MINUTES CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, FLORIDA CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CEB MEETING DATE July 20, :00 p.m.

Transcription

1 MINUTES CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, FLORIDA CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CEB MEETING DATE July 20, :00 p.m. 1. Call To Order: The meeting was called to order at 3:02 by Chair Dominique Reiter. 2. Roll Call: Dominique Reiter, Chair James E. Buchyn, Vice-Chair Dana Ball Belinda J. Lunn Sharon McLendon Bob Weber Khedjia Nottingham - Alternate Fred Kelsey - Alternate Absent Absent 3. Pledge. The pledge was led by Dana Ball 4. Approval of minutes. It was moved to accept the minutes of the February 17, 2016 meeting by Ms. Ball and seconded by Mr. Weber. The voice vote was unanimous. 5. Swearing of witnesses The witnesses and staff were sworn in by Notary and Deputy City Clerk Pam Middleton. 6. Case hearings. CEB , David S. Barnes & Christine Hancock, 9 Island Dr. Sec , Waterfront lots. Storm water runoff floods the neighboring property. Code Enforcement Officer Del Powell asked to have the case continued to the next meeting for the owner of the property had a medical issue. It was moved to continue this case to the next meeting by Ms. Ball and seconded by Ms. Lunn. The voice vote was unanimous. CEB , CWABS, Inc Paradise Blvd. Sec & Overgrown trees and shrubs, excessive dead vegetation. Mr. Powell said the property is a single family residence located at Paradise Blvd in the City of Treasure Island. The property was inspected on May 19, 2016 and was found to be non-compliant due to overgrown trees, shrubs and bushes excessive vegetation. A courtesy notice was posted on the property and mailed with a compliance date of June 3, 2016 (15 days). The property was reinspected on June 9, 2016 nothing was done. A Notice of Violation was posted and sent via first class and certified mail with a compliance date of June 19, Photos were shown to the board. Certified Mail receipt returned signed on June 13, 2016.

2 The code sections violated are: Sec , Unhealthful Accumulations Declared public nuisance, and Sec , Minimum Property Maintenance Standards. To come into compliance it is necessary to: Cut and trim the trees, bushes, grass and weeds and remove the dead palm fronds from the trees and ground. Nothing was done (as of July 20 th ). The property was reinspected on July 7th and a Notice of Hearing was posted and sent to the owner by first class mail and certified mail with a hearing date of July 20, Staff believes 10 days is sufficient time to bring the violations into compliance. Mr. Powell asked to submit the documents as evidence. It was moved by Mr. Buchyn and seconded by Mr. Weber to accept the documents as evidence. The voice vote was unanimous. There was no one in the audience to speak on the property s behalf. Ms. Reiter asked if it was in foreclosure. Mr. Powell answered in the affirmative. Mr. Powell believes that 10 days is enough time to bring it into compliance. Ms. Reiter asked if they needed to adjudicate for it is a first offense. Ms. Cowan said yes. Mr. Buchyn made a motion found the property guilty as a first time offenders. It was seconded by Ms. Ball. The voice vote was unanimous. Mr. Weber asked if there was any communication with the company. Mr. Powell said no. Ms. Reiter suggested giving the property owners until July 29, Mr. Buchyn made a motion to give the property owners until July 29, 2016 to remedy the situation. It was seconded by Ms. Ball. The voice vote was unanimous. CEB , Ronald W & Tammy J. Lukin, th St E. Sec , Waterfront lots. Storm water runoff floods the neighboring property. (Ron Lukin) (Attorney Richard Neefe) (Jordan Hidalgo-pool contractor) Mr. Powell explained that it was a single family residence located at th St E. On May 9, 2016 the neighbor at th St E came in with photos showing storm water runoff was flooding her property and garage. The photos shown were submitted by the neighbor. The City Building Inspector, Larry Jenkins, inspected and determined that this flooding was due to the pitch of a new roof. A courtesy notice was mailed with a compliance date of 15 days from receipt of the notice. On June 9, 2016 a Notice of Violation was posted and mailed via first class and certified mail with a compliance date of June 19, On June 20th the respondent had an inspection performed by a professional engineer who provided a report. On March 17, 2016, the City Planning & Zoning Board granted a variance request to increase the impervious surface area at th St E. Certified Mail receipt returned signed. The code sections violated are: Sec To come into compliance it was necessary to take corrective action to eliminate storm water runoff onto the neighboring property at th St E. On June 17, 2016 a Notice of Hearing was posted and sent to the owner by first class mail and certified mail with a hearing date of July 20, The respondent has taken steps to prevent run-off. Mr. Jenkins said once they determined the storm water runoff was coming from the roof, the owner was contacted and they installed a gutter that runs all the way out to their driveway. He inspected both properties. A picture of the two houses side by side. There is an incline on the neighboring property. There is a difference in elevation in the