Code Enforcement Board

DUN~ DIN -Home of Honeymoon Island MINUTES OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 3, 2026 CITY HALL, 737 LOUDEN AVENUE, 2:00 PM CITY OF DUNEDIN PRESENT: Chair Phil Stone, Members Matthew Wielinski, Dan Bolduc, and Walter Sweetser; Alternate Member Lisa Hunt ABSENT: Vice-Chair Jaime Ballard (excused), Alternate Member Chris Alexander (excused), Jason Gillette (excused), Jeremy Reynolds (without excuse) ALSO PRESENT: Assistant City Attorney Laura Carrera, Secretary to the Board Katherine Lachcik, Code Compliance Supervisor Julie Phillips, Code Compliance Inspector Michelle Gilbert, Code Compliance Inspector Rachel Laurel, Chief Building Inspector and Plans Examiner Chuck Pitt, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Deputy Hollowell, and two additional attendees in the audience. CALL TO ORDER Chair Stone called the meeting to order at 2:13 p.m. and Mr. Bolduc explained the purpose of this Board and meeting procedures to those in attendance. *Recess taken to provide for alternate member arrival to reach quorum; meeting resumed at 2:25 p.m. CITIZEN INPUT - None. Opportunity for the Public to address the Board on any topic not on the agenda. 1. CONSENT AGENDA 1.a. Approval of Draft Minutes for the February 3, 2026, Code Enforcement Board Meeting MOTION: Mr. Bolduc moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 3, 2026, as written. Second was made by Mr. Sweetser. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. TESTIMONY OATH OF STAFF AND PUBLIC Ms. Lachcik swore in Code Compliance Supervisor Julie Phillips and all others wishing to speak. 3. AFFIDAVITS OF COMPLIANCE - None 4. OLD BUSINESS - None 1

Regular Meeting March 3, 2026 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.a. Case 25-2138 City vs RITTER, DAVID M 1776 Pasadena Drive Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Violation of the Dunedin Code of Ordinances Section 34-1 - Offensive Accumulation Violation of International Property Maintenance Code Section 302.8 Motor Vehicles Conduct of Board - Chair Stone to step down and recuse himself from case. Interim chair to be elected by motion and vote. Attorney Carrera advised at this time the Board did not have a quorum to hear this item. There was confirmation that an additional Board member was scheduled to arrive in the next five minutes; therefore, she called for a 5-minute recess. An additional 5-minute recess was taken. Attorney Carrera advised regarding the process of choosing a chair because the Vice- Chair was not present and Chair Stone is recusing himself from this case. MOTION: Mr. Bolduc moved to act as chair for this case, as the most senior member on the Board outside of the Chair and the Vice-Chair. Second was made by Ms. Hunt. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0. Attorney Carrera confirmed there was now a quorum to move forward. Attorney Carrera reviewed the procedures for hearing this case. She advised there might be a video to potentially be part of the respondent's evidence and emphasized the Florida Rules of Evidence do not apply to the Code Enforcement Board; therefore, she cannot really entertain objections as to the relevance of the video. However, she may have questions about the contents of any of the parties' evidence, not necessarily only the respondent. Board members may have questions as to any evidence as well. Code Compliance Supervisor Phillips reviewed Case 25-2138: Case Summary The property is in the R-60 Zoning District. Dunedin Code of Ordinances Section 34-1 Offensive Accumulation (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to accumulate, leave, dump, or store openly on any premises with a residential zoning classification any building materials, automobile tires, inoperable or derelict vehicles, and any and all other articles of personal property which may be seen from the public rights-of-way or abutting properties for a period greater than three days, unless storage of such articles on residential premises is specifically allowed under other provisions in this Code. (b) An automobile shall be deemed to be derelict or inoperative if such vehicle is not able to be operated legally and in a normal manner on the public streets, including a requirement that such vehicle be properly licensed. As an exception to this subsection, the vehicle may be stored on residential premises for a period of not exceeding three days for the purposes of repair. Supporting Code: International Property Maintenance Code Section 302.8; Motor Vehicles Except as provided for in other regulations, no inoperative or unlicensed motor 2

