![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jVP9O_eKtzg/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Code Enforcement Board
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
Beard's
looking
good
sir
well,
it's
getting
whiter
that
happens
when
we
get
old.
D
B
A
G
E
H
Roll,
so
we
do
not
have
michelle
minuses
on
at
this
time,
I'm
trying
to
get
them
on.
E
E
C
C
E
A
I
An
art
sculpture
behind
you
or
a
hair
dryer,
or
what
it's
a
piece.
A
A
E
A
H
H
E
K
F
J
E
You,
mr
trask,
would
you
give
the
invocation
and
leave
the
pledge?
Please.
C
Yes,
our
heavenly
father
send
on
your
blessing
on
this
meeting
of
the
code
enforcement
board,
give
the
board
members
a
clear
sense
of
duty
and
lead
them
to
a
faithful
discharge
for
the
same
direct
them
in
their
deliberations
at
this
meeting,
so
that
all
things
may
be
done
to
the
glory
of
thy
name
and
the
welfare
of
the
people
of
tarpon
springs.
We
pray.
A
G
E
Thank
you
very
much.
I'm
going
to
read
the
board
proceedings
out
loud,
be
sure
everyone
turn
off
your
cell
phones,
even
if
you're
home,
because
it
does
create
a
weird
phone,
sound
distraction.
It's
the
intention
of
this
board
to
promote,
protect
and
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
city
of
tarpon
springs.
E
Any
agreed
party
may
appeal
a
final
administration,
administrative
order
of
this
board
of
the
circuit
court.
Such
appeal
shall
be
filed
within
30
days
of
the
execution
of
the
order
to
be
appealed.
Court
of
statute
286.0105
requires
any
party
appealing
a
decision
of
this
board
to
have
a
record
of
proceedings
to
support
such
an
appeal.
E
E
Witnesses
in
the
exhibits,
then
the
city
can
question
the
alleged
violators
witnesses
after
both
rounds
of
testimony
both
on
the
part
of
the
city
and
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
taken.
This
board
will
close
the
public
hearing
position,
discuss
and
take
appropriate
action.
E
M
The
address
within
the
city
is
1629
grandview
drive,
although
this
is
a
vacant
lot
with
parcel
number
17
27
16,
313,
5,
6,
0,
0,
3,
0,
0,
6,
0,
there's
no
prior
cases
on
this
property
exhibit
number
one
going
before
the
board
are.
All
of
my
photographs
exhibit
number
two:
are
all
the
notices
to
include
the
notice
of
violation
and
notice
of
hearings,
exhibit
three
administrative
documents
case
summary
property,
appraiser
and
tax
collector
records
and
exhibit
number
four?
Is
the
affidavit
of
posting
and
a
copy
of
the
sign?
M
E
I
interrupt,
can
I
interrupt
you
for
one
second?
Can
we
confirm
whether
or
not
there
is
a
anyone
present
for
this
agenda
item.
D
A
D
G
D
For
the
as
far
as
photographs,
I
think
well,
I'm
sorry
I
take
it
back.
Mr
gaston
did
send
me
a
package
that
had
the
photographs
on
there.
If
that's
what
you're
referring
to
yes,
I
have
seen
it
that.
M
And
madam
chair
just
so
you're
aware
this
case
that
I'm
doing
116.
the
adjoining
property,
which
is
the
next
case
on
the
agenda
179.,
both
the
same
property
owners
and
mr
cascudas,
I'm
sure
is
going
to
be
representing
both
of
them.
They
both
kind
of
tie
together
just
so
you're
aware
so
some
of
it's
going
to
kind
of
bleed
together.
If
you
will
okay.
E
I
did
not
hear
affirmatively
from
mr
cuz
if
he
has
any
objection
or
not
no.
D
E
M
Moving
forward
all
the
photographs
and
exhibits
that
were
mailed
to
the
violator
or
emailed
or
exact
copies
of,
what's
being
presented
to
this
board,
all
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
of
notice
of
hearing
or
sent
return
receipt
as
well
as
first
class
mail
and
madam
chair.
Please
accept
all
these
exhibits
under
the
record
as
evidence.
M
A
D
I
ask
a
question
just
for
housekeeping
purposes
the
fact
that
there
are
two
cases
would
it
be,
and
I
guess
this
would
go
to
mr
trask
is
if
we
could
consolidate
the
two,
the
two
violations,
so
that
we
don't
make
the
same
argument
on
the
next
one.
C
M
Thank
you.
We
have
had
contact
with
the
owner
and
obviously
mr
cascudas
and
I
have
been
out
to
the
property
a
couple
of
times
we've
seen
it.
We've
spoke
with
the
property
owner
numerous
times,
both
in
person
and
via
email.
The
case
originally
started
back
march
13th
of
2020.
M
There
was
a
large
amount
of
filter
being
put
onto
the
vacant
lot
and
there
were
no
permits
in
the
system
for
it
there
were
actually
five
to
six
dump
truck
full
loads
of
sand
being
dumped
onto
the
property.
That's
when
I
was
called
out
by
one
of
the
city,
crews
about
it
and
then
we
checked
and
there
were
no
permits
and
there's
no
site
plans
for
the
property
to
allow
for
that
fill
or
excavation.
Under
the
city
code
on
march
18th,
the
notice
of
violation
was
mailed.
M
M
There
were
no
inspections,
yet
on
that
fence
permit
the
remaining
permits
were
returned
for
revisions,
and
at
that
point
in
time
we
send
it
an
amended
notice
of
violation,
adding
the
permit
violation
for
the
fence
on
june
2nd
again,
the
amended
notice
of
violation
where
we
added
that
permit
was
mailed
and
the
green
card
again
was
returned,
signed
covet
19.
M
on
june
17th
of
2020
conducted
another
reinspection,
shannon
assisted
with
doing
the
re-inspection
on
that
date,
and
at
that
point
in
time
she
pointed
out
which
I
later
saw,
that
their
the
owner
had
created
a
barrier
out
of
tree
debris,
concrete
blocks,
hay,
bales
and
a
silk
fence.
