1

CITY OF SAFETY HARBOR

MINUTES OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD

NOTE: DUE TO THE COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY, THIS MEETING WAS HELD THROUGH COMMUNICATION MEDIA TECHNOLOGY

July 29, 2020

Present: Chair Damon Lister, Vice Chair Christina Jackson, Liz Ambler-Conkle, Gisela Bennie, Jeff Doll, Neguiel Hicks, Scott Hood (alternate)Board Attorney Tom Trask, City Attorney Isabella Sobel, Code Compliance Manager Paul Bushee, Assistant Public Works Director, Renee Cooper, Community Development Director, Marcie Stenmark CALL TO ORDER Chairman Damon Lister called the meeting to order at 5:04 pm. Roll was called. Andy Steingold was absent. Marcie Stenmark read an opening statement regarding COVID-19 and communications media technology. Mr. Lister read his opening statement. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Lister stated the first order of business was approval of the June 17, 2020 meeting minutes. Paul Bushee stated staff would like to move this agenda item to the next meeting and that Agenda Item #2 (CEB #20-014) was moved to the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 1. CEB #20-015 City of Safety Harbor vs. Enterprise Estates Group, Inc. 10320 49th St. N. Mr. Trask swore in Paul Bushee. Chairman Lister asked Ms. Stenmark if the respondent was present and Ms. Stenmark replied that Mattaniah Jahn, attorney for the respondent, was present. Isabella Sobel stated that the respondent, she, and the city agreed to enter into a compliance agreement to require turbidity testing that is verified by a 3rd party engineer selected by the city. Paul Bushee stated he is the Community Compliance Officer for the city and is certified in code enforcement. He presented the case. The property is not homesteaded. Presented into evidence with no objection were:

• Tax Collector website print out • Property Appraiser website print out

On February 19, 2020, the Code Enforcement Board found the respondent in violation of Sec. 24.69 (a, b, d and e) and discharged polluted materials into the stormwater system. The order stated a repeat violation within five years would be referred to the Code Enforcement Board and

2

would be subject to a fine of up to $500 per day. Minutes showed the respondent’s representative acknowledged the violation. On June 8, 2020, after rain, Paul Bushee inspected the property. The stormwater system at Huntington Estates and wetlands were contaminated. Photographs showed muddy water from 3250 Enterprise Road discharging into the stormwater system and a direct connection to the stormwater system. The respondents set up pumps and filters after rains event and were cooperative. Illicit discharge continued. After the Huntington pond was clean, a rain event occurred and needed filtering. Presented into evidence with no objection were:

• Pinellas County Stormwater Atlas • City of Safety Harbor Stormwater Atlas • Photographs

Paul Bushee showed the Pinellas County Stormwater Atlas. Water flowed from the property in ditches. The county system flowed under Enterprise Road to a structure. The city system flowed under Huntington Place into the pond. From the pond it flowed into a weir into wetlands and Mullet Creek. Through an underground connection, it overflowed into the stormwater system in the right of way. A photograph from June 8, 2020 showed turbid water flowing over the weir into wetlands. By June 11, 2020, the property was compliant. Events on June 13, 2020 and June 14, 2020 polluted the pond. On July 17, the pond was flowing into the right of way and stormwater system. On July 19, 2020, there was a rain event. On July 23, 2020, the contractor set up pumps. Presented into evidence with no objection were:

• Photos • February 21, 2020 Code Enforcement Board meeting cover letter • Order • Meeting minutes

The Code Enforcement Board found the respondents in violation of 24.69 (a, b, d, & e) and found them responsible for prosecution costs of $410 and warned they could be a repeat violator with a fine of up to $500.00 per day. A Notice of Repeat Violation was mailed by USPS certified with return receipt requested and first class on June 11, 2020. Presented into evidence with no objection were:

• Notice of repeat violation • USPS Tracking

On July 14, 2020, Paul Bushee mailed a notice of hearing to Enterprise Estates Group, Inc. by USPS certified mail return receipt requested. The notice was posted at the property and city hall. It was mailed by first class mail. The notice cited the code section and date of hearing. Presented into evidence with no objection were:

• Affidavit of Posting • Notice of Hearing

3

• Statement of Violation • Return receipt

The Community Compliance Officer spent twenty-five hours of time and administrative costs of at least $410. The city asked the Code Enforcement Board to find the property owner in repeat violation of Sec. 24.69 (a, b, d and e) and impose a fine of $100 a day starting June 11, 2020 until brought into compliance. An agreement was being worked on for turbidity water testing. Chairman Lister asked if the Board questions Jeff Doll asked Mr. Bushee to clarify they were in violation of 24.69 (a, b, d, and e). He responded he is focusing on subsections “b” and “d” and read the sections. Mr. Doll asked if “a” and “e” were violated. Mr. Bushee stated they violated of subsection “a”. Neguiel Hicks asked Paul Bushee if a direct connection was intended in the future, if the structures were permanent, and if the filtration made it inadequate. Isabella Sobel stated that Renee Cooper, Assistant Public Works Director, was available to answer questions. Neguiel Hicks asked if filters were removable. Paul Bushee responded yes. Chairman Lister asked if Ms. Jahn had questions for Mr. Bushee. She replied no. Chairman Lister asked Ms. Jahn if she wanted to give a presentation and she said yes. Tom Task swore in Renee Cooper. Isabella Sobel asked Renee Cooper to state her name and if she was familiar with the property. She stated she was the Assistant Public Works Director and was familiar. She has a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in engineering, twenty years of experience, and is certified in stormwater inspection. Ms. Cooper stated the site was within the city and adjacent to a county right of way. Two methods of discharge were causing turbid water to enter the city’s stormwater system. Water was pumped from the site and entered from the stormwater dry pond. The Federal Clean Water Act provides the basis for state water quality standards for 40-CFR131. State water quality standards were in FAC 62-302.530. City Code section 24-69 addressed illicit discharge. State water quality standard state water turbidity shall be less than 29 ntus. Turbidity was a measure of water clarity. Higher turbidity increases water temperature and reduces oxygen. Large rivers have a maximum ntu of 10. The city is responsible for monitoring illegal discharge. The photos showed acceptable and unacceptable turbidity levels. Water with sediment caused deposits in structures. Chairman Lister asked Ms. Jahn if she had questions for Ms. Cooper. She did not. Tom Trask swore in Mattaniah Jahn, attorney for Enterprise Estates Group. She presented an aerial map of the property from the Property Appraiser’s web site. The property was on a hill. The high point was to the northwest and water flowed south through the pond system and discharged to the ditch on north of Enterprise Road. The ditch to the north connected to the south side of the road. The connection to the Huntington system would be non-conforming today. Water collected from three curb drains that connect to a main trunk line which split into two stormwater ponds. The trunk line and drains had to be reset delaying implementation. The owner chose bmps. Ms. Jahn showed a graphic of remediations and noted more was done. Remediations included filter

4

fabric over the yard drains, filtered pillows in curb drains, filter socks at the skimmer, sandbags, hay and filter fabric in the county ditch, and filtered screens at collection points. The NPDES permitting allowed dewatering into the county ditch. They were adding filtration sacks, adding five feet of sod around inlets and adding aggregate pouches to curb inlets. She presented the following exhibits:

• Property Appraisers web site aerial map • Graphic showing remediation • 7/24/20 photos • 7/27/20 photos with numbered map • Pinellas County dewatering permit • Right of Way Utilization Permit • Notice of Intent to apply for NPDES permit • March 6, 2020 granted NPDES permit • SWFWMD inspection report 7/22/20

