►
From YouTube: Code Enforcement Board September 12, 2019
Description
Description
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
E
B
C
B
F
Heavenly
Father,
we
come
humbly
before
you
at
a
time
of
sorrow.
The
death
of
Jim
Archer
burdens
our
hearts,
a
burden
shared
throughout
the
city
of
Turpan
Springs.
We
pray
that
you
will
comfort
Becky
and
welcome
Jim
into
your
heavenly
kingdom.
We
were
hopeful
that
your
grace
and
love
will
be
with
the
archer
family,
and
those
present
here
today
was
sharing
their
pain
and
loss.
This
week
break.
B
It's
the
intention
of
this
board
to
promote
and
protect
improve
the
health,
safety
and
welfare
of
the
citizens
of
Tarpon
Springs
by
providing
an
equitable,
effective
and
inexpensive
method
of
enforcing
various
codes
within
the
tart
city
of
Turpan
spring.
Any
aggravated
party
may
appeal
a
final
administrative
order
of
this
board
to
the
Circuit
Court
to
be
appealed
or
statute
to
86.0
1:05
requires
any
party
appealing
a
decision
of
this
board
to
have
a
record
of
the
proceedings
and
to
support
such
an
appeal.
A
procedure
of
the
board
is
as
follows.
B
Secondly,
the
alleged
violator
is
allowed
to
make
a
presentation
and
present
his
or
her
witnesses
and
exhibits,
and
then
the
city
can
question
the
alleged
violators
witnesses
after
rounds
of
testimony
both
of
the
part
of
the
city
and
on
the
part
of
the
alleged
violator.
Each
party
is
asked
to
give
a
closing
argument
first
by
the
city
and
then
by
the
alleged
violator
after
those
three
steps
are
done,
are
taken
sorry,
this
board
will
close
the
public
hearing
portion
of
this
case
to
discuss
it
and
to
take
appropriate
actions.
B
B
H
G
G
The
correct
parcel
number
is
13
27:15
6
4
9
4
4
2
0,
0,
0,
0
100.
All
the
previous
notices
went
to
the
correct
property
owner.
They
just
had
a
discrepancy
in
the
parcel
number
on
there
and-
and
it
resulted
in
some
paperwork
problems,
so
we're
requesting
that
that
record
be
corrected.
So
the
board
would
have
to
do
an
order
to
change
that
parcel
number.
So
a
new
order
could
be
issued
with
the
correct
parcel
number.
So
it's
basically
quashing
the
previous
order,
I
believe
just
amending
it
amending
it.
I
J
C
K
H
B
B
F
G
Right,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
This
is
case
number
19,
8,
0,
0,
0,
0,
4
77.
The
property
address
is
1,
0
0,
a
culture
in
court,
property
owners,
David
and
Tammy
flowers,
I'm
officer
Steve,
Gaston
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
Police
Department
code
enforcement
exhibit
number
one
going
before
the
border.
All
my
photographs
that
were
taken
exhibit
number
two,
all
the
notices
of
violation
and
Notice
of
Hearing,
the
exhibit
number
3
going
before
the
board
or
administrative
documents
case.
Summary
property,
appraiser
and
tax,
collector
records
and
half
exhibit
number
four.
G
Is
the
affidavit
of
posting
and
a
copy
of
the
sign,
all
the
photographs
and
exhibits
that
were
given
to
the
violator,
exact
copies
of
what's
being
presented
to
the
board.
All
of
my
notices
were
mailed
to
the
property
owner
of
record
is
determined
by
the
Pinellas
County
property,
appraiser
and
tax
collector
databases,
all
notice
of
violations,
a
notice
of
hearing
or
sent
both
return
receipt
requested
as
well
as
first-class
mail
and
mr.
chairman,
please
accept
all
these
exhibits
into
the
record
as
evidence.
C
G
You
our
office
has
had
contact
with
the
owner
via
phone.
The
original
case
started
on
July
12th
of
this
year
when
I
conducted
the
initial
inspection.
The
complaint
was
guarding
cars
with
no
tags.
When
I
conducted
my
inspection,
there
were
three
vehicles
on
the
property.
Jeep
SUV,
backed
in
appears
to
be
an
operative.
A
white
Ford
Expedition
with
Florida
tag,
0
1,
3,
0
qk.
Those
tags
are
expired
august,
1st
of
2015
a
black
Nissan
with
Florida
tag,
jzr
d28
that
had
expired
tags
of
7
for
2019.
G
There
was
trash
and
debris
on
the
property.
There
was
a
broken
front
window
and
another
window
that
was
boarded
up
on
July
15th.
The
Notice
of
Violation
was
mailed.
It
was
returned
unclaimed
on
August,
9th
I
conducted
a
rien,
spec
ssin,
the
front
window,
the
window
and
fronting
up
yet
been
repaired.
The
trash
was
cleaned
up,
so
that
was
put
into
compliance.
The
white
Ford
was
still
there
with
expired
tags
and
the
other
vehicles
had
been
removed.
On
August
12th
of
this
year,
the
notice
of
hearing
was
mailed.
It
was
a
mail.
G
The
mail
was
returned
to
the
office
on
August
30th,
I
posted
the
property
and
signed
the
affidavit
of
posting
and
on
September
12th
I
conduct.
An
inspection
is
in
compliance.
It
looks
like
a
shelter
of
some
sort,
was
put
up,
kind
of
a
canvass,
looks
like
a
car
might
be
in
it,
but
I
can't
be
for
sure.
It's
not
an
enclosed
structure
and
the
white
Ford
that
was
the
last
of
the
vehicles
that
were
in
violation
was
gone
and
broken
front
window
had
been
repaired.
G
So
as
of
this
time,
all
of
the
violations
before
the
city
are
in
compliance,
but
I
am
wishing
to
establish
them
for
violation
of
city
code,
eight
dash
22,
which
is
the
accumulation
of
trash,
a
dash
40
the
duty
to
maintain
private
property,
8
52
nuisance
prohibitions,
primarily
overgrown
debris.
Things
like
that
40.00,
which
deals
with
the
parking
storage
of
abandoned
vehicles,
which
also
includes
vehicles
with
expired
tags
and
international
property.
G
Well,
actually,
the
adoption
of
city
code
6-1,
which
adopts
the
2018
version,
international
property
maintenance
code
and,
under
that
section
of
IPM
c30
4
1-3,
which
is
windows
and
door
frames,
deals
with
you
have
to
have
the
proper
glazing
material.
Your
windows
have
to
function,
those
kind
of
things
as
I
stated,
they're
all
currently
in
compliance
and
I'm
just
pushing
the
board
to
establish
those
violations.
L
L
G
The
coat
yes,
it's
two
parts
to
that
that
that
section
of
the
International
property
of
maintenance
code
has
like
four
sentences
in
it.
Not
read
it
to
you,
just
so
I
understand,
but
we
did
send
it
to
you.
Okay,
so
I
did
deal
with
every
window.
Other
than
fixed
window
shall
be
easily
open,
a
bowl
and
capable
of
being
maintained
in
a
position
by
window
hardware.
That's
under
that
section
as
well.
G
So,
yes,
you
did
fix
the
glazing
material
in
the
window,
which
would
be
to
the
left
looking
at
the
house,
but
then
the
other
window
still
had
some
sort
of
structure.