M
She
opined
that
he
was
trying
to
prevent
some
erosion
onto
the
property
through
drainage
and
things
like
that
into
the
wetland
area,
which
is
the
way
these
two
parcels
are
set
up
and
if
you
want,
I
can
bring
up
a
an
overhead
parcel
view.
There's
a
vacant
lot
directly
next
to
a
house
and
then
the
second
vacant
lot
is
more
or
less
kind
of
a
wetland
area
and
then
there's
another
house.
M
So
when
we
refer
to
the
other
parcel
being
kind
of
a
wetland
area,
that's
primary
distinction
between
the
the
western
and
the
eastern
lot
and
fundamentally
for
the
two
cases
they're,
basically
the
same.
In
the
sense
it's
just
one
of
them.
There
was
no
filter
put
on
the
wetland
lot,
which
is
the
other
case
that
we're
doing
there
was
phil
brought
into
this
lot.
M
The
other
lot
was
just
simply:
we
had
no
site
plan
for
any
building
or
doing
anything
to
it
needed
to
just
remain
a
vacant
lot.
So
and
if
you'd
like,
like
I
said,
I
can
bring
up
the
picture
kind
of
just
showing
the
aerial
where
this
area
is.
If
you
would
like
madam
chair
and
then.
M
Shannon
shannon
brewer,
shannon
brewer
with
the
city
she's
not
present,
so
I
understand
that
my
statements
are
loosely
hearsay,
but
I
went
out
and
saw
these
same
things.
Mr
cascudas
was
also
out
there
and
saw
the
hay
bales
and
things
like
that.
But
that's
that's
just
what
she
noticed
on
the
june
17th
reinspection.
M
That
was
the
violation
of
city
code
852
because
of
putting
the
debris
the
tree
debris
was
on
the
property
and
and
so
forth.
So
let
me
let
me
bring
up
that
image
really
quick,
so
you
can
see.
Hopefully
this
will
work.
M
All
right,
can
everybody
see
that?
Yes,
okay,
so
this
is
the
case.
We're
working
on
right
now,
116.
this
lot
right
next
door
is
the
other
case
that
we'll
be
briefly
speaking
about
to
give
you
an
idea.
This
is
the
back
of
young
subdivision.
This
is
lake
tarpon.
This
is
grand
view
drive
right
here.
This
is
south
highland
avenue,
us19,
I'm
pointing
at
it
like
you
guys,
can
see
it
is
over
here
oops.
I
understood
that
it
was
a
mistake.
Hang
on.
Let
me
see
if
I
can
undo
the
zoom.
M
M
M
M
M
So
this
is
a
lot
we're
referencing
right
here.
This
is
the
fence
we
discussed.
As
you
can
see,
it's
not
finished
yet
there's
some
sections
missing
you'll
see
in
some
further
pictures,
but
all
of
this
white
sand
was
the
additional
fill.
What
happened
is
the
dump
trucks
dumped
it?
We
told
them.
There
was
already
a
stop
work
order
issued.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
this
right
here
on
this
pole
is
the
stop
work
order
that
was
issued
prior
to
this
date
and
then
the
owner.
M
I
witnessed
him
on
site
with
the
dump
trucks
from
a
site
up
the
road
dumping.
The
the
loads
of
sand
on
the
property
told
him
again
to
stop
all
work.
There
was
still
no
permits
or
anything,
and
then
it
came
back
a
period
of
time
later
and
he
had
kind
of
graded
it
out
and
leveled
the
property
to
some
extent
again
without
any
permits.
At
that
point
in
time
I
don't
believe
there
was
any
engineering
or
anything
allowing
him
to
do
the
work.
This
is
the
wetland
piece
I'll
skip
past
it
really
quick.
M
M
This
is
the
other
lot,
the
if
you
will
the
wetland
lot
and
we'll
get
into
a
tiny
bit
more
with
that.
So
these
are
the
june
pictures
here.
You
can
see
the
fill
dirt
that
was
brought
into
it.
M
Right
here
this
was
before
it
was
graded
out,
so
this
was
how
much
dirt
was
brought
in.
I
wish
I
had
an
original
picture.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
I
can
dig
around.
I
think
I
have
a
google
street
view.
Is
there
there's
a
google
street
view
that
I'll
get
to
here
in
a
second
there's
a
stop
work
order
and
bear
with
me,
while
I
scroll.
M
And
these
this
is
the
debris
that
we're
referring
to
now
as
of
right.
Now,
all
of
that
seems
to
be
removed.
The
only
thing
that's
left
as
far
as
debris
goes
is:
there's
a
pile
of
pavers
on
the
western
lot
and
on
the
eastern
lot,
there's
some
piles
of
cement.
So
that's
the
debris
issue
that
we
have
right
now,
primarily
with
this
case,
and
I
know
that
probably
mr
cascudas
will
bring
this
up.
M
They
had
some
engineering
work
done.
We
have
not
yet
obtained
any
site
permits
and
so
therefore,
before
you
can
bring
in
especially
a
large
amount
of
fill,
which
is
substantial
like
I
said
it
was
at
least
five
dump
truck
loads
that
you
have
to
have
a
site
plan
in
place
and
building
permits
issued,
and
none
of
that
was
done
for
this
property.
M
I'm
gonna,
like
I
said
I'll,
see
if
I
can
find
the
google
street
views
and
you
can
see
the
change,
but
it's
it's
fairly
significant
unless
mr
cascodus
really
wants
to
see
the
before
and
the
after.
I
don't
think
he's
got
any
argument
to
it,
but
if
he
does
I'll
be
more
than
happy
to
dig
up
the
google
street
view
picture
of
them.
D
I
do
have
a
question
and
I
I
could
ask.
M
All
right
am
I
back,
I'm
back
all
right
so
june
19th,
the
amended
nov,
where
we
added
8.52
and
the
notice
of
hearing
was
mailed.
