Built from the City's minutes records — no AI-written textBriefing final
The City's record
What the City's record shows
Built only from the City's minutes (669_CE_Reg_Minutes_08_20_2020.pdf). Page numbers are the minutes' own. Discussion is in the minutes' text; it is not summarised here.
Attendance (the roll call)
Listed present when the roll was taken: Jim Gifford, George Brown, Edward Green, Lloyd Roberts, Kimberly Curtis
(Checked against the ballots and the printed roll lines; no independent membership list of this board is available to confirm that the roll is complete.)
Listed absent: Virginia Weaver, David Lightholder
Also listed as present (staff and other roles): Dennis Bunt (Code Enforcement Manager), Michael Cantaloupe (Police Chief), Steve Murdick (Code Enforcement Officer), Kadi Carver (Code Enforcement Officer), Don Boisvert (Councilman/Liaison), Debra Babb-Nutcher (Board Attorney), Darla Crowl (Recording Secretary), Jake Williams Jr (Mayor), Lorraine Koss (Council woman)
Named on at least one ballot later in the meeting: Gifford, Green, Roberts (participation, which can differ from the roll: arrivals and departures are in the minutes' text)
Adopted actions (25)
to approve the agenda of August 20, 2020 (moved by Brown, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 1
to approve the minutes of February 20, 2020 (moved by Green, seconded by Brown); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 1
to amend staff's recommendation to City Council the lien reduction be in the amount of zero ($0.) (moved by Brown, seconded by Gifford); CARRIED 3-2; ayes: not read from the minutes' text; nays: Green, Roberts — the City's minutes, p. 2
to amend staffs recommendation to City Council the lien reduction be in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) (moved by Brown, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 3
to approve staff's recommendation to City Council the lien reduction be in the amount of one thousand one hundred seven dollars and sixty cents ($1,107.60) (moved by Green, seconded by Brown); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 4
to table Staffs recommendation pending the lien reduction application turned in (moved by Roberts, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 5
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Roberts, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 5
to approve Staff's recommendation and to give the property owner until September 20, 2020 (30 days) and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Green, seconded by Brown); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 6
to approve Staff's recommendation and to give the property owner until September 20, 2020 (30 days) and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Brown, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 6
to amend Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Brown, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 7
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Roberts, seconded by Brown); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 8
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Brown, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 8
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Brown, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 8
to amend Staff's recommendation and table this case to the next Code Board meeting (moved by Green, seconded by Brown); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 9
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Roberts, seconded by Green); CARRIED 4-1; ayes: not read from the minutes' text; nays: Gifford — the City's minutes, p. 9
to amend Staffs recommendation and give the property owner 120 days with 30 day updates to the Board and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Brown, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 10
to amend Staff's recommendation and give the property owner 60 days and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Green, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 11
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Brown, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 12
to approve Staffs recommendation and find the Owner in Non-Compliance (moved by Green, seconded by Brown); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 12
to amend Staffs recommendation and find the Owner in Non-Compliance (moved by Brown, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 13
to approve Staffs recommendation and find the Owner in Non-Compliance (moved by Roberts, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 13
to table Staffs recommendation and find the Owner in Non-Compliance (moved by Brown, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 13
to approve Staffs recommendation and find the Owner in Non-Compliance (moved by Roberts, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 14
to approve Staffs recommendation and find the Owner in Non-Compliance (moved by Brown, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 14
to approve Staffs recommendation and find the Owner in Non-Compliance (moved by Curtis, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 15
Money named in the minutes' motions (what each motion did with the amount, in its own words)
$0 — Code Enforcement: recommended to another body (City Council decides; not a final approval). “amend staff's recommendation to City Council the lien reduction be in the amount of zero ($0.)” (motion result: CARRIED; the City's minutes (669_CE_Reg_Minutes_08_20_2020.pdf, p. 2); fiscal period not recorded)
$500.00 — Code Enforcement: recommended to another body (City Council decides; not a final approval). “amend staffs recommendation to City Council the lien reduction be in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00)” (motion result: CARRIED; the City's minutes (669_CE_Reg_Minutes_08_20_2020.pdf, p. 3); fiscal period not recorded)
$1,107.60 — Code Enforcement: recommended to another body (City Council decides; not a final approval). “approve staff's recommendation to City Council the lien reduction be in the amount of one thousand one hundred seven dollars and sixty cents ($1,107.60)” (motion result: CARRIED; the City's minutes (669_CE_Reg_Minutes_08_20_2020.pdf, p. 4); fiscal period not recorded)
Agenda (the City's wording)
The City's agenda for this meeting is on file (CE_Reg_Agenda_08_20_2020), but its item list has not been read reliably by machine yet, so no outline is shown.
Transcript Partial transcript
Machine transcription of the meeting recording. The words are the recognizer's, except where a passage is marked as corrected or machine re-recognized; most have
not been checked against the audio, so words, numbers and names can be misheard.
It describes what was said. It cannot establish who voted how, an amount or an outcome — the City's
minutes do that (above).
A time links to its passage, and “Copy link” copies that link. “▶ Play” opens the recording at that moment, on YouTube, in a new tab.
682 suspect passage(s) marked in place; inspection incomplete: language review; 4 stretch(es) where a voice was detected and no words were recognized.
How this transcript was made. New machine transcription of the whole recording, with 23 voices separated from the audio.
58 short machine repair(s) (76 word(s)) are labelled in place, with the original words beside them: an ordinary word was replaced only where two further machine readings agreed on a different one.
Checks run on this transcript: the recognizer's own warning signs and whether a voice was detected where the words are. Not completed: language review.
A second, independent machine reading was compared with it word by word: the same words for 91.0% of 27,209 content words.
Dotted words (806 places) are ordinary wording differences: hover or tap to see the other reading.
682 passages (26% of the words) are marked suspect: their words are not shown ("unclear audio") and support no statement: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ; the language review questioned them; or no voice was detected there.
Agreement between two machine readings is not verification.
Inspection is incomplete: language review.
Voice detected, no words recognized (4 stretches). Something may have been said here that the transcript does not have:
01:16:51 (7 s) — neither reading has words
02:22:23 (8 s) — neither reading has words
02:48:44 (7 s) — neither reading has words
02:51:25 (7 s) — neither reading has words
Speakers were separated by voice. A plain name rests on evidence tied to that voice; “provisional” is a name from an earlier text-only pass and is not verified; “Speaker N” is an unidentified voice.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:34–00:00:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:01:34–00:01:34 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
We have an agenda that you should each have. And I'm going to give you some notes of items that have changed. If it's tabled, it means it's back to us at some point. If it's complied, that means they took care of what they needed to do. So the first item to make note of is item number four.
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:05–00:02:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:03:01–00:03:03 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:03–00:03:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:19–00:03:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:30–00:03:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:49–00:03:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:50–00:03:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:04:06–00:04:06 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:04:07–00:04:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:05:01–00:05:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:05:13–00:05:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:05:56–00:06:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:34–00:06:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:07:00–00:07:00 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:07:19–00:07:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:29–00:07:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
at which time the for the board found owner Alec Greenwood in violation of the following. Appendix A, Article 7, Section 3, Minimum Standards for Design of off street Parking Driveways.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:06–00:08:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:08:15–00:08:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:08:25–00:08:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:08:30–00:08:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The current owner, Alec Greenwood, is requesting that the lien be reduced to zero due to the fact that Mr. Greenwood felt the ordinance was unclear and that
utilized the following factors making its recommendations to reduce the lien. Whether the current owner owned the property at the time of the violation occurred, yes. The number of violations related to the subject lien
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:00–00:09:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:21–00:09:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
outstanding liens on the property, no water liens. The property was inspected on August 19th and was in compliance before the Code Board hearing. An inspection will occur prior to the council meeting. The current market value of the subject property, the current uh
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:07–00:10:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
39 775 Staff recommendation is based on the gravity of the violations, the length of time it took for the property to come in compliance, and the total amount of staff time. And the property owners here tonight.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:39–00:10:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:57–00:11:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
done pending what substance he'll be allowed to put down afterwards. So he scraped up all the lime rock on the length of what's considered the driveway in order to comply this case so he could be heard for
much time was spent between you and Mr. Greenwood ‸ just to find out what he had to do with the fine still going on, but he's working with the city. So how about that time to get what's resolved now?
it. So at the non-compliance hearing, he was held in non-compliance. The fact that he determined that he wanted to try to change the ordinance is not necessarily working with the city. It's changing the ordinance. But he was still in violation for that entire time. As of today, there is no new ordinance. So that ordinance is still in place. But he's in compliance now. So when you say working with the city, he wasn't working towards correction. He was working towards a change of the code. But it did not stop him from accumulating a daily fine. Okay. Mr. Greenwood.
