►
From YouTube: Code Enforcement Board 06-23-2021
Description
Code Enforcement Board 06-23-2021
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
D
For
the
record
nick
faulkner
compliance
officer
for
the
city
of
punta
gorda
and
I've
been
sworn
according
to
the
charlotte
county
property
appraisers
records,
the
property
located
at
7542
dracena
is
within
the
city
limits
of
the
city
of
punta
gorda
florida
and
the
property
is
owned
by
the
respondents.
Submitting
11
photos
for
the
record.
The
pictures
submitted
for
evidence
are
true
and
accurate
representation
of
the
condition
of
the
site.
D
At
the
time
the
pictures
were
taken
on
may
4th
2021
I
inspected
the
property
and
found
tall
grass
and
or
weeds
throughout
the
property,
which
is
a
violation
of
the
pontic
order
code.
Chapter
9,
section
9-2-h
on
may
4th
2021
a
notice
of
violation
order.
Corrective
action
was
sent
to
the
respondents
via
certified
certified
mail,
which
was
received
on
may
6.
D
2021
order
and
corrective
action
be
taken
in
the
tall
grass
in
our
weeds
throughout
the
property,
be
mowed,
trimmed
and
maintained
within
five
days
of
receipt
of
the
notice
on
may
13
2021,
I
reinspected
the
property
and
found
the
violations
had
not
been
corrected
and
that
the
tall
grass
and
our
weeds
remain
throughout
the
property
on
may
13.
2021,
an
affidavit
violation
knows
a
hearing
was
sent
to
the
respondents
via
certified
return
receipt
mail
which
was
returned
undelivered
on
may
20th
2021.
D
D
A
E
D
A
Okay
motion
has
been
made
that
the
final
the
respondent
has
violated,
cited
section
codes
of
final
quarter
code
and
would
be
issued
a
cease
and
desist
order
is
any
discussion
on
that
motion
no
discussion.
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
is
presented.
Please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
negative
votes
hearing,
none
emotions
carried.
G
Mr
chairman,
if
I
might,
I
didn't
want
to
make
these
comments
as
part
of
your
deliberation
of
the
case
in
chief,
but
I
wanted
to
just
explain
that
it's
my
understanding
that
this
is
a
frequent
problem
at
this
property
and
once
they're
notified
of
the
problem
and
staff
goes
through
the
efforts
of
trying
to
get
it
cleaned
up.
They
ultimately
do,
which
is
why
this
may
be
the
first
time
that
you've
seen
it
and
that's
why
we've
asked
for
a
seasoned
assist,
but
it's
not
like
that.
A
Moving
on
second
case
case
number,
21-79
536
code,
compliance
officer,
nick
faulkner,
respondent
carter
holdings,
llc,
kendra,
m
carter,
registered
agent
address
is
332
san
marie
drive,
violation
of
chapter
26,
section
8.10
commercial
vehicles.
Multiple
access
trailers
is
the
respondent
present
respondent
is
not
present
on
their
behalf.
I
will
enter
plea
of
not
guilty
officer
faulker.
Would
you
please
present
the
city's
case
for.
D
The
record
nick
faulconer
code,
compliance
officer
for
the
city
of
punta
gorda
and
I
have
been
sworn
according
to
the
charlotte
county
property
appraises
records.
The
property
located
at
332
san
marine
drive
is
within
the
city
limits
of
the
city
of
punta
gorda
florida
and
the
property
is
owned
by
the
respondents.
D
I'm
submitting
six
photos
for
the
record.
The
pictures
submitted
for
evidence
aren't
true
and
accurate
representation
of
the
condition
of
the
site.
At
the
time
the
pictures
were
taken
on
may
7th
2021.
I
inspected
the
property
and
found
two
white
commercial
vehicles
and
a
multiple
actual
trailer
on
the
property,
which
is
a
violation
of
the
plentiford
code.
Chapter
26,
section
8.10
on
may
7
2021.
D
They
noticed
the
violation
of
order
corrective
action
was
sent
to
respondents
and
registered
agent
via
certified
mail,
which
was
received
on
may
8,
2021
order
and
corrective
action
be
taken
and
the
two
white
commercial
vehicles
and
the
multiple
axle
trailer
be
removed
from
the
property.
Within
five
days
of
receiving
the
notice
on
may
20th
2021,
I
reinspected
the
property
and
found
that
the
two
white
commercial
vehicles
had
been
removed.
D
D
We
inspected
the
property
on
june
22
2021
and
found
that
the
multiple
axle
trailer
has
been
removed.