The
green
card
was
signed
by
tracy
kelly
jude
26
posted
the
property
and
the
affidavit
of
posting
was
signed
on
july
9th
conducted
another
reinspection.
Primarily,
it
was
kind
of
what
we
call
a
paper
inspection.
We
were
just
checking
to
see
if
there
was
any
permits
or
what
was
going
on
within
the
city
system
and
for
michelle
at
the
building
department.
M
So
none
of
that
was
approved,
yet
they
were
in
the
works
so
to
speak
on
july,
24th
posted
the
property,
another
affidavit
of
posting
sign
because
we
had
deferred
the
case
from
the
july
code
board
and
then
august
12th
conducted
a
final
inspection.
There
were
still
no
permits
nor
site
plans
that
have
yet
been
approved.
M
So
the
violations
before
the
board
on
this
property
right
now
are
6-1,
where
we
adopt
the
2017
florida
building
code
and
the
2018
international
property
maintenance
code,
florida
building
code
105.1,
which
are
permits,
are
required
and
then
21
or
210.00
the
city
code,
which
requires
a
site
plan
before
any
fill
construction.
Things
like
that
64.00
falls.
Underneath
of
that,
and
you
know.
M
Basically
it
was
putting
the
fill
on
the
property
without
a
site,
planner
building,
permit
and
then
105.1
again,
but
that
specifically
addresses
the
permit,
which
has
not
been
signed
off
on
or
filed,
so
that
fence
needs
to
be
completed
and
a
final
inspection
needs
to
be
done
on
it
to
comply,
that
ordinance
violation
and
then
8-52
was
the
debris
and
things
like
that
on
the
property.
Now
the
photographs
that
I
went
out
and
took
today
is
a
side
note:
it's
gross.
M
The
property
is
grossly
overgrown
now,
so
it's
going
to
need
to
be
maintained
and
that
falls
in
line
with
852.
Although
the
initial
inspection
in
the
initial
case
didn't
have
that,
so
it's
kind
of
like
a
little
bit
more
of
a
note
for
mr
cascuda,
so
this
client
no
he's
got
to
take
care
of
that
lot,
but
it
falls
under
852..
K
I
do
officer
gaston
yes.
B
M
No,
this
started
it.
It
had
started
once
before
and
then
we
gained
compliance
for
another
minor
issue
a
while
back.
But
then
in
march
the
stop
work
order
was
issued
by
the
city
for
whatever
reason
they
they
issued
the
stop
work
order
and
then
they
said
they
got
a
complaint
about
dump
trucks,
dumping
on
the
property
in
march
and
then
that's
when
I
went
out
and
saw
the
dump
trucks
there.
So
that's
when
this
case
that
we're
dealing
with
right
now
started.
D
D
D
Right,
okay,
so
currently,
there's
pending
a
and
and
just
for
the
board's
knowledge.
My
my
client
is
in
ohio.
He
is
coveted
quarantined,
so
it's
it's
he's
not
down
here
in
florida,
but
it
was
also
my
understanding.
Well,
let
me
ask
you
this:
the
property.
That's
that's
directly.
West
of
these
lots
has
about
a
ten
foot
higher
grade
eight
to
10
foot
higher
grade
than
than
my
clients
lots,
correct.
M
D
So
we
don't,
we
don't
know
what
the
lot
conditions
were
because
of
the
every
time
it
rains
his
his
lot
would
become
eroded,
but
we
don't
know
what
what
the,
what
the
levels
of
that
lot
were
at
the
time.
M
Well,
like
I
said,
we
have
that's
what
the
engineers
were
doing
and
that's
why
all
of
the
plans
and
everything
had
to
go
through
the
city
prior
to
anything
being
built,
but
there
yeah
there's
no
argument
that
the
property
to
the
west
was
higher,
but
he
arbitrarily
decided
to
bring
in
his
own
filter
and
change
the
grade
of
it
without
any
of
the
approval
from
the
city.
That's
kind
of
the
reason
why
at
where,
at.
M
I
don't
have
any
of
that,
because
you
know
there
was
anything
specific
about
erosion.
All
it
simply
was.
There
was
a
stop
work
order
and
then
work
was
being
done
and
we
found
there
was
no
site
plans
or
building
permits,
so
the
I
don't
necessarily
have
a
dog
in
the
races.
As
far
as
what
grades
and
things
like
that,
I
just
know
there
was
work
being
done
without.
D
D
I
I
just
want
I
just
wanted.
I
just
wanted
the
board
to
understand
that
that
the
way
my
client
slots
are
situated
every
time
it
rains
it
erodes,
and-
and
so
you
know
and-
and
I
try
to
get
with
mr
gaston
early
on
as
he
would-
you
would
acknowledge-
to
try
to
resolve
these
issues
and-
and
you
know
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
mr
gaston,
my
client
is,
you
know-
has
moved
forward
to
try
to
get
everything
as
far
as
the
permitting
through
the
city.
At
this
point.
M
M
So
you
can't
get
a
building
permit
for
residential
structure
when
the
property
is
for
sale
and
then
there's
another
caveat
that
he's
been
informed
of
from
what
the
building
department
says
he's
trying
to
do
a
single-family
home
on
two
different
parcels,
and
if
you
do
that,
you
have
to
be
a
contractor,
you
can
only
apply
for
that
single-family
home
on
one
parcel
as
a
private
person.
So
those
are
some
things
that
are
causing
him
some
major
issues,
the
erosion.
I
don't
think
anybody
wants
to
necessarily
argue
with
that,
but
there's
another
caveat
to
that.
M
He
got
a
grubbing
permit
and
went
and
cleared
the
land
and
the
majority
of
the
trees
off
of
it,
which
did
drastically
change
how
it
drained
so
you're,
absolutely
correct.
Their
water
is
going
to
go
a
certain
way
and
it
is
downhill
of
everything
above
it,
but
there
were
some
things
taken
by
mr
smith
that
were
outside
the
scope.