driveways. Mr. Jenkins gave an explanation of the flow of excess water. The Florida Building Code passed a drainage ordinance back in the 1960 s that stated every surface away from a foundation must have at least a 2% grade away from the house. He noticed that was absent from the property at th St. E. Mr. Jenkins gave a copy of the code to the entire board. After the complaint the Lukin s installed a gutter system that goes out to the driveway. Mr. Jenkins explained the process in more detail. A video was played to show the gutter and the run-off. Property owner Mr. Ron Lukin explained where the videos were taken. He said when they installed the pool and the roof. They recently found out there was a flooding problem when the first heavy rain hit. Mr. Lukin went on to explain that the water coming from the down spout and the water going down the driveway. The video was taken yesterday. He also installed an impervious wall next to the shared fence. He also pointed out that the video shows water running off the travertine and into the intercoastal, not into the neighbors yard. Mr. Lukin handed out pictures to the board. He said the pictures show two downspouts coming from the neighbors property right into the area that is flooding their yard. There are several things next to the pavers. The picture of the front downspout shows that there is no way for the water to get off their property. He said there was grass before they built the pool. Prior to the building of the pool his backyard would get flooded from water from the neighbors yard. He stated that

3 once the pool was put in the water was now trapped in the neighbors yard. Mr. Lukin said he has done everything he could possibly think of to alleviate the problem. A civil engineer made the suggestions. Mr. Buchyn said it looks like Mr. Lukin made a decent effort to try and fix it. It seems like an ongoing dispute with the neighbor. He asked Mr. Lukin if he is suggesting that they may be creating part of their own problem. Mr. Lukin stated that prior to them building the pool the neighbors didn t have any water problems. Mr. Lukin said they put a pool in and leveled it out and the water stays in the neighbors yard. He said he has taken care of the issues as best as he could. He suggested that the neighbors do what they can to fix their problems. Mr. Buchyn said if there is a violation then it needs to be addressed. Mr. Lukin said he understands. He said he didn t know there was a problem until there was a problem. Instead of getting a call from the neighbors they got a code violation, and stated he would have more than likely taken care of it if he received a call from the neighbor. Mr. Buchyn asked if the engineer said that nothing else could be done. Mr. Lukin answered in the affirmative. Mr. Buchyn said he would take it into account and the board will listen to staff s suggestions. Ms. Reiter asked how long he lived there. Mr. Lukin said he bought the house a year ago. The pool was built in November From June to November of 2015, Mr. Lukin stated he noticed quite a bit of water coming from his neighbors yard into his yard. Mr. Powell read a letter from Civil Engineer Parker Lilya from June 20, Mr. Powell asked that the documents be accepted as evidence. It was moved by Mr. Buchyn and seconded by Mr. Weber. The voice vote was unanimous. Ms. Reiter asked if it a first offense. Mr. Powell answered in the affirmative. Ms. Reiter asked what was the baring of the variance request. Ms. Cohen said the respondent requested a variance to the impervious surface ration and were granted the additional impervious surface on the site. Ms. Reiter asked how it affects the case. Ms. Cohen stated that impervious surface does not allow water to penetrate into the ground. Ms. Lunn asked if it was only 3%. Ms. Cohen answered in the affirmative and said it was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Buchyn said the staff recommended a denial of that. Ms. Cohen answered in the affirmative. The complainant in this case wrote a letter to the city staff disagreeing with the variance request. It was read into the record on the day of the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing. Ms. Reiter asked if by granting 3% how does it affect the continuation of any flooding. Ms. Cohen expressed that when you have more impervious service there is less chance for water to penetrate into the ground. The question becomes was there sufficient measures taken by Mr. and Mrs. Lukin as to whether or not they have addressed the issue. The board will need to make a determination. Ms. Reiter asked Mr. Jenkins if the Lukin s installing the gutters is up to code. Mr. Jenkins said yes and it should solve the problem. He said what needs to happen is they need to get 2% away from the foundation and everything will go to the center. Ms. Reiter asked if that had been done yet. Mr. Jenkins said no. Ms. Cohen noted that would be accomplished by the complainant. Ms. Valerie Palla lives at th Street E. She has lived in the property for almost 20 years. The pictures shown of the downspouts have been there for 20 years. Nothing has changed in the 20 years. The property has never flooded even during hurricanes and tropical storms. It was only after the Lukin s raised the level of their lot and had the pool installed and neglected to take the