However,
one
of
the
white
commercial
vehicles
was
parked
on
the
driveway
of
the
property,
I'm
requesting
a
cease
and
desist
for
future
violations
and
submitting
an
invoice
for
case
cost
incurred
in
the
amount
of
23.64
cents.
J
E
J
E
E
E
Is
there
any
way
you
can
is?
Is
that
as
big
as
we
can
expand
that?
Can
we
blow
it
up?
Another
view?
Yeah
the
only
question
I
see
power
lines.
I
can't
see
where
the
pole
is.
It
almost
looks
like
the
pole
is
over
and
that
would
telephone
poles
usually
indicate
the
property
line,
but
whether
that
trailer's
on
someone
else's
property
is
only
part
of
it
because
they
still
have
the
commercial
vehicle,
that's
in
the
driveway,
and
what
establishes
it
establishes
that
that
is
a
commercial
vehicle.
E
Or
does
it
have
gun
plates?
I
don't
know
so.
This
is
the
vehicle,
because
it's
dated
the
22nd
and
if
you
go
that
right,
there's
the
22nd,
but
it
doesn't
did
now.
This
one
has
obviously
it
has
a
signage
on
it
right
which
is
not
which
is
not
allowed,
but
the
622
picture
that
vehicle
doesn't
have
any
signage
on.
It
doesn't
have
a
commercial
plate
on
it.
D
All
right
so
yeah,
I
got
it
I'll
read
directly
from
from
the
code.
It
should
be
unlawful
for
any
person,
company
or
corporation
to
park,
trucks,
recreational
vehicles
or
trailers
which
have
multiple
axles
or
two
rear
wheels
per
side
overnight
on
the
public
or
private
property.
Okay,
fine.
Thank
you.
F
A
D
J
D
L
A
A
E
L
G
All
right:
well,
it's
on
their
property,
I
mean
that's.
We
are
allowed
to
use
the
gis
as
prima
facie
evidence
of
who
owns
the
property,
and
that's
why
we
have
a
hearing
if
the
respondent
feels
like
it's
not
on
his
property
or
if
he
doesn't
own.
The
trailer
wants
to
use
that
as
a
defense
they're
entitled
to
come
here
and
make
their
make
their
case.
G
I
L
G
And
again,
this
is
not
a
criminal
case,
so
the
evidence
doesn't
need
to
be
beyond
shadow
of
a
reasonable
doubt.
But
the
standard
is
by
preponderance
of
the
evidence
and
we
would
submit
that
the
predominance
of
the
evidence
would
would
suggest
that
the
owner,
the
property
owner
owns
that
that
vehicle
or
is
in
control
of
it.
G
Are
thank
you
for
the
question.
You
know
our
code
enforcement
is
really
designed
to
bring
people
into
compliance
not
to
not
to
find
them,
and
so
the
first
pro
the
first
hearing,
unless
it's
a
irreversible
and
irreparable
injury,
which
it's
done,
there's
no
way
to
warn
somebody
about
it
and
give
them
the
opportunity
to
do
it
again.
Most
cases
that
come
before
the
board
are
similar
to
this,
so
we
first
notify
them
a
violation.
G
They
have
the
opportunity
to
bring
the
property
into
compliance
and
then
you'll
never
see
them
again.
Unless
there's
been
previous
history,
if
they
don't
bring
it
into
compliance
within
the
time
that's
afforded,
then
we
set
it
for
a
hearing.
They
come
before
you
we
come
before
you.
If
you
determine.
If
there's
we
make
an
argument
as
to
why
there's
a
violation,
they
have
the
opportunity
to
make
the
argument
that
there's
no
violation.
G
L
G
Violation,
the
the
the
if,
if
there's
been
a
if
they
have
been
found
to
be
in
violation
and
they
correct
the
violation
but
then
subsequently
are
in
violation
again
for
the
same
offense.
Then
they've
violated
the
cease
and
desist,
and
they
can
come
back
immediately
without
us
having
to
give
them
additional
time
to
come
into
compliance
and
when
they
come
in
to
comply
when
they
come
before
you
after
a
cease
and
desist
order
has
been
issued.
At
that
point,
you
can
issue
a
fine
immediate.
L
F
I
I
also
when
I
made
the
motion.
I
I
find
it
troubling
that
folks
don't
think
that
we're
here
to
serve
any
purpose
and
they
don't
show
up.
I
mean
if
this
is
a
mistaken
identity
or
if
they
were
there
for
two
hours
or
if
the
trailer
was
on
somebody
else's
property.
I
certainly
would
think
that
the
owner
of
the
property
would
show
up
and
say
you
guys,
are
all
wet.
That's
not
my
truck
or
the
truck
was
only
there
for
two
hours.
