number 25-3664. City versus Anad Salari
for the property located at 7908 Terrace Ridge Drive. The deadline for compliance was December 10th, 2025. Fine of $25 per day beginning December 11th, 2025, and a lump sum of $1600. the violations
section 12-763 tree removal penalty and section 12-771 tree trimming invasive trees affidavit of compliance was received November 3rd 2025
case number 25-3673 city versus 7608 North Santael Circle LLC for the property located at 7608 North Santael Circle. The deadline for compliance was
December 10th, 20125, fine of $25 per day beginning December 11th, 2025 and lump sum of $100. Violations section 12-763 removal penalty and section 12-768
tree removal regulations. The deadline for the compliance is December 11th, 2025. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. Is there any other board action? Any leans report? No leans report. Any
new business? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Motion second. All those in favor? I >> opposed. No nays. Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. >> See you next month.
Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.