proper precautions to prevent storm water run-off. Ms. Palla s property now floods. The property has flooded twice, including the garage. Ms. Palla said the Lukin s raised the lot 7 above the seawall cap and 9 above her property. The Lukin s took precautions to prevent their property from flooding by installing a trench drain that runs parallel to the back of their house and it discharges to both sides of the Lukin s property. It collects rainwater, pool overflow and roof gutter water. It is diverted to the adjoining properties on either side and each of those properties has flooded. Photos were handed to the board of the drain. Ms. Palla said the Lukin s have added a second downspout. The Lukin s created a hand dug trench along her property line in an effort to mitigate the flooding. Ms. Palla said an expert from a construction engineer who has reviewed the city codes, personally seen the flooding and witnessed the damage. She is asking that the city enforce its codes, and that the Lukin s take the same measure for their neighbors that they took for themselves. She wants them to grade their backyard so it is within code and does not exceed the level of the seawall. Ms. Palla expressed that city code is very clear in stating that a property cannot exceed the level of the seawall. The Lukin s have done so by 7 inches. She wants them to install proper drainage parallel to the adjoining property lines. Because of the flooding she is experiencing she needs the same protection that the homeowners have taken for themselves and not have to worry that a lack of proper code enforcement and a summer rainstorm will continue to flood her property. Ms. Pam Anderson lives at th Street E. She has lived there since The back yard has never flooded. Even during the worst storm. The most that has happened was minor wave action over the seawall. When the first courtesy notice came out it referenced Treasure Island Code for a waterfront lot. The property is in a high C restricted zone. They are subjected FEMA and the National Flood Insurance regulations. Per Treasure Island Code , at the seawall property line the grade level at the top of the seawall and running parallel to the seawall must be the same as the seawall cap. Ms. Anderson said there is one picture that the grade is 7 inches above the cap. She handed out pictures of the hand dug trench with the vertical tiles. She said the tiles have now sunk and the trench is no longer there. She remarked

4 that it is not the drainage system for the amount of travertine that the Lukin s have in their yard and the downspout that flows into the French drain in the back of the pool is about a third of their roof. It is all the storm water and the pool overflow. Ms. Anderson said there is a picture that tracks the French drain that comes very close to her fence. It is the same way on the adjacent property. She communicated she is all for improving ones property but do it in a way that doesn t impact the people who live around you. Ms. Anderson remarked that she puts up a door every year at this time for storm and put bricks and sandbags near the door because that is where the water came into the garage. She took fence posts wrapped in plastic and put them underneath the fence. This issue could prevent the selling of the property. Ms. Anderson commented that she doesn t want to see the City of Treasure Island have any ramifications with the National Flood Insurance Program rebate rates because the city failed to enforce the code. Ms. Anderson passed around a report from an engineering consultant with The Veteran s Affairs which contains the kind of drain that needs to be tied into the French drain that would accept all the extra water. Mr. Powell noted that the gentleman at the podium was Attorney Richard Neefe who is advising Ms. Palla and Ms. Anderson. Ms. Anderson said she wants proper drainage put in and to resolve the situation. Ms. Nottingham asked if Ms. Anderson had flooding with the storm that happened on July 19, Ms. Anderson said they did not, but the four by fours are still shoved beneath the fence. She stated that they built berms with stones during the last storm but it just washed away. Mr. Weber asked Ms. Anderson if she believed that if she didn t have the preventative measures in place that her property would have flooded in the storm the day before. Ms. Anderson said there would be a very good chance that it would. In the past the garage has flooded twice with about four inches of water. Mr. Weber asked Mr. Jenkins if any flooding has occurred since the gutter that was installed by the Lukin s. Mr. Jenkins said he did not know that. He said the sod is higher than the elevation of the garage door entry and if it rains more than an inch and a half water will flow there because it is the lowest path of resistance. Ms. Palla approached the podium and remarked that nothing has changed in their house in the almost 20 years they have owned it. They have never had flooding and now they do. Ms. Anderson asked if Code section A still an enforceable code. Ms. Anderson said that on the Courtesy Notice Violation of May 9, 2016 under the resolution number two it says to review the drainage with a civil engineer the grade of your property relative to the neighboring lot, regrading or the installation of drainage facilities may be