M
Yes,
he
was
approved
for
the
grubbing
permit
to
have
the
trees
removed
and
I
think,
shannon
dealt
with
that
issue
in
a
different
case,
so
but
it
was
done
and
then
that
consequently
caused
some
major
downward
or
down
land
problems,
because
there
was
nothing
there
to
stop
the
water.
So
then,
from
what
mr
smith
explained
and
unfortunately
he's
not
here-
that's
why
he
was
wanting
to
bring
the
dirt
in
to
kind
of
grade
it
off,
but
he
had
no
plans
and
no
psych
permits.
D
At
the
time
I
am
asking
questions.
Okay,
let
me
ask
another
officer,
gasset
correct
me:
if
I'm
wrong,
okay,
I
received
it.
I
received
an
email
from
the
engineer
who
said
that,
as
far
as
the
site
plan
is
concerned,
they
won't
grant
a
site
plan
permit
without
a
cons,
a
house,
a
construction
permit.
D
D
That's
kind
of
pretty
consistent
with
with
our
you
know.
You
know
the
discussion
we
had
about
giving
us
time
to
go
ahead
and
get
those
those
things
in
order.
Is
that
correct.
M
Correct
and-
and
you
know,
as
as
we've
discussed,
he's
asked
for
time
and
and
obviously
that
usually
comes
up
towards
the
end
and
and
we're
both
in
agreement
about
giving
him
this
isn't
one
of
those
things
that's
going
to
occur
overnight.
We
know
that
there's
some
intricacies
that
have
to
deal
with
once
we
get
engineers
involved.
Architects
attorneys
all
due
respect,
and
you
know
the
folks
at
planning
and
zoning
and
things
like
that.
We're
well
aware,
there's
time
and
I'll
be
painfully
honest.
M
M
We
were
discussing
this
case
today
and
we'll
be
putting
a
plan
together
for
your
client
so
that
we
can
get
him
in
compliance
because
that's
what
we
want.
So
we
will
have
a
plan
not
next
week,
but
the
week
after.
F
M
Hey
mike,
we,
we
discussed
this,
and
your
client
had
asked
for
90
days
to
try
to
work
through
all
this
stuff.
Is
that
still
the
time
frame
we're
talking
about
on
the
table.
D
Yes,
he
does
have
engineers
an
engineer
employed
and
a
environmental
engineer
also
employed,
and
I
guess,
from
the
email
I
got
today,
he's
gonna
have
to
submit
some
construction
plans.
A
D
I
don't
know
if
you
made
a
site
inspection
of
the
property,
but
the
property
directly
west
of
my
client
has
about
an
eight
to
ten
foot
elevation
over
and
above
my
clients,
you
know
obviously
he's
not
from
this
area.
He
did
get
a
grub
permit,
which
he
assumed
by
grubbing
he'd
be
able
to
put
you
to
put
some
filling.
Obviously
that
wasn't
the
case
without
a
permit,
but
every
time
it
rains,
the
property
erodes.
D
I
couldn't
tell
you,
I
could
tell
you,
mr
gaston,
probably
has
that
public
record.
M
M
Think
somebody
was
knocking
on
the
door,
hang
on
just
a
second
I'm
pulling
up
the
property.
Appraiser
I'll.
Tell
you
here
in
just
a
second.
When
the
property
is
transferred.
It
looks
like
the
last
transaction
of
carried
into
the
pinellas
county
property
appraiser,
which
was
a
deed.
It
was
the
beginning
of
the
year
about
february
19th
of
this
year,
so
he's
only
owned
it
this
year.
M
Just
briefly,
like
we
discussed,
you
know,
we
we
have
these
violations,
we
just
kind
of
want
to
set
a
timetable
to
try
to
get
them
resolved
both
on
the
city's
part.
I
mean
we.
M
I
know
we
have
some
things
we
have
to
do
on
our
end,
but
then,
once
those
things
are
accomplished
on
our
end,
we
would
like
to
see,
like
we
discussed
like
90
days,
for
them
to
be
in
compliance
which
is
submitting
that
site
planning
just
getting
the
property
cleaned
up
as
far
as
debris,
and
things
like
that
goes.
That's
all
the
city
has.
D
Yes,
my
client
has,
while
he
was
here,
he
did
make
a
good
faith
effort
to
try
to
clean
up
the
property.
Obviously
there's
more
cleaning
that
has
to
be
done
and-
and
we
we
sort
of
agree
that
a
90-day
window
would
be,
would
be
grant
us
the
opportunity
to
go
ahead
and
and
process
some
of
the
permit
requirements
through
the
city
and
the
objections
in
the
applications.
We've
already
submitted
with
the
city
to
to
address
the
comments
that
the
city
has
on
those
permit
applications.
E
K
I
moved
based
on
the
testimony,
evidence
and
facts
presented
and
the
law
that,
at
the
time
of
the
alleged
violations,
section
city
code,
6-1,
fbc,
105.1,
fbc,
105.1,
city
code,
210.00,
city
code,
64.00
and
city
code
8-52,
or
suffer
a
fine
of
100
a
day
for
each
day.
Thereafter,
that
the
respondent
remains
in
violation.
K
B
B
L
E
And
mr
kudus,
if
I
understand
correctly,
you
felt
comfortable
with
a
client's
compliance
date
of
90
days.
M
Compliance
90
days
is
is
fine
with
us
and
whatever
the
board
feels
necessary.
Fine,
wise.
D
And
just
for
the
sake
of
housekeeping
with
regard
to,
I
know
it's
this
case,
but
I
would
guess
the
same
arguments
for
the
next
case
and
ask
for
the
same
result.
E
All
righty,
let's
complete
this
one,
could
I
hear
a
motion
please.