It
appears
to
be
boarded
up
or
not
in
a
operable
position
and
I
can
actually
bring
a
picture
that
up
that'd,
be
that's
with
it
broken
so
there's
boards
on
it
and
then
there.
So
let
me
bring
it
over.
This
screen
hang
on.
G
So
that
was
July
12th,
that
was
the
initial
inspection
and
then,
when
I
went
back
and
put
the
broken
window
in
compliance,
I
have
to
move
it
over
there,
so
stand
by
just
a
second
that
window
was
fixed,
so
what
was
left
was
basically
the
same
material.
This
was
here
on
the
other
window
and
I
do
understand.
D
L
L
Dog
did
break
that
window
and
it
was
ape
the
window
to
the
right
was
never
broken.
That
is
basically
fair,
because
my
dog
is
smart.
Enough
unlock
the
window
open
the
window
and
jump
out,
and
there
was
issues
through
where
the
county
was
coming
in,
because
the
dog
kept
on
getting
our.
That
is
the
only
way
to
keep
it
from
the
dog
opening
the
window
and
beating
okay.
G
But
I
read
you
the
code
that
says
open,
Abul
windows
every
window
other
than
a
fixed
window
shall
be
easily
open
a
bowl
and
capable
of
being
held
in
a
position
by
window
hardware.
So
when
I
conducted
that
re-inspection,
it
appears
that
this
can't
be
opened
I'm
just
hedging
my
bets
that
three
bars
being
bolted
into
the
window
frame
and
into
the
window
itself,
pretty
much
means
it
can't
be
opened.
You
explained
it
that
you
have
a
dog
issue,
so
I
complied
it
okay,
because
that
was
reasonable.
G
It's
not
exactly
proper
and
it's
probably
not
the
best
way,
but
by
the
lesser
of
two
evils.
Having
your
dog
get
out
bites
somebody
or
whatever
the
case
may
be.
We
complied
that
the
window
is
fixed
and
we
complied
it.
It's
still
not
the
preferred,
but
it
it's
better
than
the
alternative.
So
that's
why
we
complied
it
after
you
explained
the
reason
why
that
was
done
so
and
it's
in
your
correct
from
what
you
state-
it's
not
broken
behind
it,
but
it
is
not
open
about.
L
G
G
I
can't
I,
don't
I,
don't
make
the
codes
I
just
enforce
the
codes
and
the
logic
behind
them.
I
can't
necessarily
tell
you
the
reason,
probably
because
I
have
no
earthly
idea.
Why,
but
that's
what
the
code
says
and
that's
what
I
enforce
so
and
you
know
like
in
the
picture
and
I
ran
the
tag
again
it
for
what
it's
worth
from
where
it
was
parked
before.
G
It
was
very
easy
for
me
to
see
the
tag,
and
then
somebody
made
an
effort
to
back
it
up
very
close
to
a
trailer,
probably
an
attempt
to
cover
that
up.
That's
my
opinion,
because
you
could
see
what
I
was
able
to
get
with
a
zoom
camera
was
I
was
still
able
to
see.
The
tag
was
expired
later
on,
and
then
it's
been
moved
and
I
assume
it's
probably
underneath
that
canopy
or
whatever-
and
if
that
is
the
case,
it's
still
technically
a
violation,
but
I
can't
see
what's
inside
of
it.
G
So
the
vehicles
not
there,
but
if
it
is
in
there
it's
not
an
enclosed
structure
and
it
is
still
technically
a
violation.
So
if
that
thing
comes
apart
in
the
vehicles,
they're
on
for
you're
gonna
still
be
in
violation
of
that
code,
that's
all
I
can
tell
you
is
it
requires
those
two
things
operable
and
current
tags
so
I
know
the
state
will
allow
you
to
suspend
the
registration
on
a
vehicle,
but
that's
something
you
have
to
bring
up
with
DHS
MB.
G
G
In
compliance,
you
got
rid
of
it
within
the
prescribed
period
of
time
in
your
compliance
I'm
just
establishing
it.
It's
a
broad,
it's
a
broad
definition
of
debris,
which
was
included
with
your
Notice
of
Violation.
It
encompasses
a
lot
of
things.
The
tree
branches
were
only
one
aspect
of
that
I
believe
you
had
a
bunch
of
stuff
kind
of
now
where
that
canopy
is
that
looked
like
it
might
have
been
unused
equipment,
or
things
like
that.
G
So
it's
kind
of
reasonable
to
think
if
you
cut
them
down
on
Sunday,
if
they're
out
at
the
curb
tied
up
and
ready
to
go
I'm
not
going
to
violate
you
for
that,
based
on
the
way
those
looked
I'm,
not
an
arborist
she's
sitting
behind
me,
but
I'm
thinking
they
were
cut
down
more
than
a
day
before,
just
because
of
their
color
and
everything
so
but
again,
you're
in
compliance
of
that
as
well.
You
are
in
you
are
not
in
violation
of
Eddie
city
code
at
this
moment
in
time.
G
Well,
even
debris
is
actually
defined,
as
well
as
in
operable
vehicles,
boats,
trailers,
things
like
that,
so
we
have
not
only
4000
for
unregistered
vehicles.
This
is
also
considered
debris
under
the
city
code.
You
know
the
radiator
sitting
on
top
of
it.
Yes,
it's
gone,
I
understand
that
so
it's
kind
of
all
of
those
things,
not
necessarily
just
one
thing.
I
took
a
photograph
of
multiple
things,
and
this
can
as
well
be
considered
debris
I.
Believe
you
cleaned
all
this
stuff
up
over
here
on
the
side.
D
L
No
that
covers
it,
I
mean
that
the
only
issue
like
I
says
the
expedition
is
when
my
son
comes
back.
I
currently
have
there's
four
vehicle:
I
have
the
Jeep
that
I
Drive,
the
black
car
that
my
wife
drives,
which
are
both
registered
insured
continuously
I,
have
another
vehicle
in
Washington
State,
when
my
son's
over
there
base
and
the
expedition
when
he
comes
here
that
he
drives.
G
If
the
Board
finds
that
there
was
a
violation
at
that
time,
what
happens
is
if
there
for
the
next
period
of
five
years?
If
there's
another
violation,
you
won't
necessarily
get
a
notice
of
violation.
The
same
way.
Fines
can
immediately
start
that
day,
so
it
basically
becomes
your
responsibility
to
make
sure
none
of
those
violations
occur
for
the
next
five
years.
So
that's
because
then,
technically
you
become
what's
called
a
repeat
violator.
So
as
of
right
now,
there's
no
fines
or
anything
like
that.
G
I
Move
based
on
the
testimony
evidence
facts
presented
in
the
law
that,
at
the
time
of
the
alleged
violation
sections
forty
point:
oh
oh
six,
point
one
of
the
building
code,
an
IP
MC
code.
Three,
oh
four
point
one
three
of
the
Code
of
Ordinances
of
the
city
of
Tarpon
Springs
was
in
force
in
effect
and
at
the
the
Notice
of
Violation.
The
respondents
were
in
violation
of
said,
code
sections.
However,
they
are
now
in
compliance.