required to redirect the flow of storm water away from adjacent properties. She stated that the property on the other side of the Lukin s flooded also. Ms. Palla said that the Lukin s need to install drainage that take the discharge flow away from the adjacent properties. She reiterated that for almost 20 years there was no problem until the neighbors installed a pool and increased the level of their lot. Mr. Jordan Hidalgo of Island Paver and Pools came to the podium and said he installed the pool for the Lukin s. He was at the Planning and Zoning Board variance meeting. The French drain between the house and the pool is pitched to the southside, has the gutter in the middle, continues south along the property towards the seawall at a lower elevation. There is a bubblers type set-up and a rock pit. Any water that lands on their deck or comes off of the house on the back of the property goes into a drain which pitches the opposite direction and ties into a PVC drain goes down toward the seawall where there is a rock pit and it flows over the seawall. The gutter on the new roof is tied into a solid pipe that runs out to the front of the property. The engineer wrote that the drains that are in place restricts any water from being transferred to the adjacent property provided there isn t a major seawall flood condition. Mr. Hidalgo expressed there is no evidence other than the owner saying it hasn t flooded in 18 years to indicate that it is flooding due to the Lukin s property. The city inspector has said that the sod is higher than the garage door. Mr. Hidalgo said there are drains on plans that go in the opposite direction. There is video evidence of the water going into the gutter, out to the front yard and down the driveway. There is a three foot drainage easement on the survey filled with rock. It is in between the travertine and the fence. He stated that the video shows that there are no waves of water going anywhere. Mr. Hidalgo stated he is not sure how the code is to be interpreted with regard to the grade not being higher than the seawall. He indicated that all houses are built higher than the seawall. The reason it is raised is so the grade doesn t get slippery if they were to taper it exactly toward the seawall. He remarked that the neighbors said they haven t flooded since the corrections by the Lukin s have been put in place. There is no further evidence of flooding. The neighbors have acknowledged they have drains all over their property showing they have issues with water retention. He said the only way to prove where the water is coming from is to do a dye packet test. There is evidence showing the water is coming off the Lukin s property and going away including the videos from the day before and the drains that Mr. Hidalgo personally installed. He reiterated the way the gutters and pipes were installed. Ms. Reiter asked if anyone else would like to speak before she closed the public hearing. Mr. Lukin approached the podium and stated that the neighbor to the left of his property is a rental unit. Ms. Palla asked them to testify. They have moved and refused to. There is water in their property because they built the seawall which is higher than his and it holds the water in the yard and has nothing to do with drainage from his yard going onto their side. Ms. Palla asked where the elevation certificate that Mr. Jenkins says confirms that their driveway is higher than the Lukin s driveway. Their brick driveway was put in There has been no flooding. Their downspouts have been put

5 there for 20 years or more. All of which were permitted and required. She restated they never had an issue until this construction was done. She takes objection to the contractor stating that he doesn t know how to interpret the code. She read the code. She said it very clear. She said Mr. Lukin stated that the neighbors to the south of him have a seawall that is higher than his. There is a problem with elevation. There are no elevation certificates. Ms. Anderson stated that the seawall to the south is still below the cap and he is planning to slope it back up to the house that is going to be built on stilts. Ms. Hidalgo said that the code is written so one would have to build their house at an elevation lower than your seawall which would cause a house to flood. It isn t a problem with interpreting the code. He believes that when the code was written they didn't word it properly. He said everyone can agree that a person wouldn t want their house lower than their seawall. He explained how some of the newer seawalls have a different sized cap. He said that if the Lukin s southside neighbor were to leave their seawall there and build another house, the water would swell in the middle and go north to the Lukin s yard. The house has got to be higher than the seawall. He said there was no build up. It is just pitched down at an even pace. He believes the code can be interpreted improperly. Ms. Reiter asked if the staff had any rebuttal before she closed the public hearing. There was no rebuttal from the staff. Ms. Palla said it has nothing to do with the elevation of the house. She said at the seawall property line the grade level cannot exceed the top of the seawall. She stated the Lukin s property is clearly 7 inches above the top of the cap. Mr. Lukin said it 4 ½ inches