Ms. Jahn showed photographs of remediation and berm. Ms. Jahn showed a Pinellas County dewatering permit allowing use of the ditch for dewatering. Ms. Jahn showed the application for the NPDES permit, approved on March 6, 2020. The SWFWMD inspection report was shown. Chairman Lister asked if the city had questions for Ms. Jahn. Isabella Sobel stated because of the stipulation, the city did not. Chairman Lister asked if the board has questions for Ms. Jahn. Neguiel Hicks asked why this was delayed. Ms. Jahn stated they were catching up and changed contractors. Mr. Hicks asked if the measures were permanent. Ms. Jahn stated bmps were temporary. Mr. Hicks asked if the client knew about grading. Ms. Jahn stated lots were not graded. Liz Ambler-Conkle asked if we had a solution. Ms. Jahn stated remediations were being implemented. Chairman Lister asked if other board members had questions. Christina Jackson asked if there was a turbidity measurement. Ms. Jahn stated no. Ms. Jackson asked Renee Cooper. Mr. Trask stated the board can recall witnesses later. Damon Lister asked the long-term solution. Ms. Jahn stated that through construction, they would add grass at the inlets and add seeding. Chairman Lister asked if there were other questions from the board. Ms. Jackson asked Ms. Cooper if the city had turbidity levels. In August of 2019, Pinellas County reported the number could not be determined it exceeded 1,000 ntus. Chairman Lister asked for final comments from the city and respondent.

5

Ms. Sobel asked them to find the respondent in violation with a daily fine of $100 starting June 11, 2020 and accumulating daily until compliance was verified with a $410 administrative fee. The compliance agreement was reasonable and was not part of the order. Chairman Lister closed comments at 6:31 pm. Chairman Lister asked Mr. Trask to explain the board’s options for the motion and he responded. Mr. Doll moved the board accept the city resolution. Ms. Jackson seconded the motion. Ms. Hicks stated the $100 fine was low and the respondent acted out of economic gain. They failed to take measures. He recommended a higher daily fine starting in February. Jeff Doll stated two parties negotiated in good faith and he did not doubt their competence. The agreement appears to be fair and equitable. Liz Ambler-Conkle said she agreed. Christina Jackson stated it was a repeat violation. Testing will happen. Liz Ambler-Conkle said this was a considerable fine. Mr. Hicks stated he was not questioning the competence of the city or respondent. They knew they caused turbidity and did nothing. Mr. Lister stated the respondent was reactive. Mr. Hicks stated he took exception to licensed professionals having a low level of response. Chairman Lister asked the board for a vote. The motion passed 6-1 by roll call vote. Mr. Hicks voted nay. Attorney Tom Trask read the respondent the summary of violation.

2. CEB #20-011 City of Safety Harbor vs. Cedar St. Crossings, LLC 18167 US Hwy. 19 N. Ste. 450

Mr. Trask swore in the witnesses. Jonathan Brewer raised his hand to speak. Mr. Trask asked his relationship to the case. He said he was testifying as an advocate for the respondent regarding the definition of mobile storage containers and is the Economic Development Liaison for the City of Safety Harbor. Mr. Trask swore in Jonathan Brewer. Chairman Lister stated staff could present. Mr. Bushee stated his title and qualifications and presented the case. He presented Tax Collector and Property Appraiser address information. The site is located at 1885 Cedar Street and is not homesteaded.

6

Received into evidence with no objection were: • Tax Collectors Office web site pages • Property Appraiser’s Office web site pages

On February 17, 2020, he investigated the property. Storage containers were placed on the property in violation of the city code. A worker stated they were being converted into homes. The ordinance stated shipping containers, truck beds, or body parts shall not be used for storage in any district nor shall they be stored unless they were part of an approved impound lot. The subject property was not an approved impound lot. On June 15, 2020, a notice of violation was mailed USPS certified to the listed property owner. The shipping containers stored on the property and not in an improved impound yard violated Land Development Code Section 55.01(a). Received into evidence with no objection were:

• Photographs of the property Chairman Lister asked Mr. Segal if he saw the photographs. He said he had no objections. Mr. Doll asked if Mr. Segal should be sworn in. Mr. Trask stated that Mr. Segal was an attorney and did not need to be sworn in. Paul Bushee showed photos of shipping containers on the site. A notice of violation was mailed by USPS certified return receipt requested and USPS first class on June 15, 2020. notice was mailed to 18167 U.S. Highway 19, Clearwater due to an address change. Mr. Bushee read Land Development Code Section 55.01(a). Received into evidence with no objection were:

• Notice of hearing • Statement of Violation and Request for hearing • USPS Tracking • Affidavit of Posting