E
F
F
C
F
Sir
you've
been
found
that,
in
violation
of
code
sections,
40.00
6-1
and
I
PMC,
which
is
international
property
maintenance
code,
section
three
or
four
point
one
three,
there
will
be
an
order
entered
reflecting
that
in
the
next
ten
days,
it'll
be
provided
to
you
at
the
same
address
listed
by
the
property
appraiser
in
tax
collector's
office.
If
you're
found
to
be
in
violation
of
those
three
code,
sections
again
in
the
next
five
years
would
be
deemed
a
repeat
violator,
as
mentioned
by
Officer
gassin.
F
So
it's
very
important
that
you
make
sure
that
you're
in
compliance
at
all
times
there
are
no
fines
associated.
There
are
no
prosecution
costs
associated
with
this.
So
if
you
stay
and
maintain
compliance,
there
will
be
no
other
issues,
at
least
for
the
next
five
years
on
your
property.
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank.
B
J
M
Is
case
number
nineteen
dash
eight
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero
five
four
eight,
the
property
address
is
one
seven
zero
to
Mexico
Avenue,
the
violator
of
record
is
Genesee
and
rez
and
William
perrito.
This
is
a
repeat
violator
case
for
case
number.
Eighteen,
eight,
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
five,
seven
three,
which
was
found
in
violation
of
section
133,
zero
to
on
that
case
it
was
complied
before
the
$25
a
day.
Fine
could
start
yet
the
prosecution
costs
of
one
hundred
and
sixty
seven
dollars
and
fifty
cents
are
still
owed.
M
I'm
Shannon
brewer
I'm,
currently
employed
by
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
I'm,
an
is
a
certified
arborist.
My
license
number
is
FL
nine,
two
one,
a
I'm,
also
an
FN
and
LG.
A
certified
horticultural
professionals
license
number
H,
nine,
seven,
eight
four
zero
two
Xzibit
one
for
you
today
will
be
all
my
photos.
Exhibit
2
is
the
notices
to
include
the
Nov
and
and
OHS
exhibit
three.
Is
my
admin
Doc's
to
include
the
case
summary
previous
board
orders
and
property
appraiser
and
tax
collector
records?
M
The
asset
exhibit
four
is
the
affidavit
of
posting
and
a
copy
of
the
sign
exhibit
5
is
the
affidavit
of
prosecution
costs.
All
the
notices
were
mailed
to
the
property
owner
of
record,
as
determined
by
the
Pinellas
County
property
appraiser,
and
the
tax
collector
database,
all
the
nov
s
and
n
OHS
were
sent
return,
receipt
requested
and
first-class
mail.
Please
accept
all
these
exhibits
into
record
as
evidence.
N
M
You
ready,
okay,
this
case,
like
I
said,
is
to
establish
a
repeat
violator.
The
first
case
came
from
November
of
2018
dead
trees
recited
by
the
code
board.
At
that
time.
The
tree
that's
under
consideration
today
was
alive.
As
of
the
end
of
july
2019,
a
citizen
complaint
came
into
the
office,
stating
a
dead
pine
was
behind
the
home
at
1702
mexico
avenue.
Upon
inspection
august
5th,
I
confirmed
the
complaint
Exhibit
one
for
you.
My
photographs
were
taken
by
me
and
was
a
fair
and
accurate
representation
of
the
condition
of
the
property.
M
When
I
took
that
photo,
the
large
main
leader
had
snapped
out
of
the
tree,
causing
the
top
to
be
very
top-heavy
on
one
side,
the
bark
appeared
to
be
falling
off
the
remaining
branches,
which
would
have
been
the
canopy
of
the
tree.
The
property
was
out
of
compliance
of
ordinance,
one
3302
due
to
the
dead
tree
being
hazardous
to
persons
and
property.
Since
this
is
a
repeat
violator,
the
repeat,
violator
notice
of
hearing
was
sent
out
that
day,
August
29th
the
property
was
posted
and
the
affidavit
of
posting
was
signed.
M
August
30th,
a
phone
call
was
received
from
the
owner,
miss
Sandra's
inquiring.
If
a
permit
would
be
required
for
removal
of
the
dead
tree
under
the
new
Florida
statute,
when
six
3.04
five
a
permit
was
not
required,
since
I
am
an
arborist
and
my
notice
did
state
that
the
tree
was
hazardous
on
September
10th,
the
email
was
received
from
the
owner
stating
the
tree
was
removed.
The
next
morning,
I
inspected
and
confirmed,
the
removal
was
complete
and
the
property
was
in
compliance
or
is
now
in
compliance.
M
M
K
F
M
F
M
B
M
That
is
true.
I
did
you
actually
went
to
on
the
10th
in
the
morning
of
for
a
rien
spec
ssin
as
in
preparation
of
this,
and
then
they
must
have
done
the
work
that
afternoon,
because
I
went
out
very
early
in
the
morning
on
the
10th,
so
that
was
done
on
the
10th
and
then
the
email
came
in.
I
was
not
at
the
job,
because
I
was
after
hours
and
then
on
the
11th
morning
of
very
early
I
went
and
I
did
my
reinfection.
I
I
You
September
10th
of
2019
in
a
fine
of
$25
per
day
for
35
days
and
that
total
fine
would
be
three
hundred
and
fifty
dollars.
In
addition,
I
moved
that
the
city
be
awarded
a
hundred
and
thirty
two
dollars
in
prosecution
costs,
which
reflects
excuse
me
two
hundred
and
thirty-two
dollars
in
prosecution
costs,
which
reflects
the
previous
amount
owed
and
the
additional
amount
all.
F
Right
before
you
have
that
second,
on
that
motion,
there
is
no
evidence
in
this
case
that
they've
incurred
two
hundred
and
thirty-two
dollars
in
prosecution
costs.
In
this
case
the
evidence
says
they
incurred
sixty
four
dollars
and
fifty
cents
worth
of
prosecution
costs.
The
prosecution
costs
in
the
prior
case
would
have
been
included
in
the
prior
order,
so
it
would
be
a
duplicate
of
prosecution
cost.
So
I
would
caution
you
to
only
assess
the
6450
that
is
currently
being
testified
to
in
affidavit
form.
E
O
F
Sorry,
I,
don't
keep
that'll
mean
to
keep
it
up
interrupting
you,
but
if
it
is,
is
that
you
dispute
what
they
say?
Well
then
you
have
the
opportunity
to
cross-examine
on
that,
but
I'm
looking
for
is
whether
or
not
there
any
legal
objections
like
relevancy
hearsay
authentication,
those
types
of
legal
arguments,
the.
O
G
G
Steve
Gaston
city
of
Turpan,
Springs,
Police
Department
code
enforcement
case
before
the
board
is
case.
Number
nineteen
dash
eight
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero
five
five
five,
the
property
address,
is
two
zero
one:
North
Pinellas
Avenue
owned
by
area
Nana:
pets
elitists.
This
is
a
repeat
violator
case
and
there's
a
few
prior
cases
that
establish
it
as
such,
starting
out
with
case
number
19.
Eight
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
four
eighty
four,
which
was
for
a
violation
of
city
code,
eight
40
and
eight
52.
G
At
that
time,
this
board
found
a
fine
of
$75
per
day
and
as
of
September
10th,
that
fine
is
forty-three
hundred
fifty
four
dollars
and
fifty
cents
and
it
is
still
not
in
compliance.