Regular Meeting March 3, 2026 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board vehicle shall be parked, kept, or stored on any premises, and no vehicle shall at any time be in a state of major disassembly, disrepair, or in the process of being stripped or dismantled. Inoperative or unlicensed motor vehicles shall not be parked, kept, or stored on any premises, and no vehicle at any time be in a state of major disassembly, disrepair, or in the process of being stripped or dismantled. Painting of vehicles is prohibited unless conducted inside an approved spray booth. A Notice of Violation was posted to the property and City Hall and sent Certified Mail to the property owner on December 17, 2025. Compliance Date: January 3, 2026 Certified Mail Delivery Confirmation was not received; it is shown as still being in transit. A Notice of Hearing was posted to the property and City Hall and sent to the property owner of record via Certified Mail on February 20, 2026. On December 5, 2025, an online complaint was received from Phil Stone, the neighbor to the west. The complaint spoke to the offensive accumulation in the front of the property located at 1776 Pasadena Drive. She phoned the owner and advised him of the complaint; Mr. Ritter stated he was cleaning out his garage, and the property would be cleaned up by Monday. On Monday, December 8, 2025, she met Mr. Ritter at his property; they discussed the complaint, items stored outside such as car parts, cushions, cooler, buckets, wood, cement blocks, and a variety of other personal items. Mr. Ritter stated he was going to apply for a permit and screen in his front porch; when asked if he wanted to show her the items in his backyard in response to the complaint, he declined. She advised she would circle back with Mr. Ritter the next week. On December 17, 2025, there was no change. There is a vehicle in the backyard; Mr. Stone resides in the property to the west, so she asked if she could take pictures from his property. Photographs were shown from areas of Mr. Stone's property. Also, due to there being two slats of fencing not attached on the west side of the property, this allowed for her to legally see a portion of Mr. Ritter's backyard and some items from the complainant's property. Ms. Phillips detailed the various items seen. On January 13, 2026, she reached out to Mr. Ritter and how progress was going; he stated he was working on it. On February 2, 2026, a reinspection after the compliance date indicated significant items were still left. On February 5, 2026, she reached out to Mr. Stone and asked if she could take updated photographs from his property; he agreed. She and Inspector Gilbert reinspected and found there were no improvements to the backyard and additional items were on the front porch. Code Compliance Supervisor Phillips provided details of the various items. Ms. Phillips noted this is a well-maintained neighborhood with clean lines and very clean properties. 3

Regular Meeting March 3, 2026 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board On March 2, 2026, upon reinspection and taking photographs, there were still items present in violation in the front and backyards. Respondent Comment David Ritter of 1776 Pasadena Drive stated: Taking pictures of his back yard is a violation of his 4 th Amendment rights; taking pictures over the fence is a violation. This is the fourth or fifth time that Dunedin has violated those rights. He has emails from Joe May asking people to go in the backyard and take pictures over the fence; this is a violation of his rights. They do not need to be looking at his backyard. He has been on his property for about 25 years. He bought the house and Code immediately jumped on him. There had been no citing on it for three years; it was completely updated. Ten years ago, Phillip Stone bought the house behind him and proceeded to put $300 ,000 in the house while most of the houses in the neighborhood are wood frame, 1,000 sq. ft . Mr. Ritter continued with describing actions he had observed by Mr. Stone in conjunction with his property and Mr. Stone's property; these things made him angry, but he has not retaliated against even once; however, he also was not going to cooperate when Mr. Stone asks for things in terms of pictures in the neighborhood and so forth . Acting Chair Bolduc asked Mr. Ritter to continue with the reason for the hearing, his yard and the violations. Mr. Ritter stated his yard is the way it is because of Mr. Stone and he wanted to be able to give his evidence about Phillip Stone ; he has a 30-minute video, and he intends to watch the whole thing. He stated that regarding all the things Ms. Phillips showed, it is his stuff and his yard , and he pays taxes on his yard and he can keep it any way he wants. He described his experience with permitting in Dunedin, as well as results of the hurricanes and an active insurance claim. In his front yard is a Ford bench with cushions and a chair and table; he uses his front yard like his living room and is out there all the time . He has evidence , and if the Board wanted to dismiss this then he would not give them his evidence; as long as they are talking about it, he would give his evidence. Acting Chair Bolduc noted the violation before the Board was for Offensive Accumulation, Motor Vehicles. Mr. Ritter stated Ms. Phillips had verified every vehicle has license plates. Ms. Phillips noted that was only in the front yard, not the backyard. Mr. Ritter stated she did not belong in his backyard. Mr. Ritter questioned who the accumulation was offensive to, stating he liked it; it is his yard and he pays taxes. 4