Mr. Bushee showed the notice of violation and tracking information. He confirmed they moved. On July 14, 2020, he mailed a notice of hearing to Cedar Street Crossings, LLC through certified mail return receipt requested. A notice was posted on the property and city hall. A copy was mailed through the USPS first class. The notice cited the code sections and date of the hearing. Administrative costs to prosecute included at least 25 hours of the code enforcement officer time for a total of at least $410.00. The city requested the Code Enforcement Board find the property owner in violation of Land Development Code Section 55.01(a) and recommended thirty days to bring the property in compliance. If not achieved, he asked the board to impose a fine of $200 dollars per day starting July 18, 2020 until the brought into compliance. Chairman Lister noted the date passed. Mr. Trask asked if the date be August 29th and Mr. Bushee replied yes. Ms. Sobel asked if the property was approved as an impound lot. Mr. Bushee said no. Ms. Sobel asked when storage containers were observed on site and he replied February of 2020. Chairman Lister asked if the board had questions for Mr. Bushee.

7

Christina Jackson asked if the storage units would be homes. Mr. Bushee said they were being stored and worked on and would be moved. Chairman Lister asked who Mr. Bushee spoke with on site and if tenant they would be used for homes. Mr. Bushee replied he spoke to the tenant and they were being converted to homes. Chairman Lister asked if the board or city had questions for Mr. Bushee. Ms. Sobel indicated she had an objection to their witnesses. Lee Segal, Attorney for the respondent, asked if Mr. Bushee was an expert in shipping containers. Mr. Bushee said no. Mr. Segal asked if the middle container in the photograph had holes or could be used for shipping. Mr. Bushee said there were cut outs and they could be repaired. Mr. Segal asked if he researched whether the containers were used for storage. He said no. The ordinance stated they should not be used for storage nor stored on the property. Mr. Segal asked Mr. Bushee to state that the title of the code section. It was called “non mobile outdoor storage units.” Mr. Segal asked if the containers were full. Mr. Bushee stated that they were shipping containers. Chairman Lister asked Jake Blanchard if he would like to offer testimony for the tenant. Ms. Sobel stated an objection to Mr. Brewer and Mr. Blanchard providing testimony. The notice required witness names and contact information in advance to accommodate the virtual meeting format and these were not provided. Mr. Trask said Mr. Lister needed to sustain or overrule the objection and Mr. Segal needed to respond. Mr. Segal stated he did not believe the city can articulate any prejudice and the prejudice to the respondent of not being able to present is great. The witnesses will provide testimony they were construction materials and not shipping containers. He offered to continue the hearing. Chairman Lister overruled the objection. Mr. Blanchard stated he represented the tenant (Trison Construction) and was a bankruptcy attorney. The structures were from a bankruptcy. His client worked on the shipping containers. He also owned a welding business that did fabrication on the containers. They were construction materials. They would not pass as shipping containers and were being transformed into buildings. Ms. Sobel objected to Mr. Blanchard giving a legal conclusion. Mr. Segal said the witness could offer a legal opinion since he was a licensed attorney. Chairman Lister overruled the objection based on relevance. Mr. Blanchard stated the business helped provided jobs. The city built a shipping container for an art project at that facility. Mr. Segal asked Mr. Blanchard if the materials could be used for storage. He said no.