Another
repeat:
violator
cases,
19-8
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
three
nine
six.
It
also
is
for
city
codes,
8
40
and
8
52.
That
was
also
$75
per
day
for
a
total
of
two
thousand
five
hundred.
G
Eighty
four
dollars,
also
not
paid
repeat
violator
for
case
number:
eighteen,
eight,
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
six,
nine,
two
thousand
of
city
codes;
eight
forty
six,
one
130
302,
36.0
three
and
ipm
c30
2.7.
That
was
twenty.
Five
dollars
per
day
for
a
total
of
three
hundred
sixty
six
dollars,
also
not
paid
last
one
is
a
repeat
violator
case
number.
Sixteen,
eight
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero.
Three
eight
seven.
G
It
was
also
a
violation
of
city
code,
eight
49,
one
and
I
PMC,
three,
zero,
three
point,
one
that
one
was
simply
established
and
there
was
no
fines
assessed,
exhibit
number
one
going
before
the
board
are.
All
of
my
photos
exhibit
number
two
are
all
my
notices
to
include
the
Notice
of
Violation
and
notice
of
hearings,
tip
number
three
administrative
documents
case
summary
previous
board
orders
and
property
appraiser
and
tax
collector
records
exhibit
number
four.
Is
the
affidavit
of
posting
in
a
copy
of
the
sign
and
exhibit
number
five?
G
Is
the
affidavit
of
prosecution
costs
this
case
and
I'm?
Sorry,
all
the
photographs
and
exhibits
that
were
given
to
the
violator
are
cop
are
exact
copies,
what's
being
presented
to
the
board,
all
the
notices
were
milled.
The
property
owner
of
record
is
determined
by
the
Pinellas
County
property
appraiser
and
tax
collector
databases,
I'll
notice.
The
violations
and
those
hearings
are
sent
both
return
receipt
requested
as
well
as
first-class
mail
and
mr.
chairman,
please
accept
all
these
exhibits
into
the
record
as
evidence.
B
E
F
Should
be
moved
along
as
to
the
other
evidence,
mr.
Petts
lettuce
has
made
some
arguments
and
I
just
want
to
address
them
to
help
you
so
dates,
dates
and
accuracy
of
the
documents
themselves,
that
that
is
not
an
appropriate
legal
objection.
He
can
cross-examine
on
those
and
and
testify
as
to
what
the
correct
dates
are
on
the
accuracy
or
inaccuracy
of
those
are.
F
As
for
the
late
receipt
of
the
evidence,
although
that
may
be
a
strong
argument,
because
he
has
not
had
the
opportunity
to
review
them,
we
can
give
them
as
much
time
as
possible
to
to
review
them
now
if
he
wants.
But
my
advice
to
you
is
is
to
go
ahead
and
receive
both
of
those
into
evidence
over
the
objection
of
mr.pat
selita's,
because
those
are
not
true
legal
objections.
G
G
You
can
see
in
the
photograph
on
the
board,
which
also
went
around
to
one
North.
Pinellas
is
kind
of
an
interesting
address.
It
actually
has
two
separate
buildings
on
it.
This
is
the
building
and
that's
behind
the
main
one,
that's
actually
on
Pinellas
Avenue,
but
there
are
all
the
same
parcel.
So
this
was
called
in
by
the
city
from
the
waste
management
division.
They
apparently
got
a
complaint
from
waste
management
because
waste
management
was
going
to
pick
up
trash.
They
contact
the
city
city,
contacted
me,
I
started
a
case
on
it.
G
Put
in
on
August
7th,
they
think
that's
when
the
original
case
was
called
into
the
office.
I
didn't
conduct
the
inspection
until
as
I
testified,
August
9th
and
as
I
found
a
large
amount
of
trash
and
debris
on
the
south
side
of
the
building
on
August
12th,
the
Notice
of
Violation
notice,
a
hearing
and
a
repeat,
violent
violation,
notice
hearing
were
mailed,
the
green
card
was
returned
sign.
The
inspection
was
conducted
on
Friday
mail
had
already
gone
out
when
the
clerk
got
email
to
send
the
repeat
violator
notice.
G
Hence
the
weekend
delay
on
August
27th
I
conducted
a
rien,
spec
ssin,
and
it
was
in
compliance.
We
use
the
date
of
August
16th,
because
the
property
owner
requested
a
reinfection
on
that
date
and
stated
it
was
in
compliance,
so
I
conducted
the
inspection
on
August
27th
found
that
it
was
in
compliance.
So
the
period
of
time
it
was
out
of
compliance
was
from
August
9th
until
August
16th
posted
the
property
in
August
30th
and
signed
the
affidavit
of
posting.
G
So
we
find
that
it
is
in
violation
for
a
repeat
violator
from
the
date
of
the
initial
spec
ssin
on
August
9th
until
it
was
complied
on.
August
16th
and
it
was
first
violations
of
city
code,
822
accumulation
of
trash,
8,
40
duty
to
maintain
private
property
and
8
52,
which
primarily
dealt
with
debris.
And
at
this
point
that's
all
the
city
has.
B
B
O
I
don't
know
if
this
is
an
appropriate
question
to
ask
regarding
the
exhibits
right
now,
just
like
questions
yeah
yeah,
the
exhibit
I
got
today
shows
the
complaint,
as
officer
Gaston
just
stated
that
it
was
submitted,
I
guess
from
waste
management.
However,
the
complaint
that
I
received
originally
does
not
have
any
of
that
information
in
it
at
all.
G
Many
many
people
call
in
complaints
by
state
law.
I
have
to
witness
the
complaint.
Therefore,
the
violation
is
me
witnessing
it.
The
complaint
from
city
crew
or
whatever
stating
there
was
trash,
was
two
days
previously
I
went
out
and
saw
that
their
complaint
was
in
fact
true.
So
it's
not
a
disconnect
I'm
the
one
issuing
a
notice.
That's.
G
G
O
G
G
O
O
O
G
N
O
O
O
G
O
D
G
O
G
O
B
J
B
G
O
D
G
Don't
think
that's
what
it
says
it
doesn't
say
about
leering.
It
says
you're
responsible.
It
says
it
shall
be
unlawful
for
any
person
to
permit
or
allow
any
of
the
debris,
trash
or
rubbish
mentioned
in
821
to
accumulate
or
remain
upon
the
property
located.
So
I
believe
you
allowed
it
to
accumulate
and/or
remain
because
it
clearly
was
there
and
it
was
remaining
so
yes,
I,
believe
you
violated
that
City
Oregon
all
right.
G
O
G
8
40
encompasses
a
38.
The
definitions
of
a
38
include
nuisances,
injures
and
dangerous.
The
comfort,
repose
health
or
safety
of
others
unlawfully
interferes
with
obstructs
or
tends
to
obstruct
or
renders
dangerous
for
passage
in
a
public
or
private
street
highways.
Sidewalks
dream,
ditch
or
drainage
in
any
way
renders
other
persons
insecure
in
life
for
the
use
of
their
property,
or
essentially
interferes
with
the
comfortable
enjoyment
of
life
and
property,
or
tends
to
depreciate
the
value
of
the
property
of
others.