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:12:58–00:13:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I did some uh public uh records requests. And I was the first house, residential house, not commercial. That's what transpired before this address. The issue of gravel. i that At that time, there was another community development
for coverage for driveways. In the meantime, this is a renovation, and the city supports dirt driveways. They do not want upgrades. However, it's still not required to pull a permit for lime rock gravel. You do not, you're not
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:13:55–00:14:17 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Flag: the machine readings disagree here; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:14:17–00:14:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
driveways either. It's a good idea ‸ to look at it in an upgrading position. But I felt that I was being singled out as being self-serving. That's why all this time passed. And the only reason I'm before you now is because I insisted for a meeting between the city manager and ‸ code enforcement board and
thing it's It's totally uh confusing why it would be enforced. There was a unanimous decision by the PNC board of 10 people that said that this code should not be enforced any longer. It was presented to the council, and at the council meeting, the city manager at that time stated they would not enforce it. This is the history of this one example of gravel driveways. It's been utilized all
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:15:40–00:15:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
about being approached about his driveway for the same reasons. But they were all resolved on the side, and one was grown over. The bottom line is, it's not a code that is really,
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:16:07–00:16:24 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:24–00:16:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:16:39–00:16:42 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
and then brought to the public for a consideration of a vote. None of that was done. It was just all of a sudden starting to be enforced. The only thing I can say is I feel that this is a very inexpensive way to keep from having ‸ dirt going to the driveway. It's a very inexpensive way to eliminate just dirt in front of houses that are existing that you want renovated. And it serves at a very good base for concrete to be poured right on top of it. Because the first thing you want to do is put
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:24–00:17:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to do is drive by. So I'm just stating that I've let this time go by because I knew eventually there'll be enough complaints about it that it doesn't look like I'm self-serving. And that's what I was accused of,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:17:48–00:17:49 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
I was really the first that was charged with this. The others that were following after that, they were solved ‸ meetings, I guess. I don't know the particulars of it, but the point I'm making is it was in force starting with my property. I
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:18:06–00:18:06 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:18:24–00:18:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that point. I'm going to be including other codes and ordinances that basically created a don't building cocoa atmosphere. And that was done starting in 2014. And the commercial property group that I've been able to put together are very concerned about it includes parking sizes. I mean, I'm not going to waste time on other things. But in reference
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:18:52–00:18:52 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:19:01–00:19:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
item for a house to be renovated that's existing. there was tar tracks tire tracks of gravel there from the previous owners. And I just ‸ said, I'll just put the whole driveway together in Lime Rock like I've done for years. And that includes other property up and down Orange Street. One that was more than 15 years ago. And it's a lot more gravel than that right there. That was in 2008, I believe. 2004. Somewhere in there. It was 150 foot long driveway. And the address was
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:04–00:20:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yeah. as As you're aware, whatever we do here uh becomes a recommendation to city council. Yes, sir. And uh you may have to tell this story all over again. oh yeah. There. you
may ‸ ask a question? Dennis, I was just looking at the the initial order of the board, and there were three violations. And refresh my memory, when it came to the order imposing fine, did was it only down to the one violation, or was the fine running on all three violations?
before the non-compliance There was a slight property uh protective treatment issue that needed to be done uh when the non-compliance was put into effect, but that was corrected rather quickly after that meeting.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:20–00:21:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Correct. and that And the non-compliance hearing, Mr. Greenwood was unsure of this one area by the AC unit about painting. um It went through non-compliance anyway, but he painted that up shortly thereafter. okay
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:10–00:22:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:20–00:22:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
time, put a moratorium on new cases until they can get a new ordinance developed and go through the process because they would have to go to PNZ, then before the city council for public hearings, and he said to stay it. This was a year and a half or so after this case was already found in violation. So right now, no, we're waiting for the
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:23:23–00:23:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So in in round dates, uh the uh lean accrued for about a year and a half before uh the city's policy was to have a moratorium. And we've had another year and a half since then. So
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:23:53–00:23:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:24:04–00:24:05 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
the board heard this case four months in a row, found it in violation based on what was written in the ordinance, not whether or not the ordinance should be changed. Right. And then he was in non-compliance um After the non-compliance is when a real big push started to change the ordinance. But I would just like to say, we don't know what that new ordinance is going to be. Right. And a new ordinance may or may not allow lime rock Right. Because the engineers have an issue with stormwater and stuff.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:49–00:24:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
when the fines were originally imposed, you gave us all of this information that you just gave us then. So the board made its decision based on what they knew at the time. And now you're asking us to change that decision based on what we know now. I would suggest that you probably have a pretty good case to say that when the city changes, presuming the city does, when the city changes the ordinance, you would have a better case to say, I'd like this all forgiven. I think
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:25:55–00:25:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:26:24–00:26:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
was no issue or problems for a gravel driveway. So that's information that's going to be involved. The only reason that I was able to get to the point on that ‸ right now is only because there was other residents upset. And there was one particular resident who was a builder like myself. And he was irate about
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:26:47–00:26:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:26:51–00:26:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:26:53–00:26:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
longer enforced. So for me to be looked upon as if I was lolly lagging, it was because I wasn't listened to. And I knew that eventually there'd be enough residents that will be upset about the same issues that I was to realize that it's not something that should be continued to be enforced.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:31–00:27:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the bottom line. I feel I was singled out. Maybe for political reasons. It doesn't matter. The point is, is that it is not something that I feel that Coco should be known
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:55–00:28:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
okay Because I've already had this meeting with Alex, with the city manager and other people present. We discussed his emails and what the actual intention of the email was. He reads it one way. We got clarification. But I don't want to rehash that because none of that is part of this case.
have 30 days to appeal that before court and appealed the decision based on all these facts that we're hearing today. That was not done. He could have also appealed the non-compliance within 30 days to court. Instead, he tried to change the ordinance. That's commendable. But the fine is still going to run until an ordinance is changed. So at this juncture, he's complied. There's a recommendation from one board member. The board can recommend whatever they want, and then council will go from there. But to rehash the entire case to show wrongdoing is absolutely wrong. It was heard at this level, and it was found to be in violation. It was brought back and found to be in non-compliance And again, we don't know what the new ordinance is going to hold for Mr. Greenwood in the future. Right. okay
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:29:37–00:29:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:29:54–00:30:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:10–00:30:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:24–00:30:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:46–00:30:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
something changes that he should be uh forgiven his liens But I think that this is not timely. I think that it should. He should wait uh until the ordinance actually is changed, presuming it will be. And then in that case, I would have absolutely no problem for giving the means.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:14–00:31:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:19–00:31:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:38–00:31:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:41–00:31:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:50–00:31:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the following. Protective Treatment, Section 6 1003 b Roofs and Drainage, Section 6 1003 g Accumulation of Trash and Litter, Section 6 900 b1 a through D. Boarded Up Windows, Section 6 900 b5 The Code Enforcement Board provided the owner time to correct the said violations, therefore, consistent
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:32:20–00:32:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:33–00:32:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:32:48–00:32:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:33:00–00:33:01 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
the following factors in making the decision uh the recommendation to reduce the lien. whether The current owner owned the property at the time of the violations occurred, yes. The number of violations related to the subject liens was
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:33:14–00:33:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and was in compliance and again before the, uh in compliance again before the council meeting. The current market value for the subject property, uh the current market value is
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:33:55–00:33:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:34:01–00:34:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:34:07–00:34:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:34:18–00:34:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
property to come into compliance, and the total amount of fines, a reduction to the total amount as per the city's cost in the amount of 1 280.63 and the property
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:34:59–00:35:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:04–00:35:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:19–00:35:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:36–00:35:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Thank you. Yes, I recall when I came here for last year of May, of course, the board gave me 60 days in which was to brought the property in compliance. However, of course,
diagram and electrical map for the property. I hired a architect to do this work. It took him quite some time was to get that done. By the time I got it back to the city, it was it was done. Get back to the permitting department. So resubmitted to make changes, you name it.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:37:11–00:37:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
project took time and dragged out. So February of this year, when I hired another contractor to do the outside of the property, because I know that's what the violations were basically about the windows, the suffix and all the other things, because you see the condition the property was in when I purchased. ‸ Finally, the exterior was done before the inside. ‸ Then by May, I hired another contractor to do the interior of the property. And of course, that took some time. So by the time, everything just basically dragged on and on and on, because I never was able to pin down one GC who had taken this seriously to get this project done like it was supposed to and follow the ‸ permitting or even keeping up on the permit.
on the permit, ‸ making sure that everything is done. This house would have been finished since 2019. But again, we cannot control what people do. And unfortunately, right now, as it stands, the initial purchase of that property was $55,000. I refinanced it, took $65,000 was to fix it.
now, I'm in the project. But just today, I sat down with my husband, we went through it, I'm in it right now at $113,000. So needless to say, I have the figures right here
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:39:59–00:40:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
have to close in with funds, which ‸ is coming up to like $11,000. So here is a project that cost me sleepless nights, while I'm in pain, and still coming out with nothing, making nothing, I'm at a loss. I respect the government, the counties, the cities, and I have renovated numerous properties from Tampa, to Lakeland, to Ormond Beach.