and it pitched back toward the intercoastal Ms. Reiter asked for a motion to accept the evidence produced by the complainant and the respondent. It was moved by Mr. Buchyn and seconded by Ms. Ball to accept the evidence as presented. The voice vote was unanimous. Ms. Reiter closed the public hearing. Mr. Powell said staff would like the board to determine if there was a violation. If there was a violation does it still exist or is the respondent in compliance. Ms. Cohen said she believes Mr. Powell is trying to state that there clearly was a violation on the Lukin property. He was a first time violator. There are different opinions and issues as to whether the violation is continuing or has the violation been mitigated. Ms. Reiter suggested that the board make a motion that the respondent was in violation as a first time offender. Mr. Buchyn said he appreciates Mr. Lukin s attempt to mitigate the problem. Mr. Weber asked if the board has determined that they added some drainage and since that time there hasn t been an issue. Mr. Jenkins answered in the affirmative. Mr. Weber asked if the property was in violation and they had to add the drainage to rectify the problem. Mr. Jenkins answered in the affirmative. Ms. Lunn asked if it was a violation or if it was a mistake made by the contractor. Mr. Jenkins said it was a mistake. They didn t get the drainage up in time. There were two separate permits: the pool permit and the roof permit. They didn t get the drains up in time before the large rain. Ms. Lunn reiterated her question of it being a violation or a mistake. Ms. Reiter said that even though it was a mistake it still should have been done. The board needs to show them as a first time violator. Ms. Ball asked if it is correct as far as the code is concerned. Mr. Jenkins said it has been approved. Ms. Reiter asked if the board wanted to make a motion to adjudicate them in violation as a first time offender. Mr. Buchyn made the motion and Ms. Ball seconded it. The voice vote was unanimous. Ms. Reiter said there was a lot of discussion that could have swayed them. Mr. Weber stated that a lot of information has been presented from each side and the city staff gave its opinion. He said they should consider the evidence that was presented and reevaluate their opinion. He is curious if there was flooding on the Lukin property prior to them owning it and if so where did that water come from. City Attorney Jennifer Cowan wanted them to know that the language in the code is contained in the notice of violation. She conveyed that they are sitting as the Code Enforcement Board and their questions should be whether or not there should be a violation of the code and whether or not it has been remedied. It is not the board s job to determine disputes between neighbors. Mr. Buchyn voiced that the board has already found the respondent in violation. He mentioned that what the board needs from the staff is a remedy and a time period for them to come into compliance. Ms. Cohen indicated that the Lukin s were found guilty as a first time offender. Ms. Reiter said she agrees they are in compliance but would like the code to be read and would like some interpretation. City Attorney Cowan read the code section Ms. Reiter said they have adjudicated them and we are learning about the code and are they in compliance. Mr. Weber said that is for the city to evaluate and let the board know if the construction was completed in accordance to the code. He went on to say that the reason they were in violation and were found guilty as a first time offender was because work hadn t been completed. Ms. Lunn commented that the board and city have done their jobs and they can no longer interfere. Ms. Cowan said they have found them in violation, but there is also the time frame for which they should come into compliance. It is the will of the board that they have come into compliance with the code so there isn t a time frame. Ms. Reiter stated that it was her opinion that the gutters have solved

6 the issue. Ms. Cohen explained that what was before the board is the same predicament that the staff had. There were professionals that provided information about both properties and they are conflicting. There hasn t been a big enough rain to figure out if it works properly. She requested that the board refrain from dropping it back on the staff. They both have obtained prominent professionals. She cannot determine if it is fully mitigated or not. Ms. Reiter said there are several issues that could still hinder swell. Mr. Jenkins said if they go into the building code and both properties have slanted drains and there is a swell in the center the problem would be solved. There was a brief discussion among the board members about possible causes of the flooding. Mr. Jenkins stated that if a 2% grade went down to a swell between the properties that there shouldn t be a problem. Ms. Reiter asked if both properties had to do that in order to solve the problem. Mr. Jenkins explained the pool was put in from the grade level which is the level of the house, and there had to be a 2% grade from the foundation. The side yard has gravel that percolates up. He said that over the years the ground level goes down and the water flow goes to the lowest point. Ms. Reiter asked Mr. Jenkins if the property was