8

Ms. Sobel asked Mr. Blanchard if he was qualified in code enforcement or government. He said no. Mr. Hood asked how many containers were on site and how long they would remain. Mr. Blanchard said approximately six to twelve weeks. Mr. Bushee asked Mr. Blanchard what motorists passing by would think they were. Mr. Blanchard stated shipping containers do not have doors and he could not speak to their mind set. Ms. Jackson asked Mr. Segal if he had evidence to submit about the declaration during the bankruptcy that they were not shipping containers. Mr. Hicks asked Mr. Blanchard what permitting he had to manufacture homes on site. Mr. Blanchard said he did not know. Chairman Lister asked if board members had questions for Mr. Blanchard. Chairman Lister asked what other uses they could be. Mr. Blanchard said office. Mr. Segal stated they had photographs. Mr. Doll asked Mr. Blanchard if he knew the number of employees. Mr. Blanchard stated there were three people and subcontractors. Mr. Doll asked Mr. Blanchard to clarify his interest in the site. Mr. Blanchard said Trison Construction asked him to be there. His welding company did work. Mr. Doll asked if he was compensated and he said yes. Ms. Bennie asked Mr. Segal if he intends to keep the containers here. Mr. Segal said the intention is to construct them and move them. Chairman Lister asked where the repurposed structures would be located. Mr. Blanchard stated St. Petersburg Beach and Tampa. Chairman Lister asked if anyone had questions for Mr. Blanchard or Mr. Segal. No one did. Ms. Sobel stated the respondent needed to present the case. Mr. Segal stated the board asked to see photographs of the containers. Ms. Sobel stated an objection due to relevance. Christina Jackson asked Mr. Trask the board’s role. Mr. Trask said the board was to determine if the property owner was in violation of Sec. 55.01(a) based on the testimony and evidence. Chairman Lister overruled the objection. Mr. Bushee showed the photographs provided by Mr. Segal of buildings built with the containers.

9

Liz Ambler-Conkle asked if they mentioned they were shipping containers in ads and the incentive for using them. Mr. Blanchard said this they did not advertise this, and they were durable, hurricane resistant, and easy to insulate. Chairman Lister asked if board members had questions about the material presented. Mr. Doll stated he had a question for a prior witness. Mr. Trask said to finish with this witness and the additional witness mentioned by Mr. Segal. Mr. Segal called Jonathan Brewer. Ms. Sobel restated her objection that Mr. Brewer was not submitted as a witness in advance. Mr. Brewer’s appearance as a witness was prejudicial because he served as the city Economic Liaison. His testimony should not be given further weight. He was appearing as a private citizen. Mr. Segal stated the chair already ruled on this. Mr. Sobel stated he had not ruled on the objection for Mr. Brewer to testify due to his position with the city. Mr. Segal stated that the ruling should be regarding the weight not admissibility. Ms. Sobel stated it was prejudicial and would be difficult for the city because he had this position. Chairman Lister stated he overruled the objection. Jonathan Brewer stated he disagreed with Ms. Sobel. He contacted the property owner and tenant as the Economic Liaison on February 6, 2020 and notified Ms. Stenmark. This was a fabrication business. It was not a storage yard. They converted containers and recycled. Sparkman’s Wharf in Tampa was converted shipping containers. In the Economic Development Liaison role, he investigated how other cities handled this. The City of Los Angeles had them in industrial zoning and required tracking of a vin number on the container. This was an affordable housing issue and part of the tiny home concept. Starbucks was using them for coffee shops. The photographs showed disrepair left by the last tenant. It was cleaned up. Section 55.01 was about non mobile storage units and did not address this situation. No one lived on site. They were like Jacobsen’s mobile homes and they would need to be cited if this property owner is cited. The property was zoned M-1. Ms. Stenmark could comment if fabrication of steel met zoning criteria. Chairman Lister asked if anyone from the city or board had questions for Mr. Brewer. Ms. Sobel stated she did. Ms. Sobel asked if anyone from the city directed him to be here. He stated no. Ms. Sobel asked if Mr. Brewer was aware of the Code Enforcement Board’s role. He stated it was to determine if a complaint was appropriate against a property. Ms. Sobel stated their function was to decide whether a violation occurred. It was not their function to decide whether a city code was well written. Ms. Sobel asked if he was aware the Code Enforcement Board did not have the power to declare a code invalid. Mr. Brewer stated they would make a recommendation to the City Commission. Ms. Sobel stated this was Planning and Zoning Board’s the role. Chairman Lister asked about the order of presentations. Mr. Doll asked if Mr. Bushee could respond to questions. Mr. Trask said yes.