And the GC that finished up this project, his labor cost was $21,000. Add all three together. So I'm asking the board to really take into consideration my situation. And, you know, ‸ I was trying to do good. When I go out and I buy distressed properties, I don't buy them to say, well, I'm going to get rich. I do this because I'm mostly in distressed areas. Because the American dream is home ownership. When I came from Jamaica here, that was one thing I was ‸ told, that the American dream is to own your own home. And becoming a real estate agent, I ran into so many people who have lower income, who cannot basically go out and buy a $200,000 and a $300,000 home. But when I renovate something like that and bring it to this and I can sell it back for $150,000, that
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:24–00:42:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:42:33–00:43:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:43:25–00:43:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:44:22–00:44:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:44:34–00:44:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The Code Enforcement Board provided the owner time to correct the said violations. Therefore, consistent with the Code Enforcement Board's order, a lien was recorded
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:44:58–00:45:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:45:02–00:45:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
was made. The current owner, Nancy Maloney, is requesting that the lien be reduced to zero. The staff utilized the following factors making its recommendation to reduce the lien. Whether the current applicant was the owner of the property at the time of the violations, yes. The number of violations related to the subject lien were three. The number of inspections performed was eight. The length of time the property was in violation before correction. Previous code violations, there were some previous code violations. Property taxes, 2019 are paid with no outstanding tax bills. Other liens, records show no outstanding liens on the property and no water liens. Property was inspected on 6-24-2020 and was in compliance prior to the Code Board meeting.
The total amount of the lien is $31,960. Staff submits their cost sheet for case 16-424 and the amount of $1,107.60. Staff recommendation is based on the gravity of the violations, the amount of time it took the property to come in compliance, and the total amount of the fines. A reduction to the total amount of $1,107.60, which are staff costs. And those are represented for the property here at
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:14–00:47:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:47:40–00:47:41 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:48:06–00:48:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:48:12–00:48:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:47–00:48:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:48:55–00:49:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:49:03–00:49:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I think the main issue with the problem was, unfortunately, there were some homeless people and other things and they would keep kind of breaking the fence and then they would mess with the shed. They'd break windows. So we were in a situation where, as Maloney was putting a lot of work into it, she did fix the roof. She'd been painting at times, but then she also hired people to fix the fence. Every time she'd get
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:49:31–00:49:31 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
of the people who were going to the area. They were going under the fence. They'd break windows. And these were the issues. But everything's in compliance now because, obviously, she decided the only way to fix it was to demolish the whole thing because, no matter what she would do, people would come by and still cause problems with the property. So, ultimately, this is what she had to do. But throughout, she was trying to fix it, though I do realize the code went by many times. But there were times when it was fixed, but it didn't stay fixed long because the people would go and throw the rocks, and they'd take down the fence. So, she really did try to keep the property up, but, unfortunately, where it was and the people who were going by that way, they could break it at any time. And she kept thinking everything was okay because she'd send someone to fix it, and then it would have to happen again. So, ‸ we're asking, obviously, the lien zero, but we want to pay the
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:50:35–00:50:35 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
I'm just wondering the timeframe in which the code violations occurred and ‸ being accrued to the timeframe in which you decide to demo.
[00:51:04]▶ PlaySpeaker 4 (name not verified) + overlapping voice
I was unaware that there was a lien that was contained because I had written to the ‸ code enforcement, called code enforcement, and I explained to them that in the process of getting this text there, I had done it a number of times before. I had receipts of over $700 to make.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:52:09–00:52:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Mr. Chair, if I could just add real quickly. This case was from 2016 and it was in regards to offense in some other areas. um ‸ She had moved. She said she was not aware of the 16 fine, but we did cite her recently for the whole structure and the whole property. That is when she became fully aware of this old case plus the new case. And rather than sink more money into this house that was becoming dilapidated, she chose to take it down. There was a couple issues. One was it needed an asbestos survey because of the age of the house. And then the other was even though it's a residential house, it's sitting in a commercial area and is subject to different rules of demolition. So they took a little while getting that worked out and getting the contract and then they tore it down. She did not get a fine for that case, but in clearing it up, she corrected everything that was wrong going all the way back to 2016. And this was a large property and
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:53:50–00:53:50 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:54:06–00:54:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
violations, fix the roof. It was quite extensive. After the 120 days, they did not meet the code. They began running a lien. They still did not fix the property,
opening up and the windows were damaged. So we posted it. It went through the demolition process. All properties were notified. They appealed the demo order to this board and was denied any additional time to fix it. So the city took the house down and I believe they're here today to appeal the cost of the demolition. They requested to be here. So it's okay. Yeah.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:57:05–00:57:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:57:34–00:57:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, that has gone. Can you state your name and address for the record
[00:57:58]▶ PlaySpeaker 4 (name not verified) · Machine re-recognized
into
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:57:58–00:57:58 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:58:02–00:58:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:58:10–00:58:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:58:27–00:58:27 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:58:33–00:58:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:59:27–00:59:28 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
a lien reduction, she would have to fill out the lien reduction application. What she did is, after the demo cost sheet went out, she appealed that cost. She may also want that, but she's going to need to fill out an application and go through what we just witnessed beforehand on the lien. So right now, we can only hear the cost of the demo.
different standard, though. I mean, a lien reduction for the Code Enforcement Lien standard would be a different standard from the cost certification for a demolition.
of the city. Those are ‸ actual costs that the city incurred. and under the code, they have to show cause why the cost and charges incurred by the city are excessive or unwarranted. That would be her burden to show excessive or unwarranted costs, which would be different from the standard under a lien reduction. So
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:01:27–01:01:28 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:01:44–01:01:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:02:01–01:02:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So I called like three times and left three messages so I could get an understanding of what we were actually going to be here for today. And I think we'll get a response.
Okay. Well, we, since this is on the agenda at this point, in terms of the demolition cost, the board can consider that. with the thought that this 5,279 is, that's hard cost. That's what we, the city, actually paid the contractor. Probably significantly less than you could have hired a contractor to get the same thing done. So that being said,
So we need to just kind of focus in on the demo. Like she said, she did write a letter after the cost sheet went out. She did mention fines, but that's a separate process and it carries totally different. So we can hear the demo today. She can fill out a lean reduction and we can put her on the agenda later.
I am a little concerned though. If, if she was, if she herself was unclear what she was supposed to come here to present today, then maybe, if it's the board's pleasure to give her a chance to kind of regroup and get a better understanding of the standards for the cost certification appeal versus a lean reduction. And then come back and ask for both the cost certification challenge and then a lean reduction request. Thank you.
Chair. Yes. Are we able to table this for the next meeting or when she gets the lean reduction because like the attorney said, she does understand Would you like to make that motion please?
reduction application? Because if we table and it comes back next month and she doesn't fill out the application and get all the inspections and research. So ‸ pending that, we'll table it for next board.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:05:01–01:05:01 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Okay. Motion on the floor with a second and I, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? There are none. The motion passes. I hope you understood all of that. Got it. And if you have questions, staff would be happy to work with you on it.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:05:28–01:05:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:05:30]▶ PlaySpeaker 4 (name not verified) · Machine re-recognized
recess?