in compliance with what they need to do. Mr. Jenkins answered in the affirmative by the Florida Building Code. Ms. Cowan explained that the board is looking if there is a violation concerning the local code and whether or not the violation has been remedied. The building code information is well taken, but that is not what the board is determining today. Ms. Reiter asked Ms. Cowan for some legal advice. Ms. Reiter said she wants to know what could cause any more water problems for the neighbor. Ms. Lunn expressed that it isn t the board s job to determine that. Ms. Reiter said that if the neighbor s property floods again they will return before the board. Ms. Ball articulated that Mr. Jenkins said they are in compliance so the board s job is done. Mr. Weber said the Lukin s built what they did in compliance with the building code and the variance that was granted by the Planning and Zoning. Mr. Weber asked Mr. Jenkin s if that was correct. It was concluded that they are in compliance. Ms. Reiter said she disagrees with some of what has been said. They are in compliance because it is not flooding right now. They cannot foresee if there is going to be any other issues. Ms. Cohen said if there is any future flooding on either neighboring property they need to come to staff and provide the photos and it will be brought immediately back to the Code Enforcement Board which could result in up to $500/day in repeat violation. Mr. Weber suggested that before it gets to this level he would encourage people to address their grievances in a civilized manner rather than coming before the board. Mr. Lukin asked for clarification. Mr. Weber said with the testimony of the staff they feel they are in compliance. A motion was made by Mr. Buchyn that the property is in compliance with code and there is no further remedy at this time. It was seconded by Ms. Lunn. The voice vote was unanimous. CEB , Thomas J. Fitzgerald / Mainsail Vacation Rentals, 8685 E Bay Dr. Sec , Uses. Operating a Tourist Dwelling in an RM-15 Land Use District when tourist dwelling is not an approved use. Occupancy changes six or more times in a year. Mr. Powell said the property is a single family residence located at 8685 E Bay Dr. This case is a result of a citizen complaint of frequent rentals. The property was inspected on May 16, 2016 and was found to be non-compliant due to changes in occupancy of six or more times in a year. The City Business Tax Receipt was in the name of and paid for by Mainsail Vacation Rentals, Ozona, FL. A courtesy notice was mailed with a compliance date of June 4, On June 9, 2016, we received an from Charles Park, owner of Mainsail Vacation Rentals. He said that he intended to honor several more rentals throughout the summer. Mr. Powell responded by that he could not do so. They got a subpoena for the rental records. To be a tourist dwelling the occupancy must change 6 or more times in a 12 month period. The records show that the property has been rented 18 times from January to June of The property was reinspected on June 29, 2016 and a Notice of Hearing was posted and sent to the owner and Mainsail Rental by first class mail and certified mail with a hearing date of July 20. Mr. Powell noted that there was a witness in the audience who is the neighbor that brought this to the city s attention. Mr. Powell said that he believes the property is in compliance. He drove by on July 19 th and didn t see any changes in occupancy. Staff is asking the board to adjudicate the respondents in violation as first time offenders and find them in compliance as of July 20 th based on what the witness tells the board. Mr. Powell asked that his documentation be accepted into evidence. It was moved by Mr. Buchyn and seconded by Ms. Lunn to accept the evidence. The voice vote was unanimous. The public hearing was opened up by Ms. Reiter. Mr. James Link stated that he lives next to the house. He said Mr. Fitzgerald hasn t lived in the house for several years. He has turned the house into a motel. Every week they get new visitors. Advertised to sleep 8 people but there have been up to as many as 15 people staying there at a time. The

7 guests are always having parties. This has been going on for several years. Mr. Link said he has neglected to come in and talk about it. Ms. Reiter explained the process. Ms. Link wanted to know who were the people renting the property. Mr. Powell said it was Charles Park at Mainsail Vacation Rentals in Ozona. Mr. Link wanted to know how the city can let someone like this rent. Mr. Powell said the owner can rent up to six times a year. Now that it is documented that he has rented more than five times. If the board adjudicates him as guilty and the property is rented again they will be assessed a fine up to $250/day. Mr. Buchyn said violations do happen. It has been brought to the board s attention and they are responding to it. Mel Lenehan asked if the property is homesteaded. Ms. Cohen said it was not. Ms. Lenehan said that residential area noise violations are 11 p.m. She would like to see residential noise violations changed to a different time. She wanted to know why it was a first time offense. Ms. Cowan said the board hasn t made that determination yet. Ms. Lenehan wanted to know if the board always takes the step with first time offenders. Mr. Buchyn said