Regular Meeting March 3, 2026 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Mr. Wielinski commented the City does have codes and Code Enforcement has shown him those codes on what he is violating, so it doesn't matter who likes it; it is against the Code. He also noted it is the right of a neighbor to complain if a Code is being violated. Mr. Ritter stated everything in the yard has been before this Board before and they said it was all okay, except for removing one bench that was considered a car part. He stated a part of the reason for the things being in his yard was due to a different neighbor who would call the Fire Department every time he cooked in the backyard, so he brought his barbeque to the front yard. If he takes everything to the backyard, they will start calling the Fire Department again if he cooks. Acting Chair Bolduc asked if there was a past case brought before the Board. Code Compliance Supervisor Phillips advised this location has had violations since 2002; she has only been with the City for four years. In 2005, the location was brought for Offensive Accumulation and there was a lien put on it at that time. Because Mr. Ritter has lived there for so long, that lien has gone away, as those do after 20 years. After that Mr. Ritter was brought before the Board for Front Yard Parking in 2018 and there is a current lien for $5,400 that has not been paid. Mr. Ritter noted it has been discussed that lien was put on before going to court by the previous Code Enforcement Inspectors. Mr. Ritter commented his property is homesteaded, which means the Board is not even supposed to fine him by statute. Attorney Carrera advised that is an incorrect statement of law. She explained: Mr. Ritter would have the time he wanted in front of the Board to present testimony; however, she addressed some issues: First issue: Because he alluded to 4 th Amendment violations for the Board's information, any determinations as to Constitutional rights that may be infringed upon during the City's prosecution of the case is outside of this Board's determination; he does have recourse in front of a State Circuit Court if he wants to move forward in that direction. The 4 th Amendment does protect individuals, their homes, and papers from unreasonable search and seizures, which have to be done by a governmental actor. Any single member of this Board acting on its own would not constitute the actions of the Board; the Board has to act as a whole to be considered essentially, State action needed for potential 4 th Amendment infringement claims. She reiterated that is outside the scope of determination for this Board. This Board needs to determine whether a violation has occurred for the Code section cited under the Notice of Violation. If the Board determines a violation has occurred, then they move forward with a reasonable time for compliance and assessing the appropriate fine amount. She could provide those factors if the Board determines a violation has occurred to determine the appropriate fine amount. The second Issue: Mr. Ritter submitted a video to the Board Secretary and as previously stated, those rules of evidence do not apply; therefore, the Board is more than welcome to play the video. She did have some questions if that is Mr. Ritter's request that the Board would like to play the video; if the Board chooses not to do so, then they do not have 5