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:05:30–01:05:53 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:05:53–01:05:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
took during my inspections of the property to accurately depict the property during my visits. This property was inspected on 5-7-2020 and was found in repeat violation of Appendix A, Article 11, Section 3, District Intent, Single Family Residential District Auto Repair Shops Prohibited, and Business Tax Receipt, Section 12-1 A and B. I sent a notice of repeat violation on 5-7-2020 and it was sent certified and posted, and at this time the property remains in violation.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:06:36–01:06:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:06:38–01:06:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:06:38–01:06:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:06:41–01:06:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:06:42–01:06:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:06:43–01:06:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:06:46–01:06:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
had a case for him repairing motorcycles and running the motorcycle shop. Yes. And then we brought him again for parking in the front yard, and now he's actually graduated, got rid of the motorcycles and placed all these vehicles which he works on repeatedly.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:07:12–01:07:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And we're asking for that due to the gravity of the violation, the impact to the neighborhood, and the fact that he has been before this board before and continues to graduate upward.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:07:38–01:07:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:07:50–01:07:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
For the record, I'm Steve Murdoch, code enforcement officer. The property address is 511 North Kentucky Avenue. I'm submitting photos I took during my visits to the property. They accurately depict the property during those visits. During my first inspection, I found the property in violation of protective treatment, section 6-1003B. Trailers in yard, section 6-900B-15, which is since complied. Permits required, appendix A, article 15, section 2A.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:08:41–01:08:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And storing junk or autos, section 6-902B-1-2, which is since complied. During this case, I have visited the site a total of 12 times and found some progress made to correct the violations. I've spoken with the owner in reference to the violations, and
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:09:14–01:09:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
before the board as I've been unable to gain full ‸ compliance. Staff recommends in case CE-2020-58905 that the owner be found in violation, and the fine be amended to $75 due to the compliance. We got on a couple of the items. $75 be imposed per each day. The violation remains until compliance is achieved. I don't believe there's anybody here tonight.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:10:08–01:10:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:10:30–01:10:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
6-1003B, roofs and drainage, section 6-1003G. During this case, I visited the site a total of eight times and found some progress made to correct the violations.
The notice was sent, certified, and posted. I've been working on this case since 9-25-2019, and I've brought this case before the board as I have been unable to gain full compliance. Staff recommends in case CE-2019-00110 that the owner be found in violation and a fine of $50 be imposed for each day the violations remain until compliance is achieved.
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:11:32–01:11:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:11:40–01:11:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:11:51–01:11:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:12:15–01:12:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:12:45–01:12:47 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
door. ‸ I should say on the side door, the metal door on the right of the property. And then the roofs and drainage was for the water damage to the overhang there. Oh, okay. Which is what he's saying.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:13:12–01:13:12 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:13:32–01:13:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
punitive. We're here to get things fixed. Yeah, that would be that's that's exactly what you need to do so that he can stop the process and make make your account be clear. Go ahead, Mr. Brown.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:14:25–01:14:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:14:34–01:14:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Street. I'm submitting photos that I took during my visits to the property. They accurately depict the property during those visits. During my first inspection, I found the property in violation of landscape requirements, Appendix A, Article
and I have checked the property appraiser's record to show ownership. I sent this for hearing on 7 31 2020 after finding the property remains in non-compliance. The notice was sent certified and posted.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:15:20–01:15:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:15:37–01:15:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:15:41–01:15:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:15:48–01:15:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to add, this is a site plan issue. When they first built this and were given permission, they were supposed to have an enclosed dumpster area with enclosures to hide the dumpsters, which as you can see, the dumpster is rarely in that area. It's always sitting out on that little road. And then they're supposed to have shrubbery. um Let me get to a good picture. Across the front here where the sign is, all the way around the property, they're supposed to have a hedge row, a shrub. And you can see in the pictures as we went through that slowly diminishes to where we only now have two shrubs in the front, but there should be shrubs all the way down to meet the landscaping code. That's what we've cited for this case. Okay.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:16:59–01:17:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
um The situation is we're trying to get in contact with planning to find out how many uh brushes we had ‸ put down around the building. We just talked to the lady today. She said that she was there to get back with us to let us know what we had to do. So that's the reason why we didn't put
they kept putting the garbage can out like that. And we went down there and talked to them and we complained about that, that they should have been putting it inside the wall. But they haven't did that. So everything else that should have been done, we did.
Okay, just to be clear, the dumpster area needs to be big enough to obtain both dumpsters in it. And it needs to have an enclosure in the front that shuts and locks.
The Waste Company is probably, unless you only have one dumpster in there, yes and to continue to do what they do. So if you need two dumpsters, you're going to have to make that wide enough to accompany two dumpsters.
have since been removed. They needed to be put back. And then to answer your question on hedges, that area there that's grass along the sidewalk, there's a hedgerow, and then out front needs a hedgerow. And then on the other side where you now only have two trees, yes you need a hedgerow buffering between the presidential property and yourself. okay That's
it can't be on their side. It's got to be on your side. You should have a hedgerow. Yes, because what's happening is people are walking in back there. They're hiding back there. That's supposed to be all enclosed, landscape And same with the dumpster area.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:20:15–01:20:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
you have you have to obtain a permit and that would have to be reviewed by planning and zoning. Yes. To determine if that would suffice in lieu of the shrubs. Normally, they would make you put the fence and the shrub inside the fenced area because you need a certain amount of landscaping for the size property that you have.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:20:40–01:20:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
okay They just need to be replaced. And the shrubs is just a matter of digging the holes and planting. His biggest hurdle is going to be when it was first permitted, there was only one dumpster in that enclosure. And now they're trying to squeeze in two. That's going to be a problem.
it ‸ or find another location for the smaller dumpster. Okay. That might take a while, depending on what they decide to do. But since I don't know what they decide to do, I can't answer that. But 30 days, they could replace and put the shrubs up.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:21:56–01:21:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:22:02–01:22:03 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
does what was that? Can we go to 60 days? If that's the board's pleasure, staff would like to continue with 30 days due to the condition of this corner. But if the board wants to give them 60 days, you know, staff would not object to that. ‸ I
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:23:18–01:23:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:23:52–01:23:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:23:59–01:24:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:24:02–01:24:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:24:23–01:24:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Mr. Brown, I think if you're inclined to do that, then you would want to separate the fine. Because if you're going to have different compliance dates, then the fines would be running at different times. okay
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:25:16–01:25:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:25:20–01:25:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:25:32–01:25:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:25:53–01:25:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
6 1003b Boarded up buildings, Section 6 900 b5 Accumulation of trash and litter, Section 6 900 b 1 a and D. And accessory structures, Section 6 1001 g During this case, I ‸ visited the site a total of 10 times, ‸ I found some progress made to correct the violations. I've spoken to the property manager in reference to the violations. I have checked the property appraiser's record to show ownership. I
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:26:57–01:26:58 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:27:00–01:27:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
in violation and a fine of 100 be imposed for each day. The violation remains until compliance is achieved. And the property manager is here this evening.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; words the first reading may have missed · 01:27:28–01:27:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I'd like to ask every member of this board if any of you have been contacted by phone, text message, or email by Jake Williams concerning this case. And
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:27:53–01:27:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
As far as Mr. Murdoch's claim that he spoke with me, first of all, this property is under my control. The City of Cocoa, City Building Department, Code Enforcement, Police Department, Community Services, and the Water Department. Have
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:28:04–01:28:26 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:28:26–01:28:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:28:29–01:28:29 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
me. Mr. Murdoch made contact with me after I found his notice posted on this property last week. I work with code enforcement. I don't have a problem. The building is boarded up. You want to know why? Because everything on that corner, every time we try to do anything with it, it's broken into, it's used to do drugs, it's used for prostitutes, it's used for junkies and hookers. Okay? These pictures, I have pictures on that laptop for you to see what it looked like before I took it. I've got 28 000 into that corner. You could not even see that building from the street when I took control of it. You couldn't even see the park. And I can show you the pictures of the human feces,
understand all that. We've heard it before from other owners. We know it's a problem. But what we need to do here tonight is address the issues that decoded people have brought. All
with the city utilities department for over a year. This property, like some others in this neighborhood, is on septic. The septic on this property is so old, my desire is to put it on city sewer. In order to do that, according to city utilities, we have to come up with a utilities contractor and an engineer, none of which have been available, not a single one. And I can give you every list of engineers that we've contacted because of this. I'm about ready to say to hell with it and put it back on septic. But I'm not going to keep putting money into something that I have to keep running your case before this one,
and they all know it. ‸ This property is not the one that's got the shootings and the drug activity and the police problems. I have a problem getting sometimes the police to respond in time to get people off. Okay. But I'm not going to stand here and let the city say that
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:31:02–01:31:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
as opposed to addressing it to the actual property owner and care of the agent of service. And instead of calling me, he's never had a problem calling me before on any property. Why now? Okay, look look here. uh this
We're not here to beat on you. ‸ don't expect you to beat on us. We operate under Florida statute. when we When we send out notices of violation, they are sent to the owner of record according to the tax collector's office. We don't just pull an address out of the air. So it went where it had to go by law. Okay. Now, if there's someplace else that you'd like notices to go in addition to that notice, we can do that.