A
E
D
L
The
motion,
the
questions,
we're
also
going
to
observe
that,
in
response
to
the
tenant
who's
whose
vehicles
they
probably
are,
they
appear
to
be
working
vehicles,
and
perhaps
you
know
it's
difficult
for
them
to
take
a
day
off
from
work
for
what
appears
to
be
a
small
offense
that
they,
and
so
I'm
just
going
to
make
that
make.
That
comment.
F
Miss
chair,
I'm
sorry,
I
don't.
I
don't
mean
to
be
argumentative,
but
if,
if
this
thing
proceeds
with
no
compliance
and
we
start
finding
them
and
they
don't
show
up
because
they
don't
take
the
day
off
from
work-
I
mean
this
could
be
a
a
problem
for
the
the
corporation.
I
don't
think
the
the
tenant's
gonna
lay
out
27
million
dollars,
but
the
corporation
certainly
is
in
line
for
something.
If,
if
they
don't
bother,
if
they
don't
bother
responding
to
us,
I'm
I'm
a
little
confused
by.
F
F
This
is
kind
of
we're,
making
a
a
mountain
out
of
a
molehill
here
when
there
are
things
that
are
obviously
wrong
and
nobody
tenant
or
agent
has
bothered
to
come
in
and
say
I
screwed
up
my
truck
shouldn't,
be
there
or
my
truck
was
only
there
for
20
minutes
or
whatever
the
case
may
be.
But
when
we
get
ignored
like
this,
I
I
have
a
tendency
to
put
the
hammer
down.
A
Any
further
comments
on
the
motion
and
I'll
entertain
a
vote
on
the
motion,
as
presented
for
in
request
city,
has
requested
a
cease
and
desist
order.
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motions
presented
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye.
All
those
opposed,
please
signify
by
saying,
nay,
hey
motion
is
carried
with
one
negative
vote
next
case
and
one
obsession
you
can't
abstain.
You
can't
abstain.
Oh
no,
then,
with
two
negative
votes.
A
gold,
compliance
officer,
alan
mcdaniel,
respondent,
boheger
properties,
llc
david
holmes,
registered
agent
and
tenant
address
of
the
violation
is
708
710,
west
olympia,
avenue,
violation
of
chapter
26,
section
8.26,
temporary
structure,
chapter
9,
section
9-2,
subsec,
a
and
20
chapter
26,
section
8.14,
subset
b.
Outdoor
storage
is
the
respondent
present.
A
E
M
A
A
J
A
A
M
M
According
to
charlotte,
county
property
appraisal
records,
the
property
located
at
226
venezia
court
is
within
the
city
limits
of
the
city
of
punta
gorda
florida
and
the
property
owned
by
the
respondents.
I'm
submitting
six
photos
for
the
record.
The
pictures
submitted
for
evidence
are
true
and
accurate
representation
of
the
condition
of
the
site.
At
the
time
the
picture
was
taken
on
february
8,
2021,
an
inspection
of
the
property
by
code
compliance
officer,
alan
mcdaniel
found
bare
soils
throughout
the
landscaped
areas
on
the
property,
which
is
a
violation
of
hunter
gorda
code.
M
M
Also
on
february
17
2021,
the
notice
of
violation
order
for
corrective
action
was
posted
on
the
property
and
at
city
hall
by
co-compliance
officer,
alan
mcdaniel
on
may
27
2021,
a
re-inspection
by
co-compliance
officer.
Alan
mcdaniel
found
that
the
violation
had
not
been
corrected
that
the
bare
soils
remain
throughout
the
landscaped
areas
on
the
property
on
may
28,
2021,
an
affidavit
of
violation
notice.
The
hearing
was
sent
to
the
response
via
certified
return
receipt
mail,
which
was
received
on
june,
2nd
2021
on
june
3rd
2021.
M
The
affidavit
of
violation
notes
hearing
was
posted
on
the
property
at
city
hall
by
compliance
officer,
alan
mcdaniel,
I
inspected
the
property
on
june
22nd
2021
and
found
that
the
bare
soils
remain
throughout
the
landscaped
areas
on
the
property.
I'm
spending
an
invoice
for
case
costs
incurred
in
the
amount
of
16.89.
A
M
They
actually
had
alan
mcdaniels
actually
been
in
contact
with
him.
They
had
proposed
some
different
things
that
they
were
going
to
do.
He
allowed
them
additional
time
to
do
it.
They
still
had
not
come
into
compliance,
as
you
can
see
the
bags
of
sand
sitting
out
there
and
that
so
also
officer
mcdaniel
spoken
with
one
of
the
other
members
of
the
group
of
respondents,
and
there
is
some
sort
of
dispute
going
on
at
the
property,
so
that
might
have
something
do
it
among
the
owners
of
the
property.