Regular Meeting March 3, 2026 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board to proceed with that; if the Board wants to make that a part of the evidentiary record, that can be done. Mr. Wielinski stated his disagreement if the video has nothing to do with showing that Mr. Ritter has cleaned up anything; therefore, his opinion was that that Board did not want to see the video. When asked what it was evidence of, Mr. Ritter stated it was evidence of his description of Mr. Stone. Attorney Carrera stated she has not seen the video and questioned if any member of the Board had seen it. Mr. Wielinski stated they had not seen it and did not want to see it. Attorney Carrera advised she could pose questions as to the contents of the video and the Board could order her that they do not want to see the video; she cannot make that determination. Attorney Carrera addressed Mr. Ritter, explaining that if he would like to present the video at this time, she had some questions. Mr. Ritter stated the Board saw the pictures of his backyard which is a violation, so the whole Board did see them and that is a violation of his rights. Attorney Carrera explained it is her position under Florida law that if the City Officer has consent from the neighboring property, which was her testimony to go on the neighbor's property, for anything that is visible and in plain sight from the neighboring property, the Code Officer may take images of whatever is in plain sight. Discussion ensued between Mr. Wielinski and Mr. Ritter regarding the vehicles in the front yard being licensed but not the vehicle in the backyard and what is prohibited in the Code. Mr. Ritter maintained that it is his backyard. Mr. Wielinski asked Mr. Ritter if he did not plan on removing any of the trash in his front yard, stating that most of it is trash. Discussion ensued regarding particular issues with the items in the yard. Mr. Wielinski commented there is everything that is stated in the notice of violation, some of the items might be eclectic yard art; however, 80% is junk. Mr. Ritter disagreed, stating he can decorate his house any way he wants. Acting Chair Bolduc noted the chemicals that are a safety hazard; however, Mr. Ritter stated he does not have chemicals in his front yard. Mr. Ritter stated he still wanted to see the video and he would continue to argue and argue. Acting Chair Bolduc stated regarding the fence, if items can be seen through it, no one is violating his rights. Attorney Carrera asked questions of Mr. Ritter prior to showing the video. When asked to tell the Board how the video shows a violation or non-violation for Section 34-1 Offensive Accumulation he was cited for and IPMC Section 302.8 Inoperable Vehicles, Mr. Ritter s~ated it shows what kind of person Phillip Stone is and it is his evidence, and he wanted 30 minutes to play that video. When asked if he could tell the Board if the video shows the property at any time, Mr. Ritter stated no. 6

Regular Meeting March 3, 2026 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Attorney Carrera reiterated the Florida Rules of Evidence do not apply to this Board; she appreciated the Board member's comment, which raised a good issue; this is the same as an attorney would raise in a court of law; this is not a court of law. Mr. Ritter has an opportunity under the City Code to show images, photography or video, as part of his evidence to his record. If there is a copy of the video that could be displayed for the Board, that can proceed. Mr. Ritter stated unless the Board wanted to drop it, he was not paying any fine anyway and he will clean up the property as he has time to. He has had $700,000 in fines with the City of Dunedin; he is homesteaded; it is his forever home and he is never selling it; he is never refinancing it. When the Board fines him, all they do is protect him; if someone comes to sue him, Dunedin has $600,000 against this house, and they will get zero. He has been a good neighbor, and he first got it brought it into compliance, and it is still one of the nicest in the neighborhood. Ms. Hunt inquired about the Board having the right to say they do not want to see the video. Attorney Carrera explained the contents needed to be ascertained of the video first, so some portion needs to be watched; at that time, based on the testimony from Mr. Ritter, it is likely not to display any portions of the property. Therefore, at that time, if the Board would like to request to stop the video and ask any further clarification questions of Mr. Ritter, they can do that. Mr. Wielinski asked Attorney Carrera that he be absent during the video as he did not want to see it and would leave the room. He noted it was already admitted the video has nothing to do with this agenda today; therefore, he believes it is not presentable and not to be allowed. Attorney Carrera explained the video is part of the evidentiary record, so she thought the best way to approach this is to be amicable to adhere to procedures to allow the respondent to present his evidence; unfortunately, relevancy does not apply to this Board. Mr. Sweetser commented it was confusing in that Mr. Stone made the complaint; he thought people could be polled as to what is visible from the street. The fact is beyond that, the attack on Mr. Stone is hurting his case, and City staff follows the rules and follows up with what they are supposed to with the ordinances for the problems stated. He agreed with Mr. Wielinski in asking what would be gained from watching the video other than trying to disparage Mr. Stone, which has nothing to do with the case. The violations are there regardless, they could have just come to the attention of City staff; it does not always have to be a neighbor or Dunedin resident. Staff has compiled all the information, not Mr. Stone. Diverting attention is a waste of time. The photographs were shown, and there are some pieces that could be considered yard art; the vast majority is junk and trash and there are Code violations. Ms. Hun~ asked Mr. Ritter about the photographs and if it looked like any of them had been altered; he stated he did not know about that. She asked if what the Board has seen was his yard and Mr. Ritter stated it was or it was a good depiction. Ms. Hunt noted the right of a neighbor to complain about violations as well as the Board viewing the photographs and knowing what they saw in them. 7