than the actual owner from the property appraiser's office or the tax collector's office. That is not the way you notice it under Florida statute. And the pro the actual agent of service had to contact the city specifically asking that they put the notice addressed to the property owner. But instead,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:32:49–01:32:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 01:33:02–01:33:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
i will submit on the other side that if he is the property manager he should have seen the postings ahead of time because he should be managing the property i get that this is going to be a huge undertaking to rehab but at this particular time it is an attractive nuisance and it needs to be addressed in some form because
there's a park next door. So we need to try to clean up this corner. If Mr. Sinclair has a plan, that's great. We're not looking to find him. But this property needs to be corrected. it It draws people in.
and available for them to do it. So that's why we need to do this. But just to mention the clarification on notification, we followed what the state statute says.
him before he ever became the code manager I have that most respect for him. And Mr. Murdoch, I'm not picking on you as well. And i I think you know that. My issue is my power of attorney actually gives me ownership rights, full ownership rights, with the exception of selling. Okay. So that we make that clear. And the city has been made very much aware of that. They
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:34:49–01:34:50 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
boarded up because every time we try to do something else another window is busted out. Don't believe me? Hold the police reports. I mean, my God. Well, so, like I said, we are going to renovate it. Until we decide either it's going back on septic or it's going on city sewer,
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:35:14–01:35:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
a day for keeping junkies, hookers, homeless, and criminals out of it from constantly destroying every time I put something in it? Go for it. I have no problem with that at this point. I am not going to continue to leave it open when the city cannot do its job and remove those who constantly break into it. Okay. If that's your position, sir,
you don't seem to understand septic and sewer. that'sThat's not our issue. No, it is your issue because neither one can go forward without the utilities department and the city getting the permitting and approving it. That's not a code issue. Not a code
uh ‸ like to make a motion in the case of 19-531. I'd like to accept staff recommendation buying the property 100 per day. For each day, it's not in compliance.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:37:13–01:37:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:37:22–01:37:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:37:26–01:37:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
property during those visits. During my inspection, I found the property in violation of business rental business tax receipt, section 12-1, A and B. During this case, i visited the site a total of 13 times. i've spoken to a representative of the property in reference to the violations. i've checked the property appraiser's records to show ownership.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:38:05–01:38:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:38:18–01:38:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:38:28–01:38:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
This property is a rental. The owner doesn't reside there, and it's been used in the past as a rental, so they're required to get a business rental tax receipt. They have not gotten one, and they you know it's actually a
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:38:45–01:38:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:38:56–01:39:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:39:08–01:39:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:39:19–01:39:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The property address is 531 Blake Avenue. I'm submitting photos I took during my visits to the property. They actually depict the property during those visits. During my inspection, I found the property in violation of accumulation of trash and litter, Section 6900 b1 a through D. During this case, I've visited the site a total of 10 times. I haven't found much progress in the way of correcting the violations. I've not been able to get in contact with the property owner. I've checked the property appraiser's records to show ownership. I sent this for hearing on 7 31 2020 after finding the property remains in non-compliance The notice was sent certified and posted.
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:40:09–01:40:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:40:25–01:40:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:40:31–01:40:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
what we would have to do is we would have to post it as an abatement, and then our abatement contractor would pick it up. uh Western Waste won't just go pick up that um because
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:40:48–01:40:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:40:58–01:41:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
elected to take it to the code board to at least get a fine and a finding of facts, where it would at least be a repeat violator because this continues quite frequently at this
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:41:11–01:41:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:41:18–01:41:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:41:43–01:41:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:42:10–01:42:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:42:40–01:42:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:42:42–01:42:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:43:04–01:43:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I'm submitting photos I took during my visits to the property and accurately depict the property during those visits. During my first inspection I found the property in violation of business tax receipt,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:43:26–01:43:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
after finding the property remains in non-compliance. Notice was sent certified and posted. I've been working on this case since January 22nd, 2020 and brought this before the board as I've been unable to gain compliance. and
recommends in case 2020-4075 that the owner be found in violation and a fine of 50 be imposed each day the violations remain until compliance is achieved.
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:44:20–01:44:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
decree. The zoning for a landscape company and for the use that he's using is not acceptable in that area. um He did contact the office today and said he could not come to the meeting because he had to self-quarantine.
to continue on or table it to next month. But this is a major issue as we got residential properties all around this lot. And I don't know if you remember this property, but we've had this before the board because a tow company was operating there and a car dealership had junk cars. And it's it's supposed to be going back to the
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:45:07–01:45:08 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:45:15–01:45:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:45:20–01:45:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:45:34–01:45:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:45:44–01:45:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:46:04–01:46:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
‸ submitting photos I took during my visits to the property. They accurately depict the property during those visits. During my first inspection, I found the property in violation of storing outdoors, section 6 900 b 11. boarded up buildings section 6 900 b 5 windows door and frame section 6 1003 m protective treatment section 6 1003 b Roof and drainage, section 6 1003 g Failure to secure structure, section
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:46:49–01:46:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and ‸ found some progress made to correct the violations. I've spoken with a representative, with the property owner as well as a representative on the property in reference to the violations. I've checked the property appraisers record to show ownership. I sent this for hearing on 7 31 2020 after finding the property remains of non-compliance. The notice was sent certified and posted. I've been working on this case since February 5th, 2020 and brought this case before the board as I've been unable to gain full compliance. Staff recommends in case 2020-7289 that the owner be found in violation and a fine of 200 be imposed for each day the violations remain until compliance is achieved. and
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:47:54–01:48:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And Mr. Chair, that is correct, but it was over five years ago and therefore it would not qualify to be a repeat violation of violations. it's These are all considered new now because
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:48:23–01:48:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording; words the first reading may have missed · 01:48:33–01:48:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:49:16–01:49:16 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
the last, uh we sent them a whole harmless. So they said the permit should be coming out anytime. But we, we, redo the whole building. The windows on the other side where the apartment is, the reason they all boarded up, every time we change them, they get broken. Because these
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:49:32–01:49:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:50:02–01:50:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:50:21–01:50:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
turn it into office buildings and we met with your engineers, it was told that you would have to access from the front that you were not going to be able to go down that side street because it would create too much traffic for that local neighborhood next to a school.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:50:37–01:50:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and we And it was distinctly said that that is a big concern of you having an office building and using the residential road as access to the back of the building. I just want to bring that up because that's a concern because there was items moved which made that a dead-end road. And that's the way that they're going in with equipment and
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 01:51:22–01:51:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:51:44–01:51:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
a residential neighborhood next to a school. And to my knowledge that has not been approved by the zoning department. So the fact that you tore out what actually made that a dead end that actually needs to cease and you cannot use
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:52:02–01:52:02 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:52:11–01:52:11 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:52:20–01:52:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we played with you to get the beams out and you guys you guys were saying you really don't know who put the beams there. If it's traffic, if it's county, if it's city, if it's
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:52:47–01:52:47 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:52:53–01:52:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:53:06–01:53:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:53:27–01:53:27 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:53:35–01:53:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:53:50–01:53:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we bought that building, we have not done anything to violate any ordinance, any, anything. This is the first time we've been brought before the city about uh ‸ violation And we are addressing them before
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:54:05–01:54:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:54:18–01:54:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:54:25–01:54:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:54:52–01:54:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:55:00–01:55:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:55:45–01:55:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:56:29–01:56:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
neighborhood um we have whatever these containers are um as far as i'm concerned they're fuel containers or oil containers um that's the whole safety issue uh and some kind of culture violations somewhere somehow
no site plan approved there was no approval given so they're waiting on that now ‸ he's pulled some permits now to secure the building or paint or fix things that could be but i don't know that he was even given permission to turn it into office space
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:57:59–01:58:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
they told him in 2011 that he could put offices there that's nine years ago you still need to submit a site plan and show everything you intend to do on a property that has not been approved so all this other work needs to be done and i agree with mr roberts those things have not always been there. They were just recently placed there. We can't keep doing this work. And my concern, again, is with the school next door and kids getting out of school and going down that street, and he's got large trucks and stuff moving up and down the street when there's no site plan approval. So that's my issue.
with permits, and that's what the board's here to see. But I want Mr. Wazir to understand, he does not have a site plan approval to continue to modify or redevelop that land. And it needs to cease until he gets that. Which is...