G
G
O
G
Trash
well,
it
has
to
do
with
debris,
so
the
definition
of
debris
under
851
which
850
50:52
encompasses
abandoned,
inoperable
or
unusable
material.
We
can
probably
stop
there,
but
if
you'd
like
I'll,
keep
going
equipment
or
other
machinery
or
other
material
equipment
or
machinery
which
is
stored
externally
or
other
material
equipment
or
machinery
that
is
stored
or
maintained
in
such
a
fashion,
so
as
to
create
a
nuisance
as
described
in
850
and
if
you'd
like
I
can
get
to
that.
No.
O
L
O
O
G
G
G
O
G
B
O
D
G
That
to
answer
your
question:
no
I'm
not
pressing
award
in
any
way
shape
or
form,
because
you
are
the
property
owner
and
you
have
been
established
as
a
repeat
violator.
So
yes,
the
the
the
notice
of
hearing
repeat
violator,
says
the
property
has
been
previously
established,
that's
because
of
your
ownership
of
that
property.
So
that
is
a
true
statement.
D
O
G
O
G
G
Florida
State
statute,
316
or
I'm
sorry,
162,
0,
4,
subsection,
5
states,
a
repeat
violation-
means
a
violation
of
a
provision
of
the
code
or
ordinance
by
a
person
who
has
been
previously
found
through
a
code
enforcement
board
or
any
other
quasi
judicial
or
judicial
process
to
have
violated
or
who
has
admitted
violating
the
same
provisions
within
5
years
prior
to
the
violation.
Notwithstanding,
the
violations
occur
at
different
locations.
Notwithstanding
that
they
occurred
at
different
locations.
I.
O
F
O
O
G
G
Was
done
before
we
came
here
if
it
wasn't
a
repeat
violator
which,
by
law
we
have
to
post
that
fact
doesn't
change.
We
were
posting
that
property,
regardless
if
it
was
a
new
violation.
First
time
we
ever
been
a
first
time
year
at
our
violation.
You
came
into
compliance,
we
wouldn't
be
here
and
there
wouldn't
be
an
affidavit
of
cost.
This
is.
G
I
wouldn't
be
here:
if
I
didn't
do
it,
nor
would
you
so?
Yes,
it's
a
very
simple
thing.
When
we
make
the
sign
I
swear
out
the
affidavit.
Yes,
I'm
posting
an
August
30th.
If
I
didn't
a
new
affidavit
would
have
been
completed.
We
have
it
scheduled
when
it's
going
to
occur
and
I
swear
that
that's
when
it's
gonna
occur
and
it
did
occur
on
that
date
and,
yes,
it
was
on
August
12th,
because
that's
when
we
incurred
the
cost
of
your
sign.
So
that's
a
true
statement,
but.
G
O
Under
ordinance,
8
13,
it
says
only
city
may
collect
and
dispose
all
solid
waste
and
residential
curbside
recycling.
Lated
in
the
city
shall
be
collected,
conveyed
and
disposed
of
by
the
city.
No
other
person
shall
collect
convey
over
any
of
the
streets
or
alleys
of
the
city
or
dispose
of
any
solid
wastes
or
recyclables
accumulated
in
the
city.
G
All
right
well,
my
objective
would
be
the
relevance
of
ATS
13,
because
the
definition
of
the
waste
materials
also
includes
means
and
include
sand
lumber,
stone,
bricks,
cement,
roofing
and
other
refuse
materials
usually
left
from
a
construction
project.
That's
one
thing:
it's
a
residential
customer
which
I
believe
this
is
a
commercial
property
and.
G
F
Whether
or
not
you
want
to
accept
them,
my
advice
to
mr.
chairman
is
is
to
accept
both
into
evidence.
Mr.
pass
lease
is
making
an
argument
that
you
know
mitigation
type
argument
that
he
couldn't
do
it
because
of
the
fact
that
it's
not
allowed
so
I
think
it's
appropriate
for
you
to
accept
into
evidence
that
copy
of
the
code.
Normally
we
don't
accept
code
provisions
and
evidence.
We
just
do
what
we
call
them
judicial
notice.
F
F
F
G
This
is
a
22
which
is
already
documented
in
the
case,
so
I
have
no
objection
to
exhibit
number
three
seven
number
four
is
eight.
Forty
exhibit
number
five
is
city
ordinance,
eight
52,
six,
one
and
nine
wandering
here.
I
have
no
objection,
they're
completely
irrelevant
to
the
case,
but
we've
already
kind
of
established
that
we'll
take
some
other
ordinances.
So
I
have
no
objection
to
that.
G
G
G
F
O
Eight
22,
which
you
have
as
an
exhibit
again
says
it,
shall
be
unlawful
for
any
person
you
permit
or
allow
any
debris
trash
to
emulate
or
remain
upon
private
property
located
in
the
city
when
the
same
as
hazardous,
the
health,
safety
or
any
of
the
inhabitants
of
the
city.
So
I
bring
this
up
because
I
and
I'll
summarize
it,
but
after
being
notified
of
what
happened,
I
immediately
called
contacted
the
city
and
they
contacted
waste
management,
who's,
the
sole
source
trash
picker
and
they
came
out
and
tried
to
pick
up
all
the
trash
and
debris.
O
O
That
day
and
I
had
to
address
that
issue
and
then
call
the
city
back,
and
then
they
came
the
next
day
and
removed
the
trash
again.
So
I
did
everything
I
could
to
address
this
issue.
I
do
not
feel
that
I
had
control
other
than
calling
the
city
and
resolving
this
and
I
do
not
feel
that
I
should
be
fined
in
any
way
or
found
in
violation.
Since
I
did
everything
according
to
what's
outlined
by
the
city,
regulations
and
ordinances,
I.
G
O
G
O
That's
because
I
didn't
even
know
there
was
a
violation:
I
didn't
even
get
the
violation
until
August
16th,
which
was
after
everything,
was
completely
resolved
per
your
exhibit,
and
you
show
the
post
office
delivery
date.
I
didn't
get
it
until
after
I
had
already
resolved
everything.
Then
I
got
the
notice
in
the
mail.
So,
okay,
everything
had
been
done
by
the
time.
I
was
notified
by
Tarpon
Springs
code
enforcement.
That
I
was
in
violation.
Okay,.
G
G
D
O
G
G
O
G
Ok,
sir,
that's
fine.
Have
you
ever
been
here
when
mr.
Trask
is
explained
to
you
that
for
the
next
five
years
you
would
be
considered
a
repeat
violator
and
you
should
probably
maintain
your
property
matter
of
fact.
I
believe
last
code
board.
Mr.
Trask
informed
you
on
the
record,
the
city
of
Tarpon
Springs
is
not
your
property
management
company.
Do
you
recall
that
statement
I.
G
G
O
D
O
G
O
The
waste
management
people
called
me
to
tell
me
that
they
couldn't
pick
up
the
dumpster,
because
somebody
had
overloaded
it
and
it
was
too
heavy
and
it
was
unsafe
to
pick
up
so
they
contacted
me
the
same
day
they
contacted
me.
I
went
over
there
and
looked
at
it
and
if
you
follow
the
chronology,
I
even
pulled
some
of
the
heavy
stuff
that
was
sticking
out
of
the
dumpster
personally
pulled
it
out
and
put
it
in
trash
cans
and
removed
it
from
that
area
so
that
they
could
pick
up
the
dumpster.