So,
okay.
E
M
L
H
M
E
A
E
The
receipt
of
this
order
is
further,
ordered
that
the
respondents
are
required
to
pay
case
costs
incurred
in
the
amount
of
16.89
within
15
days.
The
receipt
of
this
ordinance
further
ordered
that
failure
to
comply
with
this
order
may
cause
the
vote
code
enforcement
board
to
issu,
impose
fines
of
up
to
250
per
day
plus
applicable
interest.
A
A
A
Next
case
case
number
20-78,
356
code,
compliance
officer,
alan
mcdaniel,
houston
status,
officer.
Mccarthy,
respondent
is
richard
e
cotton
trustee,
I
guess:
violation
addresses
2415,
saint
david's
court,
violation
of
chapter
26,
section
8.11,
sub
b,
chapter
9,
section,
9-12,
sub-sub-e,
torn
missing
full
screen
and
chapter
9,
section,
9-2
subset
a
broken
light.
Fixtures
respondent,
obviously
is
not
here,
and
the
city
is
requesting
a
motion
to
dismiss
the
case.
Yes,
properties
and
complaints,
I'd.
A
J
G
M
M
M
G
G
Our
concern
at
the
last
time
was
that,
as
a
requirement
for
getting
a
reduction,
the
property
has
to
be
in
compliance
before
they
can
seek
a
reduction,
so
the
property.
The
hearing
was
continued
to
this
hearing,
to
give
them
the
opportunity
to
bring
it
into
compliance,
irrespective
of
who
might
have
been
out
of
compliance.
F
F
G
G
Lien
runs
with
the
land,
and
the
statute
does
require
that
the
seller
provide
notice
to
the
buyer
of
the
existence
of
the
code
violations
so
that
if
the
buyer
assumes
the
property
with
that
obligation,
the
idea
would
be
that
typically,
then,
the
buyer
would
assume
the
the
lien
and
then
be
responsible
for
working
working
that
out
with
the
seller
or
or
whatever,
to
get
that
lien
to
get
that
lien
removed,
which
you
know
as
david's
pointed
out,
is
probably
the
reason
why
the
money
was
held
in
escrow.
We.
F
K
E
K
E
E
E
K
J
L
K
A
K
K
L
Well,
I
know
I
don't
know
if
this
is
the
time
to
do
this,
because
the
because
it's
testimony
being
made
but
the
purposes
of
our
code,
compliance
in
in
this
case
is,
is
not
to
be
punitive,
but
to
ensure
that
these
things
don't
happen
again,
and
I
think
that
in
this
case
we
can
be
fairly
certain.
That's
not
going
to
happen
again,
because
the
petitioner
is
moving
out
and
everything's
in
compliance.
Now
I
think
that
our
goal
has
been
accomplished
and
to
penalize
this
person
or
not
provide
some
sort
of
relief.
A
L
J
A
A
H
A
A
E
A
K
It
doesn't
matter
this
is
on
the
second
case
in
case
the
last
time
I
was
here.
Mr
mcdaniel
said
that
I
had
taken
care
of
everything,
but
then
my
daughter
went
back
to
get
her
items
that
she
had
left
behind
there
and
that's
why
the
van
was
there
and
that's
why
everything
is
there.
My
daughter
has,
since
gotten
all
of
her
things
out.
K
F
F
K
Understand
that
and
mr
mcdaniel's,
the
last
time
we
were
here,
he
said
that
I
complied
that
I
did
have
everything
taken
care
of
then
my
daughter
put
things
back
in
the
garage
in
the
driveway
and
then
I
had
her
remove
them.
Then
she
put
them
back
in
and
I
had
her
remove
them
again.
Everything
and
then
miss
mcdaniel
said
it
was
up
to
compliance
until
that
morning
when
he
went
there
and
she
had
it's
not
that
she
put
things
in
the
driveway.
K
H
A
motion
find
that
the
reduction
of
fine
request
is
approved,
defined
in
the
amount
of
11
thousand
seven
dollars
and
sixty-five
cents
plus
five
point.
Three
five
percent
applicable
interest
issued
in
the
previous
order
of
october
28th
plus
additional
case
costs
occurred.
The
amount
of
twelve
dollars
and
three
cents
is
reduced
to
five
thousand
dollars,
and
it
is
further
ordered
that
the
respondents
sell
submit
full
payment
within
15
days
of
the
entry
of
this
order
after
payment.