K
A
move
that
the
respondent
should
have
until
november
the
12th
to
bring
the
property
into
compliance
with
code
sections
city
code,
6-1,
fbc,
one,
zero,
five
point
for
fbc
105.1
city
code,
210
city
code,
64.00
city
code,
8-52,
or
suffer
a
fine
of
100
a
day
for
each
day.
Thereafter,
that
the
respondent
remained
violation
thereof.
B
G
E
C
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
summarize
this
and
then
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
one.
The
property
owner
has
been
found
in
violation
of
the
cited
code
sections
been
given
a
compliance
state
until
november
12th
of
this
year.
Should
the
property
not
be
brought
into
compliance
with
the
code
sections
that
were
cited,
the
100
per
day,
fine
will
be
issued.
C
An
order
will
be
entered
within
the
next
10
days
and
provided
to
your
client
at
the
address
listed
at
the
property,
appraisers
records
and
obviously
city
staff
will
also
provide
you
a
courtesy
copy
of
that
order.
So
that's
a
summary
of
that
particular
case
and
we
mad
I'm
sure
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
one.
Now.
Okay,
just.
D
Can
I
just
respond
real
quick?
I
I
have.
Obviously
I
have
no
objection.
The
only
thing-
and
I
and
I
talked
to
officer
gaston
about
this
if,
if
compliance
versus
non-compliance
means
that
there
are
documents
or
permits
or
or
plans
that
are
submitted
to
the
city
and
the
delay
is
not
caused
and
I'll
work
that,
through
with
officer
gaston,
I
just
don't
want
you
know
a
technical
review
or
some
type
of
review
delay
as
being
in
compliance
versus
non-compliance.
C
C
D
Still
there,
yes,
I
am
here
if
I
stipulate
mr
traffic.
A
E
M
M
Six
172716-313-5600
zero:
three:
zero,
zero,
five
zero.
If
the
city
possibly
can.
This
is
a
duplicate
of
the
previous
case,
one
one:
six
there
is
no
new
or
differing
information
other
than
the
partial
number.
All
of
the
other
facts
of
the
case
are
the
same,
and
if
that
satisfies
the
board
and
council,
then
the
city
would
rest.
At
this
point.
C
M
E
L
B
G
G
E
E
E
J
J
C
There
she
is
okay,
so
welcome.
Welcome
he's
there.
You
can
include
her
on
the
vote.
Then
ms
archer,
were
you.
Did
you
hear
the
whole
case
presented?
We
can't
hear
you
if,
if,
if
you
did
yes,
you
can
hear
me
now,
yes
did,
did
you
hear
the
entire
case?
Yes,
okay,
so
we
can
go
ahead
and
include
her
vote.
C
L
E
G
K
C
A
C
C
C
E
I
do
not
have
a
name
for
this,
but
it's
60
burden
burton
place
case
number
20-800.
F
F
E
H
E
C
Come
back
to
this
case
and
hopefully
she'll
get
a
good
connection
and
we'll
be
able
to
proceed
with
her
attendance.
So
we
could
go
to
the
next
case.
Then.
M
C
M
C
A
G
H
You'll
need
to
either
mute
your
computer
or
your
phone
because
we
are
hearing
a
repeat.
So
all
when
we
talk
and
you
talk,
all
we
hear
is
the
re-echo.
L
F
F
A
L
E
All
right,
we'll
start
again.
This
is
agenda
item
three,
the
number
is
20-8
000
344,
sixty
burton
place
and
missilva
has
been
sworn
in
and
she's
representing
the
property
owner
is
that
meyer
lane
investments.
F
Yes,
actually,
the
same
scenario
would
apply
in
this
instance
as
your
previous
property
owner,
because
the
the
three
lots
are
owned.
One
is
mitchell
and
the
two
are
meyer
lane
and
it's.
E
The
same
we're
going
to
treat
them
the
same
way,
we're
going
to
work
through
number
one
and
then
see
if
we
can
do
number
two
and
three
more
quickly,
then,
if
that
suits
you
yep.
L
F
I
don't
have
any
objection
to
the
the
documentation.
I
just
don't
know
if
that
also
means
the
the
fine.
M
Previously
that
case
was
established,
there
was
no
fines
assigned
to
it.
The
case
before
the
board
right
now
is
case
number
20-800-344
properties
addressed.
Although
it's
a
vacant
lot,
a
60
burton
place
park
properties
owned
by
meyer
lane
investments
llc.
The
parcel
number
is
zero.
Eight,
two,
seven
one,
six,
four,
eight
eight:
seven:
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
two
zero
exhibit
number
one
going
before
the
board
are
all
of
the
photographs
exhibit
number
two.
All
the
notices,
including
the
notice
of
violation
and
notice
of
hearing,
exhibit
number
three
administrative
documents
case.
M
Summary
previous
board
orders,
the
property
appraiser
and
tax
collector
records
exhibit
four:
is
the
affidavit
of
posting
and
a
copy
of
the
sign
and
exhibit
number
five?
Is
the
affidavit
of
prosecution
costs?
All
the
photographs
and
exhibits
are
given
to
the
violator
exact
copies
of
what's
being
presented
to
the
board.
All
my
notices
are
mailed
to
the
property
owner
record
as
determined
by
the
pinellas
county,
property,
appraiser
and
tax
collector
databases,
all
notice,
the
violations
or
notice
of
hearing
or
sent
both
return
receipt
requested
as
well
as
first
class
mail
and
madam
chair.
E
Thank
you,
mrs
has
done
so.
M
The
owner,
via
phone
case,
started
on
july
13th
of
this
year.
Basically,
the
lot
was
overgrown
and
needed
to
be
mowed,
trimmed
edged
and
continually
maintained
on
july,
13th
notice,
a
violation
as
well
as
the
repeat
violator
notice.
The
hearing
was
mailed.
Both
the
green
cards
were
returned,
signed
conducted
a
re-inspection
on
july
21st,
and
it
was
in
compliance
on
that
date.
On
july
24th
I
posted
the
property
and
an
affidavit
of
posting
was
signed.