The
first.
B
G
It's
pretty
straightforward:
we've
been
here
numerous
times
before
for
violation
of
trash.
Mr.
Pat's
Elias
owns
the
property,
is
responsible
for
the
property,
there's,
obviously
trash
outside
the
property.
There's
a
violation
we
can
get
into
all
the
semantics
about
who
picks
it
up
or
what
not
you're
responsible
maintain
your
property.
The
fact
the
city
is
not
going
to
come
after
you
because
you
decide
to
clean
up
trash
after
your
property.
G
That's
a
little
bit
unrealistic,
then
also
there's
a
provision
in
an
ordinance
that
he
brought
up
under
813
that
says
otherwise
agreed
to
by
the
city.
He
made
no
effort
to
ask
the
city
if
he
could
have
somebody
else
remove
it,
because
if
he
would
have
called
me
and
said,
can
I
hire
somebody
to
haul
this
trash
out
of
here.
I
would
have
not
said
no
to
him.
So
it's
his
responsibility.
G
He
is
probably
more
educated
on
the
way
the
codes
work
in
this
city,
then
I
would
venture
to
guess
most
people
because
of
his
tenure
at
this
code
board.
So
we
continue
to
rehash
the
exact
same
things.
Mr.
Pat
selita's
has
owned
owned,
he's
aware
of
the
violations
and
the
city
contends
that
they
existed
and
he
took
a
period
of
time
to
clean
them
up
and
he
was
a
repeat
violator
for
that
period
of
time
and
that's
all
the
city
house.
B
O
Sir
summarize
I
would
like
to
thank
you
again,
I
think
it's
extremely
important
to
understand
that
I
did
not
even
receive
this
notice
of
violation
until
two
days
after
the
trash
had
been
cleaned
up.
The
only
notice
I
got
was
from
the
city
waste
management
telling
me
that
they
could
not
pick
up
the
dumpster,
because
there
it
was
overloaded
and
immediately
I
reacted
in
that
same
day
after
work,
I
went
there
and
personally
removed
items
and
fixed
the
dumpsters,
so
it
could
be
picked
up.
I
didn't
even
know
about
these
violations.
O
That
officer
gassen
is
talking
about
and
it's
my
responsibility.
I
took
my
responsibility
as
soon
as
I
was
notified
by
the
city.
I
immediately
started
addressing
the
issue
and
I
did
it
through
the
process.
That's
required
for
the
city,
ordinance
and
I.
Don't
feel
that
I
should
be
fined
or
found
in
violation
of
this
ordinance
based
on
my
actions
and
what
I
did
immediately
upon
being
notified,
not
by
code
enforcement
but
by
the
city,
and
then
I
worked
with
the
city
and
through
the
city
and
get
all
the
trash
and
debris
removed.
Thank.
I
Move
based
on
testimony
evidence,
facts
presented
in
law
that
the
respondent
mr.
Pratt's
ëletÃs,
was
in
violation
of
sections
8,
22,
8,
48-52
Brum,
and
I'm
going
to
give
you
two
days
on
this.
Although
your
testimony
waffled
on
this
somewhat,
waste-management
was
called
on
the
seventh,
but
the
city
is
not
siding
until
the
night,
so
I'm
going
to
begin
my
date
as
the
night
until
the
compliant
state,
which
is
the
16th,
so
that
sets
us
9
10.
D
O
I
And
the
compliance
was
this
16th
of
August
and
a
fine
of
$500
per
day
or
a
total
of
7
days,
and
that
seven
times
five
is
thirty-five
hundred
dollars.
In
addition,
I
move
that
the
City
be
awarded
$99,
but
the
costs
incurred
in
prosecuting
these
cases
and
I
would
also
hope
that
the
previous
fines
would
be
paid.
Thank
you
second.
F
F
G
G
I
F
E
A
F
A
A
B
E
F
H
Move
based
on
the
testimony,
evidence
and
facts
presented
and
the
law
that,
at
the
time
of
the
alleged
violation,
section
8
22
of
the
Code
of
Ordinances,
of
the
study
of
Tarpon
Springs,
was
in
full
force
in
effect
at
the
time
the
notice
of
violation
the
respondents
were
in
violation
have
said.
Both,
however,
are
now
in
compliance.
Second,.
E
G
You
officer
Steve
Gaston
city,
Tarpon,
Springs
Police,
Department
code
enforcement
case
before
the
board
19-8
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero.
Five
six
to
property
address
is
743
Bayshore
Drive
owned
by
Carol
Flanders.
This
is
a
repeat
violator
case.
The
previous
cases
were
case,
19-8,
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero
one,
eight,
zero
violation
of
the
same
codes,
a
dash
48-52,
the
fine
levied
at
that
time
by
the
city
was
twenty
five
dollars
per
day,
total
at
$295
$294,
which
was
paid
by
the
owner
repeat
violator
case
number.
G
Eighteen
dash,
eight,
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
six,
six,
two
violation
of
city
codes,
8-14
age
52:
it
was
complied
before
the
deadline.
There
was
a
$50
per
day,
fine
assessed
if
it
was
not
in
compliance
and
the
prosecution
costs
on
that
were
paid.
So
all
the
previous
findings
have
been
paid
by
the
owner
exhibit
number
one
going
before
the
board
or
all
the
photographs
exhibit
number
two.
G
All
my
notices
include
a
notice
of
violation
and
notice
of
hearing
exhibit
three
administrative
docs
case
summary
previous
board
orders,
property
tax
and
property
appraiser
records
exhibit
number
four
is
the
affidavit
of
posting
and
a
copy
of
the
sign
exhibit
number
five?
Is
the
affidavit
of
prosecution
costs
all
the
photographs
and
exhibits
that
were
given
to
the
violator,
the
exact
copies
of
what's
being
presented
to
this
board?
All
notices
were
mailed
to
the
property
owner
of
record
is
determined
by
the
Pinellas
County
property
appraiser
and
tax
collector
databases,
all
notice
of
violations.
G
G
The
code
enforcement
office
had
had
contact
with
the
owner
via
phone
call.
The
case
started
out
on
August
12th,
the
rear
yard
being
overgrown.
Part
of
the
rear
patio
is
falling.
Apart,
looks
to
possibly
be
a
hazard
from
the
complaint.
From
my
initial
inspection
on,
August,
12th
or
repeat,
violator
notice
of
hearing
was
mailed.
The
mail
was
returned
unclaimed
on
August
30th.
They
conducted
a
rien,
spec,
ssin
and
based
on
previous
conversations,
stating
that
the
property
was
taken
care
of
on
August
14,
so
on
August
30th,
they
inspected
it
and
it
was
in
compliance.
G
So
we
used
the
compliance
date
of
August
14th
for
the
violation
posted
the
property
on
August
30th
signed
the
affidavit,
as
stated
it's
a
repeat
violator
for
cases
or
sections
8
48-52,
and
you
can
see
from
the
photographs.
The
rear
yard
was
overgrown
and,
as
I
stated,
when
Irene
spected
it
had
been
taken
care
of
so
they're
no
longer
in
violation,
so
they
were
repeat
violator
for
a
period
of
time
from
August
12th
until
August
14th.