10

Mr. Doll asked if he placed construction materials at 1885 Cedar Street if he would be in violation of the code. Mr. Bushee stated he could not answer that and that was not what was being discussed. Chairman Lister asked Ms. Sobel to finalize comments by the city. Ms. Sobel stated they heard competent and substantial evidence the respondent was in violation of LDC Section 55.01(a). She read the code section. The subject property was not an approved impound yard. Photographs show they were shipping containers. They needed to store these shipping containers elsewhere. The Code Enforcement Board did not have the power to decide whether a code was invalid. She asked the board to decide based on the competent and substantial evidence presented that the code Section 55.01(a) was violated. Chairman Lister asked Mr. Segal or Mr. Blanchard to make final comments. Mr. Segal agreed with Ms. Sobel that it was not their job to change the code. The code was written for immobile storage containers. He stated the board heard competent, substantial evidence these were not storage containers. They were repurposed and that did not mean they were shipping containers. Once they were on the lot, they were no longer shipping containers. Chairman Lister asked Mr. Blanchard if he had comments. Mr. Trask said Mr. Blanchard was not acting as an attorney so he should not be asked. Chairman Lister asked for a motion. Ms. Jackson moved that based on the testimony and evidence presented and based on the findings as a matter of law, at the time of the violations, Section 55.01(a) of the Land Development Code was in force and effect and they were in violation. They should have until August 29, 2020 to come into compliance with the code section or a fine of $200 a day shall be imposed. The city should be awarded $410 for prosecution costs. The motion was seconded by Liz Ambler-Conkle. Ms. Jackson stated she made the motion based on Mr. Trask’s response. There were other processes that could happen. The zoning was R-3. This was a residential zoning. Mr. Hicks said the code was written before shipping containers were used as building materials. In three days, it may be cut up into a house and become building materials. Ms. Bennie stated until the code was changed, she had to say it was a violation. Ms. Jackson stated this was not the end tonight. There’s a process to take it to the next step. Ms. Ambler-Conkle stated Ms. Sobel’s clarification spoke to this. It was not their job to decide whether the code was wrong. They were in violation. Chairman Lister stated they must apply the code. He did not see a lot here. These were once containers and were not containers when they hit the yard. Mr. Hicks stated the code had two prongs. The shipping container shall not be used for storage nor shall they be stored. They did not meet the second part.

11

Chairman Lister drove by today and did not see a shipping container. Mr. Hicks stated they were building materials. Chairman Lister asked if there were other thoughts. Mr. Doll stated they were arguing the literal intent or spirit of the code. Mr. Hood stated the literal interpretation was they were shipping containers. It was a violation. Ms. Jackson said the applicant had a witness that was welding on the property. Mr. Hicks stated a hypothetical situation. Would it sway their opinion if before it got to the site someone cut a hole in it and dropped it off? Ms. Jackson said she would amend the motion if they had approval for the impound lot. Mr. Doll stated the impound lot was required for storage, not for materials. Liz Ambler-Conkle asked the board to vote. Discussion occurred over whether to discuss the matter further or take a vote. Mr. Hicks asked Mr. Trask for clarification on code Section 55.01(a). Mr. Trask stated it was not their job to clarify if the code was right or wrong. They needed to take a vote. Ms. Bennie stated the code was written this way because they were unsightly. Chairman Lister recommended a longer time frame to the motion maker. Ms. Jackson amended the motion to give the respondents until November 1, 2020 to come into compliance. Ms. Ambler-Conkle seconded the motion. Mr. Doll, Mr. Hicks, and Mr. Lister voted no. The motion passed 4-3. Attorney Tom Trask read the respondent the summary of violation.

3. CEB #20-016 City of Safety Harbor vs. Bradley Brown 446 5th St. N. Mr. Trask swore in Bradley Brown. Mr. Trask asked if he had other witnesses and he said no. Mr. Brown said he saw the evidence and agreed. Paul Bushee, Community Compliance Officer, presented the case. Received into evidence with no objection were:

• Tax Collector web site for the property • Property Appraiser web site for the property

12

Mr. Bushee stated that on May 29, 2020, in response to neighbor complaints, he inspected the property. Large sections of the house were in decline and the neighborhood was blighted. On June 1, 2020, a notice of violation was mailed to the property owner. The owner worked with the building department to obtain a demolition permit on July 28, 2020. He requested twenty-one days to bring the house into compliance. Mr. Brown asked if the permit was approved. Mr. Trask asked him to wait to speak. Mr. Bushee showed photographs of the property on May 29, 2020. Received into evidence with no objection were:

• Photographs • Notice of violation • Tracking

Mr. Hicks asked if he could ask a question. Mr. Trask stated it would be best to wait. On June 1, 2020, a notice of violation was mailed by USPS certified mail return receipt requested and a copy by USPS first class was mailed notifying the property owner of the violation. The notice included the code sections and a deadline for compliance. On July 14, 2020, a notice of hearing was mailed by USPS certified mail return receipt requested and a copy by USPS first class to the property owner. A notice was posted at city hall and on the property. The notice included the code sections and date of hearing. Received into evidence with no objection were:

• Affidavit of posting • Notice of hearing • Statement of Violation • Return Receipt

Mr. Bushee stated the property remained in violation. Administrative costs included at least twenty-five hours of the code enforcement officer’s time of $410.00. The city asks the code enforcement board to find the property owner in violation. Staff recommended in addition to the Administrative cost of $410.00, to allow 21 days for the respondent to come into compliance. A fine of $250 per day fine would be applied after August 20, 2020. Ms. Sobel asked Mr. Bushee to describe the complaints received about the property. He stated he received at least three complaints from neighbors about the condition of the property. Chairman Lister asked if Mr. Hicks had a comment. Mr. Hicks asked if this covered all structures on the property and if the applicant was cooperative. Mr. Bushee replied yes to both. Chairman Lister asked if demolition would make the property compliant. Mr. Bushee stated no.

13

Chairman Lister asked of there were more questions for Mr. Bushee. No one replied. He asked if Mr. Brown would like to speak. Mr. Brown stated that his priority is getting the addition taken down and making other violations compliant. Chairman Lister asked if the board had questions of Mr. Brown. Mr. Hicks asked Mr. Brown what steps he had made to bring the property into compliance in addition to the permit. He stated he excavated the sewer line and water line to the perimeter of the property, added a silt fence around trees, and cleared a tree limb. Mr. Hicks asked if he engaged contractors and Mr. Brown said yes. Ms. Bennie asked if this was a partial demolition and Mr. Brown replied yes. Mr. Brown stated he would fix violations and put the property up for sale. Mr. Doll asked if it was his intent to repair the structure. Mr. Brown said he wanted to meet the code and sell the property. Chairman Lister asked when work would begin. Mr. Brown said he did not have a timeline. Chairman Lister asked if there were questions for Mr. Brown. Chairman Lister asked if the city would like to sum up the case. They waived the summary. Chairman Lister asked if Mr. Brown had final comments. Mr. Brown asked if the contractor was notified by the city that the demolition permit was approved. Mr. Bushee said yes. Chairman Lister asked the board to make a motion. Mr. Doll moved that based on the testimony and evidence presented and findings as a matter of law at time of the alleged violation, Sections 5.17 a, b, d, e, f, and g and 5.20 a-b of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Safety Harbor were in force and effect. The respondent was in violation. The respondent shall have until the 20th day of August or a fine of $250 a day shall be imposed until compliance is confirmed. The city shall be awarded $410 in administrative costs. Ms. Jackson seconded. Motion passed 7-0 by roll call vote. Mr. Trask read the summary of violation. OLD BUSINESS: Non-Compliance Hearing

1. CEB #20-012 City of Safety Harbor vs. Jeffery Spisak 346 Hamilton Avenue Mr. Ambler-Conkle indicated a voting conflict. Mr. Trask asked her to fill out the form. She said she will fill out a voter conflict form and will drop it off.

14

Mr. Doll moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance. Mr. Hicks seconded. Motion carried 6-0. Compliance Hearing

1. CEB #20-008 City of Safety Harbor vs. Safety Harbor Industrial Complex LLC Mr. Doll moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance. Ms. Jackson seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Ms. Jackson asked the next meeting time. Mr. Bushee stated 5:00 pm. Ms. Jackson stated some members cannot start at 5:00 pm and asked if there needed to be a vote. Mr. Trask stated the rules indicate a 7:00 pm time start. He recommended the board update the resolution. Ms. Stenmark stated they would get back with the board. Chairman Lister asked if the board could discuss the time by email. Mr. Trask asked staff to present a suggestion at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:02 pm. Chair Signature: _________________________________________