Nobody's modifying the land. Everything is implementing. Everything is everything is waiting onon the bureaucracy ‸ county or the city. I would just like to see him
i i hear I hear what you're saying, but uh to me, it's putting the cart before the horse to start painting and and doing all these things. If you don't even know what the status of the building isis. so Well,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:59:56–01:59:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 02:00:03–02:00:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:00:09–02:00:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 02:00:19–02:00:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 02:00:23–02:00:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:00:26–02:00:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
thing is not true. We don't know who the thing is, but give us that tomorrow. Tomorrow all that whole yard is going to be clear. But we need time. We need time for the permit to get approved before you start saying, okay,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:00:58–02:01:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:01:05–02:01:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:01:09–02:01:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
uh It's been on again, off again, secured. Outdoor storage, uh damage to the sidewalk, uh driveway area. um There's been a a junk vehicle there on the corner of the
Flag: the machine readings disagree here; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:01:31–02:01:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
you know, given enough time. I'm just not sure what enough time is, uh you know, as far as from 2011, the first time they were going to start working towards a business building to 2020. um i'm not sure what kind of time frame they're looking for beyond that
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:01:53–02:01:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:02:01–02:02:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:02:16–02:02:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
uh and why it wasn't uh changed ‸ the zoning. They said, no, only when you finished. Then you will see the zoning change from apartment complex the professional office. So it is approved
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:02:29–02:02:29 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
How about if we, uh if the board were to uh instruct you to to come before us regularly with a schedule right of how things are going, are moving forward.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:02:44–02:02:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yes. and And we could, in that way, extend uh you the time to get these permits and these uh zonings and ‸ all of these things that need to happen. uh But they aren't going to happen in 30 days. We all know that. right So that's, we've done this in the past with other buildings.
But I also don't think it's prudent to fix up a building that may eventually be not approved for the purpose that the gentleman has. So Ii think that might, would that be acceptable to the city?
The city has no objection to that. And that's kind of what we've been asking for. But when you have a meeting and you're told that this, allall this has to be changed on a site plan, this has to be done, and you don't, and then you rip out bollards that block off a road and begin working in the back. That's what needs to cease. I agree with you. Let him come in and give us updates on what is going on with planning and zoning and let him show that he's got a site plan. Because I do agree with everything you just said, but my concern was the safety of the children on that residential roadway. Okay.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:04:13–02:04:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that's not this board's concern uh whether he has a site plan, what the approved use of the building is, what his redevelopment plans are. This board's concern is compliance with codes as they now stand. If this were a vacant lot with no plans or no hopes for ‸ short-term redevelopment, we would not allow uh junk to be stored on the on the property.
or without a site plan, with or without redevelopment, whether it's an office building, whether it's residential, whether it's torn down to the ground. I don't think that we can continue to allow ‸ those tanks and that dumpster, that junk, to be that close to a residential neighborhood and to a school. The people who live there deserve better. And
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:05:15–02:05:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
recognized for a motion In the case of 2020-7289, I recommend we accept staff recommendations of fine the property 200 per day for each day that the property is not within compliance.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:06:09–02:06:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
give him 30 days and processes. If he wants this, he's going to come back and he's going to work with code enforcement and see that he's making progress. um When you own a property and you have these things and you don't know where they came from, so there's no problem ‸ you taking this stuff off your property. well
that's the purpose of setting a schedule. We've done this before, where the the owner sets their own criteria and then comes to us to show that they are meeting that criteria. Every month, something is checked off. And uh
To that point, uh Chairman, there was there actually was a fence in existence there that was was was a barrier. It had steel girders in the ground. That was pulled up, the area where he's talking about putting the gate
permit, no demolition permit or anything. Digging up the concrete steel girders out of the ground. He claims it wasn't him, but they were dug up. They were removed from the property. That was the barrier from the from theit
Okay, well, then I guess the the motion does pass. And my suggestion to you is to work as closely as you can with the code officer to accomplish these things that need to be done. And as they are done, uh let him
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:09:14–02:09:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:09:58–02:10:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[02:10:01]▶ PlaySpeaker 19 (name not verified) + overlapping voice
I am submitting photos that I took during my visits to the property they accurately show the condition of the property during those visits. During my inspections, I found the property in violation of roofs and drainage, grading and drainage, accessory structures, sidewalks and driveway, protective treatment, minimum maintenance to a structure, storing junk or autos, and permit required for fences. During this case, the property was visited a total of eight times. I personally visited the property eight times and found little progress to
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:10:37–02:10:37 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[02:10:37]▶ PlaySpeaker 19 (name not verified) + overlapping voice
made to correct the violations. I've checked the property appraisers records to show ownership, and I've made contact with the property owner who directed me to their property manager.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:10:46–02:10:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[02:10:57]▶ PlaySpeaker 19 (name not verified) + overlapping voice
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:10:58–02:11:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[02:11:03]▶ PlaySpeaker 19 (name not verified) + overlapping voice
met with the current property manager and the property at the property and went over all the violations. I sent
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:11:10–02:11:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
after finding the property remains in non-compliance The notice was sent certified ‸ mailed and posted onto the property. I brought this case before the board as I've been unable to gain full compliance. Staff recommends in case number 20-529 that the owner be found in violation and a fine of 200 be imposed for each day the violation remains until compliance is achieved.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:11:41–02:11:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording; words the first reading may have missed · 02:11:47–02:12:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:12:04–02:12:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yes, some have more severe roof damage. Some have paintings. Some of the fences have been fixed, but a lot of them haven't. So you have stuff like this all through the property. But it's all one property, and it's not divided in the unit so we
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:12:23–02:12:24 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
which they can do by posting with a tow company and having a tow company come in and remove that stuff. But typically, we don't just drive through and look for the owner and try to tow it ourselves, because there's so many units in there. It would
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:13:23–02:13:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:13:30–02:13:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 02:13:35–02:13:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:13:43–02:13:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:13:53–02:13:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:13:59–02:13:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:14:01–02:14:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:14:37–02:14:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We had a permit assistant who was helping us obtain permits. She's no longer with us. We have to replace that individual. We've had some lines of communications that were getting crossed and trying to get in touch with our regional property manager to get approval for some of the projects that we need to do. um
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:15:16–02:15:16 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
and We're trying to do as much as possible to bring everything in compliance, as cooperative as possible, and you know makemake this property the best that it can be.
I'm gonna ‸ have my turn that over to my client. She can address the the different points that need to be done, what we've been doing, and what cancan be completed, and then later on we're gonna um ‸ probably ask for a schedule of time to complete some of the larger projects that they're not gonna ‸ be able to complete it in 30 days.
hello um let's see um As far as um the point of the vehicles, we have gotten a majority of a lot of the vehicles um picked up a lot of them were ‸ expired tags because some tenants could not for some reason renew them. uh I am down to now two vehicles. One was the black uh
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:16:16–02:16:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:16:18–02:16:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
as well. They will be being picked up tomorrow. The owner of the black Honda was under the impression if you took the wheels off your vehicle cannot get towed. So he has been spoken to and we found out it does not belong to him. It is a friend and he has explained and I told
The problem that we have been coming across with tow companies is that legally I cannot have anybody coming out to a private property without their tow company signs on there. And unfortunately, we have not been approved by the owner to put them up because
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:17:09–02:17:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:17:19–02:17:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
rather than per unit which is 120 And i'm aware of all of this I came onto board at the very beginning of November and i've seen and I mentioned to katie that I had just gotten done having a meeting with some maintenance because unfortunately we do not have on-site maintenance. And we have to rotate but we are um we are trying i mean katie came over today and I was outside pressure washing and removing algae because I know it needs to get done and I went and that's what we want to do we want to comply get this place back up because ‸ It really is a great property it it's got great potential. In there.
get taken care of the problem I think with the abandoned vehicles was people were getting used to but now that they see somebody is on board and we are watching them. And making it apparent and telling them we do not do that any um more so a lot of people are removing them and understanding so luckily I think we had. Quite a few. ‸ Cars so but now I even drove around today checking tags and
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:19:08–02:19:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
yeah And this one area that she's telling you about isn't even concrete. There's a broken pipe that keeps washing out and it's next to the bus stop on the sidewalk and all the dirt because it's on a hill is coming out and washing out onto the sidewalk and public works has to consistently go clean it. to get calls from people waiting for the bus so they originally threw some dirt over top of it, but until the pipe and stuff is all fixed it's going to continue to wash it.