Regular Meeting March 3, 2026 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Acting Chair Bolduc asked how much time of the video does the Board have to watch before stopping. Attorney Carrera clarified she was saying the best way to ascertain the contents of the video is to allow it play at least the first 30 seconds or a minute or two. If the Board wants to make a finding that this video is not relevant and does not pertain to competent substantial evidence that supports the violations, the Board may do that. Her preference would be to show the first few minutes, but if the Board wants to make that finding then they can make a formal motion. Mr. Ritter stated it was his evidence and he requested they watch it all. At this time, preparations were being made to show the video and it was viewed. At 51 :43 on the audio of the meeting, Acting Chair Bolduc requested the video be stopped. Mr. Wielinski recommended the Chair request that the Staff Recommendation proceed with a motion. MOTION: Mr. Wielinski moved in Case 25-2138 to find that the video submitted is not relevant based on the testimony and that the subject property is not shown during the video and is not part of the competent substantial evidence of the violations and there is no need to proceed watching the entire video. Second was made by VOTE: Public Comment Mr. Sweetser. Motion carried 4-0 with Messrs. Bolduc, Wielinski, Sweetser, and Ms. Hunt voting aye. Voting nay, none. Attorney Carrera noted the public comment is limited to three minutes, and during those three minutes photographic evidence may be presented. Secretary to the Board Lachcik swore in Phillip Stone. Phillip Stone of 335 Buena Vista Drive S. submitted photographs taken on January 12, 2026, and on March 2, 2026, and stated: The series of photographs were taken from his driveway and depict the various vehicles and items considered the offensive accumulation. What really prompted filing the complaint was the fact that Mr. Ritter has moved in two very large commercial trailers onto the property visible from the back of his house, which he pointed out on the photographs. Additional photographs show the back of the house where Mr. Ritter indicated the planned patio and a third trailer. He requested it be put on the record that he takes issue with the fact he is being identified as a member of the public and limited to three minutes because he is the complainant in this matter. The photos taken yesterday show there was no change in the condition. Board Questions Ms. Hunt referred to the photographs and asked if it was showing a well; Mr. Stone responded he did not know if there was a well; there is what he thought at one point a hot tub. He also clarified a propane tank was shown as well as barrels; he did not know what 8