M
The
property
was
in
violation
for
a
period
of
five
days
from
the
date
of
the
initial
inspection
on
july
13th
of
2020
until
it
was
complied
on
july
18th.
As
I
stated,
I
conducted
the
re-inspection
on
the
21st,
but,
as
you
guys
historically
know,
I
was
informed
of
the
date
that
it
was
maintained
and
we
will
use
that
date
as
the
date
of
compliance.
So
it
was
out
of
compliance
for
a
period
of
five
days,
and
at
this
point
that's
all
the
city
has
on
this
case.
F
Yes,
as
I
talked
to
beth,
I
received
the
notice
on
the
17th
when
I
came
into
the
office
on
friday
and
we
had
it
taken
care
of
on
the
18th.
So
I
my
only
question
is:
is
it
does
it
count
that
I
received
the
letter
on
the
17th,
so
I
would
be
out
of
compliance
for
one
day
and
not
the
five
days?
F
Yes,
I'm
not
real
sure
when
I
don't
remember
when
the
first,
the
first
offense
happened,
but
just
to
explain
what
happened
recently
was
we
have
a
lawn
man?
He
monitors
it
for
us
and
cuts
it
as
needed.
Obviously
missed
a
cut,
and
as
soon
as
I
got
the
letter,
the
next
day
had
him
out
there,
which
was
a
saturday
and
we've
since
then
hired
a
new
company,
a
local
company
called
green
thumb.
I
think
they're
based
around
actually
out
of
tarpon
they've,
already
cut
it.
F
M
I
I
don't
have
a
summary
other
than
the
fact
I
will
and
I'll
stipulate
it
on
the
next
case.
This
is
going
to
be
identical
to
the
next
case
owned
by
the
same
property
owner,
but
the
city
has
nothing
further.
E
E
K
13
13
to
july
the
18th,
a
fine
of
a
hundred
dollars
a
day
for
five.
K
B
Okay,
I
just
think
that's
that's
a
little
stout
for
because
there's
going
to
be
three
in
a
row,
and
I
heard
what
the
young
lady
said
and
it.
B
And-
and
we
can
always
ask
officer
gates
and
his
opinion
of
this,
but
I
would
I
would
wow
that's
just
a
lot
of
money,
we're
not
cutting
your
grass
and
I
I
think
I.
B
B
K
I
moved
based
on
the
testimony
evidence
and
facts
presented
by
law
that
the
respondent
was
in
violation
of
section
8-52
of
the
city
code
from
july,
the
13th
to
july
the
18th
and
a
fine
of
25
a
day
for
five
days
and
a
fine
of
125
dollars.
In
addition,
I
move
that
the
city
be
awarded
87
for
the
cost
that
incurred
in
prosecuting
the
case.
K
G
K
C
I'll
be
happy
to
do
it
here.
So,
ms
silva,
this
property
owner
meyer
lane
investments
has
been
found
in
violation
as
section
8-52
of
the
code
as
a
repeat
violator
been
fined
25
a
day
for
five
days.
In
addition
to
that,
the
code
enforcement
board
has
awarded
the
city
87
in
prosecution,
cost
an
order
will
be
entered
within
the
next
10
days
and
provided
to
the
property
owner
listed
at
the
at
the
address
listed
by
the
property
appraisers
records.
C
C
Property
owners,
at
least
in
cases
four
and
five
I.
E
It's
1458
meijer
lane
the
owner
is
listed
as
meijer,
lane
investments,
llc
and
it's
case-
number
20-8
000
345..
We
already
know
that
miss
silva
is
here
for
that
agenda.
Item
she's
been
sworn
in
and
do
you
have
any
objection,
ms
silva
for
the
city
to
present
put
its
evidence
into
the
case
now.
E
M
As
the
previous
case
it
was
established.
There
was
no
fines.
This
case
is
twenty
dash.
Eight
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero.
Three
four
five:
the
address
within
the
city
system
is
1458
mile
lane,
although
it
is
a
vacant,
lot
parcel
number
zero,
eight,
two,
seven
one,
six,
four,
eight:
eight:
seven:
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero
one
zero;
and
if
it's,
okay
with
madam
chair,
this
is
exactly
the
same
case.
Same
evidence
same
information
as
the
previous
one
with
the
same
owner.
M
The
next
case
is
actually
a
different
owner,
but
it's
an
adjoining
watch
just
so
the
board
knows
so.
If
we
can
stipulate
to
that,
they
were
in
violation
for
the
same
period
of
time
five
days
and
the
city
will
rest
its
case
at
that.
F
My
only
my
only
rebuttal
or
statement
would
be
they've
owned,
the
property
since
2012,
and
this
is
the
not
that
makes
it
right.
But
this
is
the
second
time
that
we
were
notified.
It
needed
to
be
cut
only
because
the
lawn
man
didn't
do
what
he
was
supposed
to
do
and
I
received
the
documentation
on
the
17th
and
immediately
had
it
cut
the
following
day
and
have
replaced
the
lawn
people
so
that
we
don't
have
this
happen
again.
But
I
think
the
record
from
2012
to
2020
is
says
a
lot
for
us
doing.
E
E
K
I
move
that,
based
on
the
testimony,
evidence
and
facts
presented
by
law,
that
the
respondent
was
in
violation
of
section
8-52
of
this
tarpon
spring
city
code
from
the
13th
of
july
until
the
18th
of
july,
in
a
fine
of
25
a
day
for
five
days,
a
total
fine
of
125
dollars.
In
addition,
I
mean
that's
a
city
be
awarded
the
87
for
the
cost
that
incurred
in
prosecuting
this
case.
K
B
C
So,
mr
this
is
going
to
be
a
repeat
of
the
previous
case.
The
same
thing
is
going
to
happen.
There's
going
to
be
an
order,
entered
it's
going
to
find
this
property
owner
25
a
day
for
five
days.
125
total
fine,
plus
87
costs
have
been
awarded.