E
A
G
L
J
H
M
E
A
E
G
H
H
A
J
A
J
E
E
G
G
G
People
tell
you
at
the
time
that
this
board
is
not
the
function
of
the
board
to
determine
the
constitutionality
or
the
legality
of
the
ordinance
there's
an
opportunity
for
that
to
be
brought
to
circuit
court.
If
that's,
what
somebody
would
wish
to
do,
and
so
you'll
be
you'll,
be
making
a
determination
based
on
the
evidence
and
testimony
presented
as
to
whether
or
not
there
was
a
violation
of
the
ordinance
as
it's
been
adopted.
G
G
G
Look
my
my
view
is
that
that,
as
many
times
as
you
kick
it
down
the
road,
it
wears
out
the
opposition
and
we're
able
to
conduct
our
our
business
appropriately.
I
I
don't
think
that
the
city
really
wants
to
put.
I
could
be
wrong.
I
don't
think
the
city
really
wants
to
go
out
of
its
way
of
giving
those
they're
trying
to
make
a
political
point,
a
platform
for
doing
that
at
the
expense
of
the
city's
business.
E
And
also
I'd
just
like
to
make
a
statement
that
I
think
I
might
speak
from
all
of
the
board
because
I
think
they're
copied
on
it
but
received
a
kind
of
a
threatening
letter
in
that
that,
if,
if
we
found
them
guilty,
then
we
would
be
part
of
a
lawsuit,
and
I
just
want
to
go
on
the
record
that
that
it
doesn't
bother
me
a
bit,
and
I
I
see
I
see
my
duty
as
you
explained
it,
that
we
don't
make
ordinance.
We
enforce
the
ordinances
on
the
books.
K
G
E
G
G
G
N
N
G
G
G
So
so
the
condition
is
that
the
the
in
this
in
the
case,
that
will
be
cases
that
will
be
coming
before
you
is
with
respect
to
indecent
speech
and
that
and
the
testimony
would
need
to
be
in
order
to
make
the
violation
that
it's
legible
from
a
public
right
way
or
within
public
space
and
can
potentially
be
viewed
by
children
under
the
age
of
17..
So
there's
a
you
know,
there's
a
qualifier
there
and
based
on
the
evidence
and
testimony
that's
presented.
L
I'm
asking
that
I'm
asking
for
this
is
that
the
content
of
the
sign
determines
what
regulates
them
as
opposed.
So,
for
instance,
if
you
have
a
sign,
that's
a
political
sign,
it
can
be
a
certain
size
if
you
have
a
sign
that
you're
trying
to
sell
real
estate.
That
can
be
a
different
size.
So
you're
saying
that
this,
that
the
sign
ordinance
is
based
upon
the
content
in
these
in
in
the
second.
G
H
E
Well,
I
think
we're
going
way
outside
of
the
bounds
of
what
we
we
as
we
sit
on.
This
board
are
here
to
do,
there's
an
ordinance
it's
on
the
books
and
if
someone
violated
the
ordinance
we're
going
to
look
at
if
they
violate,
if
they
violate
it,
we're
going
to
find
them
guilty.
If
they
didn't,
we
find
them
innocent.
G
I
Is
there
any
weight
to
the
argument
in
the
emails
that
we
got,
that
one
of
the
words
is
an
acronym
because
they
put
f
period,
u
period
c
period,
k
period
on
the
sign
and
they're
claiming
that's
an
acronym
for
something
completely
different?
Is
there
any
weight
given
to
that?
Well,
are
they
still
cited
for
that
sign.
G
For
your,
maybe
maybe
it's
not
next
week-
it's
next
month,
but
but
I'm
comfortable
that
that,
if,
if
the
letters
are
are
legible,
maybe
that
even
the
period
in
between
the
letters
is
not
legible.
But
if
the
letters
are
legible,
then
it
is
a
violation,
potential
violation
of
the
ordinance.
We
had
a
gentleman
come
in
before
the
city
council
meeting
last
wednesday,
who
had
on
his
shirt
fuk
and
in
discussion
with
the
police
chief.
G
G
If
the
graphics
were
clear
in
depicting
sexual
activity,
as
it's
defined
in
our
our
ordinance
with
respect
to
indecent
speech,
then
he
could
have
been,
and
while
many
of
us
could
have
seen
those
silhouettes
and
interpreted
in
our
brains,
what
was
being
depicted
there,
that
would
involve
a
little
bit
of
interpretation
and
I
don't
think
it
was
as
clear
as
I
mean
they
could
have
been
fully
clothed
people
engaging
in
exercise.
You
know
that
would
be
the
argument
and
I
didn't
want
to
leave
it
to
any
type
of
argument
like
that.