Regular Meeting March 3, 2026 was inside them. Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Mr. Sweetser inquired if there are any codes via violations when it comes to abandoned vehicles, obviously for years; they emit oils, radiant fluids, and so forth. Code Compliance Supervisor Phillips advised the City's Code speaks to inoperable vehicles; all vehicles are required to have a current tag, registration, and be operable. Closing Testimony Attorney Carrera asked for any closing testimony from either party prior to moving forward. She determined Mr. Ritter had no further testimony. Staff Recommendation Requesting compliance on or before April 3, 2026, or a fine of $250.00 per day the violation continues to exist. Ms. Phillips clarified there was only one violation; one section is a supporting code. MOTION: Mr. Wielinski moved in Case 25-2138 for the property located at 1776 Pasadena Drive, to find the Respondent, David M. Ritter, in violation of the City of Dunedin Code of Ordinances Section 34-1 (Supporting Code International Property Maintenance Code 302.8, Motor Vehicles) and order the Respondent to come into compliance by April 3, 2026. If not in compliance, a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until compliance is met. The respondent is ordered to contact the Code Compliance Office for a reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Second was made by Ms. Hunt. VOTE: Motion carried 4-0 with Messrs. Bolduc, Wielinski , Sweetser, and Ms. Hunt voting aye. Voting nay, none. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 6.a. Code Enforcement Board Member Comments - None 6.b. City Attorney Comments - None 6.c. City Staff Comments - None 6.d. Set next meeting date of April 7, 2026. Acting Chair Bolduc announced the next Code Enforcement Board Meeting of April 7, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Wielinski and seconded by Ms. Hunt passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3:31 P.M. NOTE: This meeting was recorded rcc~sare a part of the o ieial file. Phil Stone , Chair Dunedin Code Enforcement Board 9

1. CONSENT AGENDA 1.a Approval of draft minutes to Code Enforcement Board Meeting of February 3, 2026. 2. TESTIMONY OATH OF STAFF AND PUBLIC 3. AFFIDAVITS OF COMPLIANCE 4. OLD BUSINESS 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.a Case 25-2138 City vs RITTER, DAVID M 1776 Pasadena Dr Violation of the DCO SEC 34-1 - Offensive Accumulation Violation of the IPMC SEC 302.8 Motor Vehicles Violation of the DCO SEC 105-27.1.1.1 Site Standards for Houses and Duplexes 6. OTHER BUSINESS 6.a a. Code Enforcement Board Member Comments b. City Attorney Comments c. City Staff Comments d. Set next meeting date of April 7, 2026 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY HALL, 737 LOUDEN AVE. MARCH 3, 2026 2:00 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER CITIZEN INPUT Opportunity for the Public to address the Board Review and approve. EXHIBIT: A. 02-03-26 CEB Minutes.pdf Swearing in of all staff and public who wish to provide testimony Discussion EXHIBIT: A. 25-2138 NOV.pdf EXHIBIT: B. 25-2138 NOH.pdf EXHIBIT: C. 25-2138 AP.pdf 1

Discussion ADJOURN Note: Please put cell phones and pagers on silent or vibrate during the meeting. This meeting is televised; therefore, you may appear on TV at any time. Public Appearance: CITIZEN INPUT is for comments from members of the audience regarding items not listed on the agenda for this meeting (please give name and address and limit all comments to a maximum of three minutes). AS FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA individual speakers are limited to a maximum of three minutes. A representative of a group consisting of 5 individuals who are present during the meeting may speak on behalf of the group for up to 10 minutes at the Chair's discretion. To do so, the individuals must have waived their time to the representative by providing their name and address on the back of the comment card. Public Hearings: During public hearings the Chair will open the agenda item to the public for comment. If you wish to comment come to the microphone at the podium and give your name and address for the record. This meeting is for agenda items only. Other issues should be presented to the City Manager or City Clerk for discussion at a future Commission meeting. Appeals: Per section 286.0105 of the Florida Statutes - If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the board, agency, or commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Disability Provisions: It is the policy of the City of Dunedin not to discriminate against disabled persons in employment or the provisions of services. If you have a disability that requires accommodation, please notify the ADA Coordinator 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting at (727) 298-3042. COPIES OF THIS AND ALL COMMISSION AGENDAS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, 737 LOUDEN AVENUE, ON THE MONDAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING DATE. COPIES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE AT WWW.DUNEDIN.GOV. 2