he views the board as less punitive rather than preventative. He believes the goal is to put others on notice that the behavior will not be tolerated. Ms. Reiter pointed out that it is a shame that it has been going on for years, but they didn t hear about it years ago. The process is due process by giving the respondent notice. Make a decision and if the respondent violates again, then the board will levy a fine. Ms. Lenehan pointed out that if it was homesteaded they would be in trouble. She believes it should be a level playing field between homesteaded and non-homesteaded properties. Mr. Powell explained that a first time offense doesn t mean it is the first time they have been done it, but rather it is the first time they have been adjudicated by the board. They may have been renting the property for several years. Mr. Powell explained that if the property was homesteaded they would report it to the county. Ms. Cowan said it is a property appraiser s. Ms. Cohen said they would lose their homestead for five years. Since it is not a homesteaded property there are things that staff can recommend. Mr. Link said the property was homesteaded and the county took away his rights. Ms. Nottingham asked if Mr. Link if he saw renters come in since July 2, and Mr. Link said he believes he is just having family for they haven t had the crisis that they have had before. Ms. Lenehan asked if the dates in question were in 2015 for he was homesteaded in that year. The dates were for Ms. Lenehan wanted to know if there were any bookings from 2015 for evidence. Ms. Cohen said they did ask for that in the subpoena. She did report to the Pinellas County Tax Collector for the resort tax and provided them a copy of the information returned to the city from the subpoena so that they could go in and ensure that they had their 18 payments of resort tax. They didn t go back any further than January 1, Ms. Lenehan asked why they didn t go back a full year. Ms. Cohen explained they asked from January 1 st to the current date and it was in violation with 18 rentals. Ms. Lenehan wanted to know if the person who filed the complaint file a time that it has been in violation. Ms. Cohen explained that Mr. Link was the complainant. He made the complaint 6 weeks ago and as soon as Ms. Cohen heard from Mr. Link she promptly began working on the case. Ms. Lenehan communicated that if Mr. Link had said it was in violation for the past two years or so. Mr. Powell said that it would matter because he would have to witness it. After Mr. Link made the complaint Mr. Powell said he went by the property every day and took pictures of every car at the property to prove that it has been rented more than 5 times. Ms. Cohen said they subpoenaed Ms. Reiter closed the hearing. Ms. Reiter asked about the advertisement and the renter saying he was going to continue renting. Ms. Cohen said it was a comment made by Charles Park in the . Staff recommends that the property owner is clearly in violation with the ordinance. Mr. Park is the agent. He said he wasn t going to advertise anymore but he has it booked and wanted to know if he could continue violating for the remainder of the year. Staff does not want that to occur. It is not acceptable to purposefully violate the regulations and gain revenue. Ms. Cohen said they don t see any proof that there has been a change in occupants. She suggested that there is a rental seen after this date that a fine for a repeat offender and suggested up to $500/day. It is difficult for the city and state government to track all the possible rentals. Ms. Cohen said that if it happens again they will bring it back to the board. Ms. Lunn said it is Mainsail Property Management. They should know the city s rules and regulations. She believes they should be fined. Ms. Cohen said that the board can only fine the property owner. Ms. Lunn suggested that they fine them and set a precedent. They want visitors here. Ms. Reiter asked if there is an ethics board in the real estate office. Ms. Lunn said absolutely. Mr. Weber said they can find them guilty as a first time offender because it has just been brought before the board. Mr. Powell said they cannot set a fine unless they violate your order. Mr. Weber said the rental company should know better and if they violate again he is in favor of throwing the book at them. Ms. Lunn said it takes brave neighbors to come forward. Mr. Buchyn made a second motion to find the property owner guilty as a first time offender. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weber. The voice vote was unanimous.

8 Mr. Weber said that they are informed of the ramifications if they violate a second time. Some more discussion ensued reiterating the dialogue above. 7. Old Business: None 8. New Business: Ms. Reiter said that she would like to have an educational class next month. Ms. Cowan explained that it is not the board s job to solve disputes among neighbors but to determine that there has been a code violation. Then to give them a prescribed time for them to comply or find that they have complied. 9. Adjournment. The next Code Enforcement Meeting will be on Wednesday, August 17, Ms. Ball made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Buchyn. The voice vote was unanimous. The meeting closed at 5:25 p.m. Pam A. Middleton Deputy City Clerk