That
order
is
going
to
be
issued
within
the
next
10
days
and
sent
to
the
property
owner
at
the
address
system
by
the
property
appraiser's
record.
E
F
C
C
Well,
that's
what
officer
gaston
testified
to
a
little
while
ago.
Yes,.
M
Yeah,
that's
correct.
We
received
an
email
from
the
property
owner
requesting
that,
ms,
that
she
represents
this
property
as
well.
E
E
20-800-346-84
burton
place
and
enlisted
owner
of
david
and
rebecca
mitchell-
and
we
already
know
miss
silva's
representing
them-
she's
been
swore
in
miss
silva.
You
have
no
objection
to
the
city.
Evidence
correct,
correct
clerk's,
going
to
mark
that
as
received
into
evidence
and
this
officer
gaston
will
present
the
case.
M
Thank
you
officer
c
johnson
tarpon
springs
code
enforcement,
as
stated,
this
is
a
repeat
violator
case,
the
previous
case
that
established
it
was
18-800402
city
code,
violation,
8-52,
no
fines,
but
it
was
established
this
current
case
20-800-346
properties
addressed
as
84
burnt
in
place
it
as
the
other
two
is
a
vacant
lot
owned
by
david
and
rebecca
mitchell
with
a
parcel
number
of
zero.
Eight
two
seven
one:
six:
four:
eight:
eight:
seven:
zero:
zero,
zero,
zero,
zero,
three:
nine
zero,
barring
the
difference
in
the
ownership.
E
I
I
moved
it
based
on
the
testimony
evidence
presented
in
law
that
the
david
and
rebecca
mitchell
were
in
violation
of
section
city
code,
852
of
the
tarpon
spring
city
code
from
july
13th
to
18th
and
a
fine
of
25
dollars
per
day
for
five
days
or
fine
of
125.
B
B
L
E
B
B
20-800074
and
award
the
city,
prosecution
costs
of
156
dollars
and
50
cents.
E
I'll
hear
a
second
second,
ms
minus
we
can
do
a
voice
vote.
I
believe.
B
F
E
C
A
M
So
this
this
first
one
18-800
the
city's
requesting
the
requesting
the
motion
to
be
quashed
because
the
ownership
had
changed.
So
that's
the
the
simple
aspect
of
it.
Originally,
they
were
cited
under
one
owner
somewhere
in
the
process.
The
ownership
had
changed.
So
when
the
board
order
came
out,
there
was
a
different
owner.
So
the
city's
asking
for
that
motion
that
board
order
to
be
quashed.
E
J
B
E
It's
a
fla
vacant
lot
parcel
13,
27,
15,
67,
896
000,
it's
next
to
439,
lincoln
avenue.
The
owner
is
listed
as
craig
fowler
officer,
gaston.
M
Thank
you,
as
you
stated,
the
the
city's
requesting
the
order
be
quashed
on
this.
Basically,
what
happened
is
the
the
lean
and
order
of
november
14
2019,
which
was
signed
on
november
21st
of
2019
and
recorded
on
november
21st.
M
The
initial
case
was
initiated
on
a
different
parcel
owned
by
the
same
property
owner
which
effectively
made
it
a
repeat
violation.
Prior
to
the
code
board
hearing,
it
was
discovered
that
the
violation
was
actually
on
a
different
parcel.
M
A
location
transfer
within
the
system
was
made
and
the
property
owner
was
notified
of
the
transfer.
The
location
transfer
resulted
in
having
the
same
violation
occurring
at
the
same
time,
which
basically
was
doubling
it
up.
When
the
location
transfer
was
made,
it
nullified
the
repeat
violation
because
the
violation
was
still
open,
so
that
code
case
should
have
been
closed
when
the
violation
transfer
was
made
and
not
run
the
daily
fines.
M
The
fines
for
the
case
had
been
paid
in
the
amount
of
532.50,
so
one
the
city
is
asking
that
they
recommend
that
the
payment
be
applied
to
the
initial
case,
which
is
19-8-0-0-00317,
which
still
has
a
balance
of
approximately
2431.,
but
we're
requesting
that
that
order
be
quashed.
Those
fines
be
applied
to
that
other
case,
that's
what
the
city's
request
is
to
the
board.
C
Okay,
so
let
me
just
jump
in
here:
the
money
issue
is
not
something
that
you
should
be
involved
in.
This
is
something
that
the
city
clerk
can
handle
should
they
can
either
refund
the
money
or
apply
it
we'll.
Let
them
do
that.
That's
not
something
that
I
think
that
you
should
be
involved
in
so
just
be
a
motion
to
quash,
and
that
would
deal
with
the
order
that
was
entered,
but
I
don't
feel
comfortable
with
you
basically
telling
this
person
that
we're
gonna
use
their
money
for
some
other
type
of
violation.
C
K
A
mask
all
right,
can
I
ask
him
questions
just
couple
questions?
Can
you
tell
me
officer
gaston?
Can
you
tell
me
when
they
transfer
occurred
and
was
it
within
30
days
of
when
we
had
the
when
we
had
the
first
repeat,
violation.
M
M
So
it
wasn't
the
owner
transferring
ownership
or
anything
like
that.
It
was
strictly
us
in
code
enforcement
discovering
we
had
put
the
case
in
with
the
wrong
parcel
number.
We
moved
it
or
did
a
location
transfer
within
our
software
to
the
correct
address,
so
we
created
the
duplicate
so
we're
trying
to
correct
the
record
from.
K
Okay
and
as
craig
fuller,
the
owner
of
the
other
19-800-317.
I
C
E
O
C
Yes,
oh
you're
froze
finally
do
not
take
evidence
under
rule
five
section.
Four
of
your
code
enforcement
board
rules
of
procedure.
It
says
to
your
make
your
decision
based
solely
upon
the
written
petition.
That'll
be
fine.
E
B
E
E
I
thought
I
found
there
was
a
great
gap
between
the
end
of
october
or
the
end
of
2018
and
one
of
2020.