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 02:20:22–02:20:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yeah, no, that would have to be a huge undertaking and it would definitely be a lot more than 30 days. And I would just like to mention to the board and I'll let her clarify, she is actually a newer property manager. So there was a time when there was a different property manager who is no longer there. um
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:20:59–02:21:00 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:21:38–02:21:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
curbs because that's been causing a problem when the tenants are, because they're broken, they're driving up onto the grass. And that's causing a problem. So um I don't know if that requires permitting or ‸ we just go um purchase them and replace them ourselves. No,
because they're not required. If you want to have parking um bumpers at the end of the parking, you can do that on your own. But if you've submitted your plan, you wouldn't be required to have them. um And that's actually part ‸ of what we're discussing either. So those you can do as
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording; words the first reading may have missed · 02:22:20–02:22:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:22:34–02:22:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So as we prepare the roofs, we can paint the fascia. Because you you can't just paint the face and then go fix the roof, then you have to repaint the fascia. So there's some kind of some steps we have to watch. um to um We're talking to our contractors right now to see how long it will take. um As to the towing of vehicles, we should have that done by the end of this week. Tomorrow, pressure washing, we're going to need about 14 days to finish. um I
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:23:13–02:23:14 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
um on the property. And we have filled it. But I guess because there's nothing to hold the sand tight enough, it's just going um downhill. So i we have to look into another kind of retention cement wall to securely hold it. It's just because that's what it's like a downhill. It's constantly falling down. This very loose
uh They're not cited separately. So when ‸ roofs are all done, then you call and say the roofs are all done. But in the meantime, put a put a date next to each of these items and then come back next month and show us where you are. And we can at that point, if ‸ we need to uh adjust the
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:25:02–02:25:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:25:20–02:25:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:25:50–02:25:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:25:57–02:25:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:25:59–02:26:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:26:01–02:26:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The city doesn't have an objection. If it's a hardship for them and they want to submit a 30-day update and have us present it to the board at each meeting, we could do that as well.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 02:26:36–02:26:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:27:01–02:27:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
then for the purpose of all this, since there's so much here, I would start on everything that doesn't require a permit and that can be done easily and then work up on the harder stuff. Because permits and stuff are going to take a while. You may have to submit different plans and you can work on that too, but I would work on correcting and then that way the list
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:27:50–02:27:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Property address 1860 Baylor Court. For the record, I am Katie Carver, code enforcement officer. I am submitting photos that I took during my visits to the property. They accurately show the condition of the property during those visits. During my inspections, I found the property in violation of storing outdoors, boarded up buildings, protective treatment, and parking in the yard which has since been complied. During this case, the property was visited a total of seven times.
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:28:44–02:28:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[02:28:49]▶ PlaySpeaker 19 (name not verified) + overlapping voice
the violations. I've checked the property appraiser's record to show for ownership and haven't been able ‸ to make contact with the property owner. I sent this for hearing on August 6, 2020 after finding the property remains in non-compliance. The notice was sent certified mailed and posted to the property.
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:29:06–02:29:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[02:29:10]▶ PlaySpeaker 19 (name not verified) + overlapping voice
and brought this case before the board as I have been unable to gain full compliance. Staff recommends in case number 20-582 that the owner be found in violation and a fine of $75 be imposed for each day the violation remains until compliance is achieved.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:29:27–02:29:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:29:44–02:29:44 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:29:52–02:29:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
threat of a storm. It doesn't say that we can bring them at the beginning of hurricane season, just leave them up all the entire hurricane season. But if there's a storm, we have no problem with that. But this has been going on and there's other windows that were boarded. If that's why they put it up, that's fine. We have no problem with waiting until after hurricane season. Our purpose in that is egress. If there's no kind of fire or anything going, you have to have egress out of a first story. So you don't want to block any of your egress in case there's a house fire or anything. So if there's a storm, absolutely. We're not here to ‸ hurt their property values.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 02:31:38–02:31:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 02:31:46–02:31:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Most of the stuff that was stored outside has been moved. And I agree it does need to be painted. The thing is, I was in a car accident in August of last year. And I had surgery in January of this year. And I'm still under a doctor's care. So I'm trying to get it taken care of. The stuff that's outside on the carport, I can have that cleaned up. And the things on the windows, I can have those taken off tomorrow.
Um, my sons are actually going to come over and try to help me because I can't pick anything up over 10 pounds. And I'm still in physical therapy because I can't lift my arms very high.
Okay. I understand. And we, the reason I ask, we sometimes can, can find, uh, some help at the, at one of the churches. They have, uh, people that volunteer to do things.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:33:34–02:33:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
‸ I just. Okay. I have the paint. I have the paint. I bought the paint and I bought the pressure washer to pressure wash it and get it all done. Uh, it's just getting my sons over there to help do it. Okay. Anybody here has grown sons. They know how that goes.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 02:34:13–02:34:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay. But, um, I asked that for some fact of that's one, that's probably one of those things that could be knocked out quick because they're not saying that the whole house needs to be painted. Oh, okay. Just, I mean, maybe sanded and put some paint up there.
Oh, okay. Just anywhere where there's bare wood. Peeling, mold or mildew. And sometimes that can be cleaned and painted. Um, but if the, if the protective treatment's on the house, even if it needs a little touch up, that's not what we're citing.
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 02:34:58–02:35:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 02:35:40–02:35:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:35:55–02:35:56 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:36:06–02:36:06 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:36:07–02:36:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And you got your work cut out for you. Uh, as, as you complete, uh, any one of these projects, give the officer a call and she'll take that off the list.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:36:32–02:36:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
For the record. I am Katie Carver code enforcement officer
[02:36:45]▶ PlaySpeaker 19 (name not verified) · Machine re-recognized
I'm
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:36:45–02:36:46 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
submitting photos that I took. During my visits to the property. They accurately show the condition of the property during those visits. During my inspections, I found the property in violation of temporary storage, business tax receipt, accumulation of trash and litter and permit required. During this case, the property was visited a total of three times. I personally visited the property three times and found no progress made to correct the violations.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:37:21–02:37:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[02:37:25]▶ PlaySpeaker 19 (name not verified) · Machine re-recognized
in
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:37:25–02:37:25 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
non-compliance. The notice was sent certified mailed and posted to the property. I have been working on this case since June 30th, 2020. I observed storage containers being dropped off at the property after the owner met with planning and zoning and they specifically directed him what needed to be done before he was allowed to do business on the property. He knowingly ignored what planning and zoning ‸ directed and started business anyways.
compliance. Staff recommends in case number 20-927 the owner be found in violation and given 10 days to correct the violation. Also a fine of $250 be imposed for each day the violation remains until compliance is achieved.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:38:12–02:38:13 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
And Mr. Chair, she is correct. The owner Brian came in, met with the entire staff of public works planning and zoning code enforcement, everybody to discuss his site plan to open a roofing company.