So
it
was
two
days
they
were
a
repeat
violator.
B
D
N
We
measure
we
mow
that
lawn
every
7
to
10
days.
Ok,
tarpon
springs,
received
22
inches
of
rain
in
July
15
inches
in
the
last
week.
This
is
an
area
which
has
a
low
spot
and
there
is
Sawgrass
which
just
loves
the
growth
every
10
days,
or
so
this
is
mowed.
This
is
a
property
that
cannot
be
visited
is
not
visible
from
the
street
sir.
There
is
one
individual,
very.
J
F
N
N
Okay,
the
second
photograph
that
he
had,
we
had
extensive
damage
from
Irma
and
we
are
still
in
the
process
of
litigating
this
with
the
insurance
company.
They
gave
us
a
partial
settlement
for
damage
to
the
roof.
However,
they've
denied
there
was
an
entire
property
had
been
fenced
in
all
of
the
fencing
had
been
blown
down,
I'm
sure.
If
officer
Gaskin
has
been
there
in
previous
times,
he
is
himself
can
tell
you
that
the
improvement
in
the
property
is
thousand
percent
over
what
it
is.
N
Particular
thing
that
he
said
was
part
of
the
back
porch.
We
went
back
there
and
we
secured
that
we
put
a
couple
of
pieces
of
2x4
in
there.
We
screwed
it
in
to
secure
it.
It's
an
area
which
is
not
accessible.
The
house
is
currently
unoccupied
and
we
are
looking
to
sell
the
property
so
we're
doing
the
maintenance.
N
It's
been
a
couple
of
months
since
we've
been
here
and,
like
I,
said
we're
in
there
every
7
to
10
days,
I
have
one
of
my
staff
take
my
lawnmower
and
go
over
there
and
mow
the
lawn
weather
permitting
and
July
was
an
absolutely
terrible
month.
I'm
in
the
rain,
I
mean
everybody.
Here
we
got
soaked
and
this
property
that
one
area
just
just
grows
and
grows
and
grows
well,
but.
P
N
Front
of
the
property,
the
the
neighbor
just
to
the
south
of
us
is
a
Pinellas
County
deputy.
We
had
given
him
a
1
foot
easement
on
the
property
so
that
he
could
put
his
trailer
in
and
in
exchange
for
that
he
mows
the
front
lawn
all
the
time
so
that
the
front
as
you
drove
by
from
the
street
because
I
you
know
I
understand
what
the
officer
had
said
regarding
another
particular
thing
that
jeez
look
at
that
mess.
How
would
you
like
that
across
your
house?
D
N
P
Pipe
underneath
the
foundation
had
broken
and
I
used,
the
others
Morgan
and
working
Versalles
about
if
you've
got
copper
pipes,
and
so
we
are
fighting
with
the
insurance
company
over
this
and
you
can't
live
in
a
house
without
water.
But
it's
still,
you
know,
I
go
there,
I
mean
we
go
there
every
single
day.
My
mail
is
there,
you
know,
and
so
I
am
in
compliance.
D
P
N
P
G
Very
quickly
the
board
can
see
by
the
picture.
There's
a
three-foot,
chain-link
fence.
You
know,
I'm,
leading
towards
two-thirds
of
that
three
foot.
High
fence
probably
puts
the
grass
somewhere
in
the
two-foot
range
I
mean
this
is
kind
of
what
I
have
we've
had
lots
of
discussions
about
trespassing
on
people's
property
unless
the
owners
of
743
Bay
Shore
give
me
blanket
consent
to
go
in
their
backyard,
we'll
be
more
than
happy
to
take
a
yard,
stick
with
me
and
measure
it
every
time.
I
I
H
A
F
So
mrs.
Flanders
you've
been
found
in
violation
of
those
two
code
section
as
a
repeat
violator,
8
48-52
you've
been
found
to
be
in
violation
from
August
12th
August
14th,
you've
been
fined
$50
a
day
and
you've
also
been
ordered
to
pay
prosecution
costs
of
the
city
of
$69.50.
That
order
will
be
entered
in
the
next
10
days
and
provided
to
you
by
mail
at
the
address
listed
by
the
tax
collector
of
property
appraiser,
you
have
any
questions
about
what
you
need
to
do
or
how
you
need
to
do
it
in
the
future.
B
B
B
G
Okay,
as
I
stated
case,
number
19,
eight
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
five.
Eighty.
This
is
a
vacant
lot
on
island
Drive
in
the
corner
of
Hill
Street
down
at
the
end
of
the
Sponge
Docks
property's
owned
by
an
investment
company
GSD
Investments
LLC.
It
is
a
repeat
violator
case
that
was,
from
a
2016
case,
2016
8,
to
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
six,
zero
for
violation
of
city
code,
eight
52
and
130
302.
At
the
time
a
fine
was
levied
by
the
city
at
a
hundred
dollars
per
day.
G
There
is
a
total
of
seventy
four
thousand
five
hundred
and
ten
dollars
that
are
still
unpaid
on
that
property
exhibit
number
one
going
before
the
board
or
all
of
the
photos
exhibit
number
two
are
all
the
notices
to
include
notice
of
violation
and
Notice
of
Hearing
administrative
documents.
Case
summary
previous
board
orders
and
property
appraiser
and
tax
collector
records
are
exhibit
number
three
exhibit
number
four
is
the
affidavit
of
posting
and
a
copy
of
the
sign
exhibit
number
five?
Is
the
affidavit
of
prosecution
costs?
G
All
my
notices
are
mailed
the
property
owner
of
record
based
upon
the
Pinellas,
County
property,
appraiser
and
tax
collector
databases.
All
my
notice
of
violations
and
notice
hearings
are
sent
return,
receipt
requested
as
well
as
first
class
mail.
Mr.
chairman,
please
accept
these
into
the
record
as
evidence.
B
G
Have
had
well,
we
haven't
had
contact
specifically
with
the
owner.
We
had
company,
we
had
contact
with
the
company
that
was
hired
clean
up
the
lot.
The
case
started
on
August
22nd,
our
27th
August
27
2018,
when
I
conducted
my
initial
inspection
as
I
stated,
it's
a
vacant
lot
on
the
northeast
corner,
Hill,
Street
and
Island
Drive.
G
Previously,
this
lot
was
completely
moded
is
greater
than
10,000
square
feet.
But
since
it's
been
previously
mowed,
it's
the
same
property
owner,
the
requirements
will
continually
to
be
mowed
and
it
wasn't
on
this
date
and
if
you
saw
the
pictures
going
around
or
I
can
put
them
up
on
the
board.
You
can
clearly
tell
that
the
property
hadn't
been
maintained.
G
The
notice
of
violation,
notice
of
hearing,
repeat
violator
notice
of
hearing
we're
all
mailed.
The
mail
was
returned
signed
on
August
30th.
They
posted
the
property
with
an
affidavit
of
posting,
also
signed
on
September
12th
I
conducted
the
final
inspection.
It
was
in
compliance,
the
maintenance
company
stated,
the
lawn
was
cut
on
9
5
and
the
vines
and
everything
for
the
violation
of
133
were
removed
on
9
9,
so
I
guess.
G
Ultimately,
the
final
compliance
date
would
be
9
9
for
everything,
the
city
codes
that
were
in
violation
rate,
48-52
and
130,
302
applicability
and
maintenance
of
trees.
The
vines
are
growing
up
into
the
trees
and
what
that
does,
as
eventually
those
vines
will
kill
off
any
of
the
trees,
so
that
ordinance
covers
that.
He
was
previously
cited
for
the
same
ordinance
and
as
I
stated.
However,
the
board
wants
to
entertain
it.
The
maintenance
company
cut
the
yard
on
95
but
removed
the
vines
on
9
9
since
they're
all
wrapped
up
into
the
same
case.
G
9
9
would
be
the
final
compliance
date
interesting
note:
we
received
a
phone
call
from
the
maintenance
company
that
was
hired
to
take
care
of
the
property
and
they
went
out
and
said
somebody
already
mowed
the
property,
so
it
got
taken
care
of
by
somebody.
We
just
don't
know
who,
because
apparently
it
wasn't
the
actual
maintenance
company
that
got
hired
to
take
care
of
the
property,
but
it
is
in
compliance
as
of
now
so
it
was
again
repeat:
violator,
August,
20,
SEC,
27th,
September,
9th
and
that's
all
the
city
has
at
this
time.
B
I
Separate
the
two
so
I
don't
make
that
mistake
again
we're
going
to
propose
the
new
violation.
First
I
move
that,
based
on
testimony
evidence
and
facts
presented
in
law,
that
at
the
time
of
the
alleged
violation,
section
8
40
of
the
Code
of
Ordinances,
that
the
city
of
Tarpon
Springs
was
in
force.
In
effect,
the
respondent
was
in
violation
thereof.
Second,.
E
J
I
G
A
I
H
O
E
I
E
E
K
F
Ok,
this
is
a
this
is
a
case.
That's
coming
back
for
determined
whether
or
not
you're
in
compliance
within
the
current
code,
we're
not
going
to
rehear
the
case
all
over
again,
so
the
code
enforcement
officer
is
going
to
testify
and
submit
into
evidence
an
affidavit
of
non-compliance
that
you
are
not
in
compliance
with
that
property
and
then
you'll
have
the
opportunity
to
discuss
that.
H
F
It
was
not
in
compliance
within
the
time
that
you
had
ordered
it
has
since
been
brought
into
compliance.
So
your
determine
on
this
affidavit
of
non-compliance
is
being
presented
to
you.
Did
they
come
into
compliance
within
the
the
time
that
you
ordered
and
if
they
did
not
come
into
compliance
within
that
time
frame?
You
need
to
accept
the
affidavit
of
compliance,
non-compliance,
I'm,
sorry,
non-compliance,
so.
G
I
Q
I
feel
that
we
were
in
compliance.
I
was
told
that
the
cars
had
to
run,
have
insurance
and
and
registration
and
I
have
proof
here
of
both
vehicles
with
all
with
insurance.
On
the
15th
I
have
the
picture
of
the
vehicle
in
the
street.
They
were
running
and
he's
going
to
show
a
picture
where
the
one
vehicle
was
locked
in
four-wheel
drive,
so
I
disconnected
the
the
front,
drive
shaft
there
and
that's
what
he
has
a
picture
of,
but
I
do
have
pictures
of
them
with
insurance
registration.
Q
Q
K
K
B
E
F
So,
just
to
summarize,
then,
although
you're
in
compliance
with
section
6-1
and
105.1
and
eight
52,
you
were
not
in
compliance-
is
section
40.00.
As
of
the
compliance
date
of
August,
15th
I,
understand
that
you
have
been
since
then,
and
that
will
come
up
that
affidavit
will
be
considered
by
the
code
enforcement
board
next
month.
F
So
the
Cota
force
of
award
is
awarded
prosecution
costs
in
the
case
of
164
dollars
will
be
an
order,
entered
you'll,
be
entered
within
the
next
10
days
and
provided
to
you
at
the
address
listed
by
the
tax,
collector
and
the
property
appraiser's
office.
You
have
any
questions.
You
can
contact
code
enforcement
after
the
meeting.
Okay.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
and
I
think
this
make
I
mentioned
this
Bobby.
This
affidavit
of
non-compliance
is
coming
down
to
you.
F
Q
F
J
G
J
D
E
C
C
A
J
A
F
This
first
item
is
a
petition
for
rehearing.
If
you
don't
mind,
I'd
like
to
read
you
the
rule,
that
is
in
your
rules
of
procedure,
since
this
doesn't
happen
very
often
so
I'm
going
to
read
rule
five
section.
Three,
any
aggrieved
party
may
petition
the
board
to
reconsider
or
rehear
any
board
order,
resulting
from
public
hearing.
This
petition
must
be
made
in
writing
and
filed
with
the
board
secretary
no
later
than
30
days
after
the
execution
of
the
order
and
prior
to
the
filing
of
any
appeal
upon
receipt
of
the
petition.
F
The
board
will
consider
whether
or
not
to
reconsider
or
rehear
the
case.
A
motion
to
approve
a
petition
to
reconsider
a
rehear
must
be
made
by
a
board
member
who
previously
voted
on
the
prevailing
side.
A
motion
to
approve
a
petition
to
reconsider
rehear
a
case
must
set
the
date
and
time
for
the
rehearing
the
rehearing
may
be
held
at
the
time
of
the
consideration
of
the
petition.
If
the
petitioner,
in
all
other
parties
agree,
the
board
will
not
hear
oral
argument
or
evidence
in
determining
whether
to
grant
the
petition
to
reconsider
or
rehear.
I
B
I
H
E
F
And
if
I
can
I'd
like
to
go
ahead
and
read
that
for
because
there's
a
lot
of
people
in
the
audience,
let
them
know
what
we're
doing
here
today.
So
I'm
going
to
be
reading
the
rule
on
that
rule,
five
section,
four
different
than
that
last
rule
after
fine
has
been
imposed
by
the
board
and
within
60
days
after
the
violation
is
brought
into
compliance.
A
violator
may
petition
for
reconsideration
of
a
fine.
F
The
petition
must
be
in
writing
signed
by
the
violator
and
include
a
copy
of
the
affidavit
of
compliance
executed
by
the
code
inspector.
The
petition
must
include
conclusive
evidence
showing
extreme
or
undue
hardship
in
the
payment
of
the
fine
or
preventing
the
violator
to
come
into
compliance
within
the
time
period
established
by
the
board's
order.
The
board
secretary
shall
schedule
the
petition
to
be
considered
it
and
the
board
shall
make
its
determination
based
solely
upon
the
written
petition.
The
board
may
request
information
from
the
code
inspector.
F
The
board
secretary
shall
notify
the
violator
by
regular
mail
of
the
determination
made
by
the
board
no
petition
for
the
reduction
of
a
fine
will
be
considered
prior
to
the
board's
acceptance
of
an
affidavit
of
compliance
under
no
circumstances
made
the
amount
of
the
fine
be
reduced
below
the
cost
of
the
action.
Under
no
circumstances
may
the
amount
of
the
fine
be
reduced
once
a
foreclosure
action
is
instituted.
Additionally,
under
no
circumstances
may
the
amount
of
the
fine
for
a
repeat
violation
be
reduced.
That's
a
reading
of
your
rule
dealing
with
fine
reduction
requests.