They
didn't
indicate
any
monitoring
being
done
on
the
property
during
that
time
period.
G
A
G
E
G
J
Vice
chair
archer
and
this
one
chair,
wade.
C
I'd
be
happy
to
so,
mr
doe.
The
the
code
enforcement
board
has
denied
the
petition
for
fine
reduction.
There
will
be
an
order
entered
within
about
the
next
10
days
will
be
provided
to
your
client
and
you
at
the
address
listed
at
the
property
appraisers
records.
If
you
have
any
questions
after
the
meeting,
you
can
go
ahead
and
call
me
as
the
city
attorney
or
you
can
contact
code
enforcement,
and
we
will
be
happy
to
answer
in
your
questions.
A
C
To
let
you
know
that
we
do
have
an
attorney
present.
He
has
an
attendee
and
he's
raising
his
hand,
but
once
he's
acknowledged,
I'd
like
to
go
ahead
and
read
the
rule
of
procedure
and
then
we
can
move
forward
from
there.
So,
mr
pfizer,
can
you
hear
us,
sir?
I
can
okay,
so
you
hear
on
behalf
of
the
property
owner.
C
If
I
can,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
read
the
rule
of
procedure,
because
this
doesn't
happen
very
often,
this
is
not
a
fine
reduction
hearing.
This
is
a
petition
for
rehearing,
so
I'm
reading
from
rule
five
section,
three
any
agreed
party
may
petition
the
board
to
reconsider
or
re-hear
any
board
order,
resulting
from
public
hearing.
C
A
motion
to
approve
a
petition
to
reconsider
we
hear
must
be
made
by
a
board
member
who
previously
voted
on
the
prevailing
side.
A
motion
to
approve
a
petition
for
to
reconsider
or
re-hear
a
case
must
set
the
date
and
time
for
the
rehearing.
The
rehearing
may
be
held
at
the
time
of
consideration
of
the
petition.
If
the
petitioner
and
all
other
parties
agree,
the
board
will
not
hear
oral
argument
or
evidence
in
determining
whether
to
grant
the
petition
or
reconsider
or
re-hear.
E
Questions
mr
trask
was
the
june
17th
was
not
the
hearing.
The
hearing
was
a
year
ago.
Wasn't
it
at
that
august,
8th
of
2019
hearing
that
I
thought
that
the
june
meeting
was
not
a
complete
rehearing.
C
So
the
vote
enforcement
award
definitely
held
11
2020
and
it
was
for
a
affidavit
of
compliance,
non-compliance
hearing
and
that's
what
this
is
being
addressed
to
is
the
non-compliance
hearing
that
that
the
attorney
appeared
at,
and
you
remember
that
I
was
on
vacation,
that
meeting
and
another
attorney
from
my
office
handled
it.
So
I
don't
have
all
of
the
details,
but
I'm
I'm
taking
his
petition.
Paragraph
15
specifically
says
that
he
appeared
on
june
11
2020
before
the
board.
C
So
I
assume
that
this
is
all
this
petition
is
being
directed
to
is
the
compliance
non-compliance
hearing
that
was
held
on
june
11th
of
this
year.
So.
E
I
went
back
and
watched
the
august
one
and
this
one
which
are,
as
we
know,
archived
on
our
youtube
section.
So
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
timing
was
correct
and
there
were
a
couple
of
objections
which
he
cited,
which
I
disagreed
with
having
watched
re-watch
that,
but
perhaps
that's
not
even
relevant.
It's
just
take
it
all
or
nothing
correct.
C
It
is
relevant
your
memory
of
the
meeting
and,
if
you
needed
to
look
it
over
again
through
the
video,
obviously,
then
that
was
acceptable,
but
you
should
take
the
petition
that
he's
filed
as
being
the
argument
that
he's
making
and
give
it
whatever
weight
that
you
think
is
necessary
based
upon
his
perception
and
his
argument
as
a
lawyer
on
behalf
of
his
client
and
make
a
determination
as
to
what
you
think
is
appropriate
based
upon
that
position
to,
if
you're
to
rehear
it
you're
not
going
to
rehear
the
entire
case,
you're
only
going
to
rehear
that
one
hearing
the
compliance
non-compliance
hearing
you're
not
going
to
go
back
to
the
original
order,
finding
the
violation
yeah,
you
won't
be
doing
that.
C
C
E
B
C
C
O
C
C
Okay,
all
right
so
just
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
the
vote.
Miss
norfleet
was
not
in
attendance.
We
had
five
five
in
favor
of
the
denial
and
one
and
opposed
to
the
denial,
so
the
petition
for
rehearing
has
been
denied.
C
So,
mr
pfizer,
there
will
be
an
order
that
will
be
entered
and
sent
to
your
client
and
you
in
response
to
the
petition
for
rehearing
it'll,
be
done
within
the
next
10
days.
N
Thank
you,
mr
trask,
and
were
you
in?
Are
you
in
receipt
of
the
order
on
the
mission
to
preserve
evidence.
E
All
righty
we
have
minutes
from
june
and
july
in
your
packet,
you
were
given
a
chance
to
review
those.
Does
anyone
have
any
corrections
or
additions
to
make
to
the
minutes.
E
J
One,
yes,
they
did
appoint
november
tuesday
night.
His
name
is
william
stamis.
He
was
on
the
line
earlier,
just
to
get
a
feel
of
how
the
board
works,
but
he
will
be
at
your
next
meeting.
E
I
Yes,
this
is
sunny
my
battery
pooped
out
and
I'm
back
in
so
I
didn't
know
that
I'd
get
to
put
my
vote
in
on
the
motion
for
rehearing
that
I
seconded
I'd
like
to
put
in
a
yes,
but
I
don't
know
if
that's
possible
and
after
the
fact.
I
E
Appreciate
that,
thank
you.
Anyone
else
from
the
staff
need
me
have
a
comment
or
wish
to
speak.
M
The
city
has
nothing.
Thank
you
very.