He was required to put in paving parking landscape drainage and public works definitely wanted him to put in something on the side where he dropped all those containers as it's grass going out the peach tree and they just redid
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:39:05–02:39:06 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
He basically said he wasn't going to do it. And he left and we didn't hear from him for six, eight months. And then one day, here comes these trucks and
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:39:15–02:39:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And now they're running a roofing business in and out and they just they have no permission. They haven't developed the land. It's raw and they just continue to work. And we went over and talked to
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:39:30–02:39:30 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:39:32–02:39:32 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
So that's the whole history of the property is that they intended to do a roofing business and was denied and went ahead and just had kind of done it anyway. And Lake Drive is a very small street cars zip up and down it and they use that entrance in and out with their trucks and trailers. It's causing quite a mess.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:40:36–02:40:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
these non-compliance cases. And Mr. Chair, you should have been given packets for those. Basically because the agenda was so large and there were so many pictures. There was a technical issue in getting the presentation to load under. We don't use the USB anymore.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:41:45–02:41:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:42:53–02:42:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:43:06–02:43:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:43:23–02:43:23 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
was found in violation of Protective Treatment Section 6-1003B. It was given a compliance date of February 16, 2020. I sent a notice of hearing for noncompliance on
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:43:53–02:43:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:45:06–02:45:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 02:45:16–02:45:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:45:31–02:45:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:45:33–02:45:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:46:13–02:46:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yeah. Just so you know, in a non-compliance hearing, there's really only one of two things that can happen. We can say the property is in compliance, which the code officer has already told
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 02:46:35–02:46:50 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:47:03–02:47:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It's been an interesting experience. I've been sitting over there ‸ You've waited a long time. I'm sorry? You've waited a long time. ‸ reminded of uh Admiral Stockdale when he asked, why am I here?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:47:44–02:47:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:47:53–02:47:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:48:24–02:48:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:48:43–02:48:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Since I've had contact with Mr. Anderson and he uh discovered the issue with his uh lawn maintenance individual, he has been keeping the grass cut. So it hasn't been um
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:49:13–02:49:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:49:21–02:49:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:49:38–02:49:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 02:49:46–02:49:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 02:49:57–02:50:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:50:08–02:50:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:50:50–02:50:52 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:50:56–02:50:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:51:00–02:51:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:51:09–02:51:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the machine readings disagree here; words the first reading may have missed · 02:51:39–02:51:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we appreciate that. uh If it were not for you doing it, then uh we'd have to probably have the city do it, and that would run up some other kind of bill. uh
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:51:55–02:51:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:51:58–02:52:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 02:52:19–02:52:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:52:37–02:52:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:52:44–02:52:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the machine readings disagree here; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:52:57–02:53:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:53:01–02:53:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:53:10–02:53:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 02:53:20–02:53:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And that was one of the things that was seen. Might not have been uh visible prior. It is kind of just a little tiny area that you see from the road. But when I sweep a property, I try to cover everything so it doesn't. And i
And the reason for protective treatment is to protect bare concrete or wood from whatever. But he's even with that pushed aside, there's still ‸ protective treatment issues. So we kind of maybe get that done and then see where we are. Okay. And staff would be happy to look at that thing
He's been great about keeping in contact with me. So as soon as he uh gets to where he needs me to come out and take a look, I'll i'll be right out there.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the machine readings disagree here · 02:55:36–02:55:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 02:55:46–02:55:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: flagged by the automatic checks; the machine readings disagree here · 02:55:53–02:55:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:56:01–02:56:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:56:32–02:56:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:56:45–02:56:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:56:52–02:57:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:57:02–02:57:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:57:12–02:57:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:57:30–02:57:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:58:06–02:58:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:58:12–02:58:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:58:19–02:58:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:58:21–02:58:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:58:28–02:58:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:58:33–02:58:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
date of march 17 2020. I sent a notice for hearing for non-compliance on 7 31 2020 and it was sent certified and posted. At this time, the property remains in violation. I believe there's a member for the property here tonight.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:58:53–02:58:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:59:06–02:59:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:59:13–02:59:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:59:26–02:59:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:59:37–02:59:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 03:00:00–03:00:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 03:00:03–03:00:04 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
and some of the violations require would require permits and signatures of owners. And that has not all been established yet. So I think maybe we should table this to the next hearing. I would like to hear what she has to say. But I think that's going to be part of her issues, is the fact that she's not actually the owner, and it hasn't actually been awarded to her at this time.
a lot of unfinished business. Because um I thought it was my understanding that it was my mother's property, which I was the which i am the PR for my for my mother, who's Helen
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:01:21–03:01:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 03:01:26–03:01:26 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:01:44–03:01:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:01:48–03:01:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 03:01:55–03:01:55 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:02:28–03:02:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
property address is 1311 north fisk boulevard submitting photos that i took during my re-inspections of the property and they accurately depict the property during my visits this case was brought before the code enforcement board on february 20th it was found in violation of parking in the yard section 6 900 b9 they were given a compliance date of march 20th 2020.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:03:01–03:03:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:03:19–03:03:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the machine readings disagree here; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:03:43–03:03:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:03:44–03:03:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
can say, it it's it's been a continuous thing, and not just on the side yard, but in the very front yard, right out in front. And it's, it's, it's I take pictures regularly, so it's something that's
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:04:07–03:04:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 03:04:08–03:04:09 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:04:14–03:04:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:04:25–03:04:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:04:38–03:04:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:04:43–03:04:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording; words the first reading may have missed · 03:04:52–03:05:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Mr. Chairman, this is the same repeat case we heard at the beginning of the night with all the automotive vehicles parked all over there. They got a single car driveway. They park over there, but those cars are parked in the front. She may be in compliance today
understand that, but you're judging me based on people parking in my, in my front yard. I'm saying that I'm not going to do that anymore. How are you going to find me not compliant? Because you don't,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 03:06:56–03:06:57 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
your date for compliance was actually months ago. March 20th. So you've actually been out of compliance. So even if the board said, as of today, you're in compliance, you've still been out of compliance. Because
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:07:28–03:07:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 03:07:41–03:07:41 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
And again, it may not be anymore, but there was a date for you to come into compliance. So I would at least ask the board to hold them, especially since this is a repeat. And this is actually part of the three cases that we had on this. This is a chronic complaint case that we get. And as you can see from the photos on the screen from the repeat violation, there's numerous photos of cars parking all across the front yard, along the side. um so But I don't. And then this is the case that we just had earlier for the repeat. He's been making repairs on cars.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:08:55–03:09:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
calls. She calls, though. And when we go out to look, if there's no violation and she keeps calling, that would be harassment. But you have been in violation. You've been in violation of running a motorcycle shop and fixing motorcycles. And that's actually run a fine. That
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:09:40–03:09:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:09:48–03:10:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:10:15–03:10:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:10:42–03:10:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:10:57–03:10:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And we will even send, I'll send Steve out there tomorrow or the next day. And if there's no cars, we'll close the case as of that day, which will make it from March
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:11:20–03:11:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
object is to clean up the city and make it look as good as it can. So uh what thethe director has said is it will send the officer out tomorrow, if it's all cleaned up, he can he can he can close it right close the case right then. okay I think that's about that's about as fair as we can be. And uh i I hope it will work out for you.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:12:09–03:12:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:12:30–03:12:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:12:39–03:12:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
took during my re-inspections of the property. They actually depict the property during my visits. This case is brought before the code enforcement board on February
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:12:52–03:12:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:13:00–03:13:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:13:02–03:13:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:13:41–03:13:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:14:05–03:14:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The property address is 830 Florida Ave. Submitting photos I took during my re-inspections of the property, they actually depict the property during my visits. This case was brought before the Code
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:14:18–03:14:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
violation of Boarded Up Buildings, Section 6 900 b5 Protective Treatment, Section 6 1003 b Compliance date was given of April 19, 2020. I sent notice of hearing for non-compliance on 6, I'm sorry, on 7 31 2020, ‸ it was sent certified and posted. At this time, the property remains in violation, and the property representatives here tonight. Okay. It remains in violation, of‸ The property has come a long way, and it's definitely in the home room home stretch. um If you see the pictures in the packet, they've done a lot of work. um But, yeah,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:15:08–03:15:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:15:15–03:15:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:15:19–03:15:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:15:51–03:15:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:16:00–03:16:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
No, we're very close. um What happened, my GC had told me, and as I had told you guys, the project was scheduled to be on, start in the beginning of April. We thought it was going to be about,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:17:16–03:17:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
people get sick. But also we discovered that more needed to be done. ‸ It wasn't going to look right, just painting it. So then we had to go and get a first permit to start the painting. um So between illnesses, death, and then i just we decided to put the uh
board, or forget what the stuff is, in the front. So I wanted it to look nicer. So basically, then it got down to, we thought it would have been completed in June, ‸ but waiting on permit and uh health issues with his employees, uh that was the delay. As of right now, uh
as I said earlier, we really only have two choices. It's either compliant or not. ‸ if we find it non-compliant, as soon as you get that work done, if it's tomorrow or it's a week from now, uh uh
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 03:19:14–03:19:15 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 03:19:23–03:19:24 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 03:19:25–03:19:25 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:19:42–03:20:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:20:25–03:20:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Dennis, any announcements? No, I have none. Oh, good. We don't have any other business. Our next meeting, hopefully, will be September 17, 2020, right here in this same place.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:20:45–03:20:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording