Code Enforcement Board

Home of Honeymoon Island MINUTES OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 1, 2023 DUNEDIN CITY HALL - 737 LOUDEN AVENUE, 2:00 P.M. CITY OF DUNEDIN PRESENT: Chair Ken Carson, Michael Bowman, Dave Pauley, Jason Gillette, Victoria Butler, Sally Caron ABSENT: (W/Excuse) Phil Stone, Dan Bolduc and Bunny Dutton ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Hillary Ryan , Secretary to the Board Joan McHale, Community Development Director George Kinney, Code Compliance Supervisor Julie Phillips, Code Compliance Inspector Michelle Gilbert, Attorney for the City of Dunedin Regina Kardash , Deputy City Manager Jorge Quintas, Pinellas County Sheriff Deputy Sews (Until 5:45 p.m.) and nine attendees. CALL TO ORDER Chair Carson called the meeting to order at 2:00 P. M. and explained the purpose of this Board and meeting procedures to those in attendance. CITIZEN INPUT - None Opportunity for the Public to address the Board on any item not on the agenda . 1. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Draft Minutes of the July 11 , 2023 Code Enforcement Board Meeting MOTION: Mr. Bowman moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 11, 2023. Second was made by Mr. Pauley. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Chair Carson recommended hearing the New Business cases first due to the Old Business case might take more time. MOTION: Mr. Bowman moved for the New Business cases to be heard ahead of the Old Business case. Second was made by Ms. Caron. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. TESTIMONY OATH OF STAFF AND PUBLIC Swearing in of all staff and members of the public who wish to provide testimony Ms. McHale swore in Code Compliance Supervisor Julie Phillips and all others wishing to speak. 3. AFFIDAVITS OF COMPLIANCE- None 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.a. Case 23-1194 City vs. Lillian A. Mesich 1

Regular Meeting August1,2023 235 Grove Circle Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Violation: International Property Maintenance Code Section 302.7 Accessory Structures Code Compliance Inspector Gilbert reviewed Case No. 23-1194 Case Summary The property is in the R-60 Zoning District. The home is currently vacant with a lockbox on the door . International Property Maintenance Code Section 302.7 Accessory Structures All accessory structures, including detached garages, fences and walls , shall be maintained structurally sound and in good repair. Notice of Violation : Was sent Certified Mail to the property owner on May 5, 2023. On June 13, 2023 the property was posted because both notices were returned as undeliverable. Notice of Hearing: Was sent and posted to the door on July 6, 2023 to the Certified Mail came back undeliverable. The photographs show the fence on May 5, 2023 and a tree that is putting stress on the fence. Today it could be seen someone had opened one of the notices; to date there has been no response from the owner. She called the listed telephone number for the owner twice and left a message for a call back there has been-no response to date. Staff Recommendation Requesting compliance on or before August 15, 2023 or a fine of $250.00 per day the violation continues to exist. Chair Carson noted there was no one present for this case. Questions for the City Mr. Pauley asked if there is a pool on the property and Ms. Gilbert explained they were not allowed on the property and the photographs obtained were from the neighbor's yard; however, from what she could see there was no pool or safety hazard . MOTION: Mr. Pauley moved to find Case No. 23-1194, property owner, Lillian A. Mesich , property address 235 Grove Circle S in violation of the International Property Maintenance Code Section 302.7 Accessory Structures and that the Respondent shall come into compliance by August 15, 2023 or suffer a fine of $250.00 per day thereafter until compliance. Second was made by Ms. Butler. VOTE: Motion carried with Ms. Butler, Ms. Caron, Messrs. Pauley, Gillette, Bowman and Chair Carson voting aye. Voting nay, none. Chair Carson reviewed the Finding and Order of the Board. 5.b. CASE 23-1275 City vs Gregory S. Layne 1416 Windmoor Drive (MG) Violation : Land Development Code Section 105-27.1.1.1(f) Boats, RVs, Trailers Chair Carson determined no one was present for this case. 2

Regular Meeting August 1, 2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Code Compliance Inspector Gilbert reviewed Case No. 23-1194 Case Summary The property is in the R-60 Zoning District. Land Development Code Section 105-27.1.1.1 (f) Utility Trailers, Boats, Recreational Vehicles and other Recreational Equipment Standards 5). No utility trailers, boats or other recreational equipment and recreational vehicles shall be located between the minimum setbacks established in Chapter 103-Zoning unless screened by a six-foot privacy fence. Notice of Violation: Was sent Certified Mail to the property owner on May 30, 2023. Compliance Date: June 12, 2023 Certified Mail Delivery Confirmation came back as mail undelivered A second mailing went out with a new Compliance Date of July 7, 2023 and posted it to the door for the Notice of Violation ; that mailing also came back; the Certified mail came back as well. Notice of Hearing: Was sent to the Property Owner via Certified Mail and posted to the door. The photographs show the boat parked May 30, 2023; June 13, 2023, June 22, 2023, June 26, 2023, June 29, 2023, July 3, 2023, July 5, 2023, July 12, 2023, July 28, 2023 This morning it seemed he was attempting to get the boat behind the fence ; at 1:00 p.m. today she received a phone call from the owner stating he did manage to get it behind the fence. She advised him this week they would take photographs, but to date there was no response regarding the notices or postings until today. There was really no explanation as to why this went on for so long . Staff Recommendation Requesting compliance on or before August 8, 2023 or a fine of $250.00 per day the violation continues to exist. MOTION: Ms. Butler moved to find Case No .23-1275 property owner, Gregory S. Layne property address 1416 Wind moor Drive in violation of the Land Development Code Section 105-27.1.1.1 (f) Utility Trailers, Boats, Recreational Vehicles and other Recreational Equipment Standards and that the Respondent shall come into compliance by August 8, 2023 or suffer a fine of $250.00 per day thereafter until compliance. Second was made by Mr. Gillette. VOTE: Motion carried with Ms. Butler, Ms. Caron, Messrs. Pauley, Gillette, Bowman and Chair Carson voting aye. Voting nay, none. Chair Carson reviewed the Finding and Order of the Board . 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.a. CASE 22-631 City vs Nohora Lopez Peada/Steve Stentz 591 BAYWOOD DRIVE NORTH (JP) Violation: Land Development Code Section 105-30.6(A) Public Safety Chair Carson advised this is a continuance of the case and that Attorney Weber was calling his next witness. 3

Regular Meeting August 1, 2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Attorney Ryan polled each member of the board to ask whether they were in attendance at the 6/6/23 and 7/11/23 hearings for this case and if not, did they listen to the meeting recordings. Do they feel prepared to be able to hear this case and make a judgment? Ms. Butler: Yes to both meetings Ms. Caron: Yes 6/6 , no 7/11 . Yes she was prepared. Mr. Pauley: Yes to 6/6, no 7/11. Yes he was prepared. Mr. Gillette: Yes to 6/6, no 7/11 . Yes he was prepared. Mr. Bowman: Yes to both meetings Chair Carson: Yes to both meetings Respondent Presentation Attorney Weber called Mr. Tai Truong of 2833 Luce Drive North. Mr. Truong responded to the questions from Attorney Weber as follows : He is not currently employed and previously was employed by the City of Dunedin as a Plan Reviewer and typically reviewed infrastructure improvements for the City's water, sewer, transportation and stormwater. He acknowledged it was his responsibility to address applications for the installation of utilities. He worked for the City 6 or 7 years. Regarding during that time how much time he spent reviewing applications for utility installation in rights-of-ways he stated about 90%. In terms of spending 90% of his responsibility being reviewing applications for right- of-way permits for utilities, he said no, he would have to review the right-of-way permit when they came in the office, but his main job was to review development permits. He responded yes to that would include stormwater, potable water. To the question of whether during that time he had occasion to administer the City right-of-way permitting process, was that his job Mr. Truong stated no it was not his job. When Attorney Weber showed him what was already Exhibit 1 from these proceedings and asked did there come a point in time that Mr. Stentz was referred to him in connection he had about submitting a right-of-way permit, Mr. Truong thought at the time Mr. Stentz was unclear to what kind of process it is and he did not know what Mr. Stentz wanted so he was helping to explain if he was in the right-of-way he would need the right-of-way permit and if you leave the stuff in the right-of-way for a long time you need the right-of-way use agreement. Attorney Weber asked if it was correct that Exhibit 1 indicates that on September 2 nd at 8:22 in the morning Mr. Truong wrote an email to Steve and Nora and he acknowledged it was. Attorney Weber read : Thank you for reaching out. I know we talked about the permit needed for the right-of-way and that you would submit an application. I included the links again if you need them as well as information to one of our Engineers who actually receives and processes the ROW permit application. He is helpful and incredibly knowledgeable so, please reach out if you have any questions. On the next page an email from Chelsea Miller where she is giving Mr. Truong 's information to Steve and Nora. 4

Regular Meeting August1,2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board When asked if he recalled being involved in the permitting process by the Code Enforcement Office at this point in time , Mr. Truong stated he did not remember. Attorney Weber referred to the email talked about from Ms. Miller that has links to the Right-of-Way Permit Application and other Engineering forms and asked if he received that , Mr . Truong stated yes and in response to if there was a subsequent follow up by Mr. Stentz to him in connection with that email, he stated he did not remember , he did not think so , but he did not recall. Attorney Weber stated on page 2 at the top it says: Morning Tai, per Chelsea and (inaudible 24:53) below, she sent me a couple links for ROW permits; the link below is full of language about utilities which I am not and most of the application does not seem to apply to me . Is there some other form/doc/info you 'd like from us maybe or am I using that one. Thanks much, Steve Stentz and asked if he recalled receiving that and Mr. Truong stated he guessed, yes. When asked going back to what Chelsea Miller told the homeowner on the bottom, was he one of the engineers who actually received and processed the ROW permit; Mr . Truong stated, yes. Mr . Truong responded yes to that he was familiar with the City's forms , Right-of-Way Permit Form and Annual General Right-of-Way Permit. When Attorney Weber asked is there a Florida Statute which requires permits for utilities when they put utilities in city's rights-of-ways Attorney Kardash objected to the question and then he stated he would lay a foundation , withdrawing the question and would get back to it. Mr. Truong responded to the questions from Attorney Weber as follows: In terms of a li ce r.i se as a professional in the state of Florida , he is an Engineer in • Training. The entire time he was with the City he worked under an Engineer . Regarding if he had an understanding as to why the City grants permits to utilities, he stated yes to make sure the correct pipes and stuff like that. To the question if the utilities have maintenance obligations as it relates to landscaping, brush and things of that nature for the areas they have utilities; that would be under Maintenance and not under Engineering ; Public Works & Utilities. He was familiar with the Right-of-Way permit and no , he had not ever taken one of those from a homeowner . To if he had ever in his time with the City seen a homeowner apply for a right-of-way permit or a Code Enforcement case where somebody required a homeowner to get a right-of-way permit for landscaping in the City's right-of-way (response was inaudible). He stated yes to he had authored the email to Mr . Stentz that he was shown and it was correct that his advice to Mr . Stentz that the right-of-way permit was only for temporary work within the right-of-way; also , it was correct that he indicated that for use of the right-of-way for a long period of time would be a Right-of-Way Use Agreement. To whether he had ever seen an individual homeowner have a Right-of-Way Use Agreement for landscaping of the right-of way at their property he responded no; to if he had ever seen an application for such a Right-of-Way Use Agreement submitted by a homeowner, he responded yes. Regarding the circumstance under which a homeowner submits an application for a Right-of-Way Use Agreement , he explained the homeowner wanted to use their 5

Regular Meeting August 1, 2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board driveway for access, so they applied for the Right-of-Way Use Agreement. When Attorney Weber asked if he was a homeowner and wanted to have a driveway that goes across the City right-of-way to his house, is that done in the context of the building permit for the house or is there a separate agreement with the City Commission to have the driveway, Mr . Truong stated that is a separate agreement. When asked if he believed that the City Commission of the City of Dunedin approves every driveway for every homeowner that goes across the right-of-way; Mr. Truong stated he was not sure if they approve it or not, but the owner would do the Right-of-Way Use Agreement and the City Engineer would review it and bring it to the City Commission for approval. Mr. Truong responded to the questions from Attorney Weber as follows: He responded, yes to the City has utility pipes in the right-of-way in certain circumstances and yes those would include potable water, reclaimed water. To the question are those typically run down the right-of-way down a residential neighborhood under driveways, he responded yes and to under landscaping, timbers or anything homeowners have he responded, yes. If during his time with the City did he ever hear any issues involved with the City being able to maintain any of its utilities at 591 Baywood Drive N, he stated not that he recalled . To the question of after he made the communication reflected in Exhibit 1 to Mr. Stentz did he ever have any further communication with Mr. Stentz after that, he stated he did not recall. When asked if anyone instructed him to not have any further communications with Mr. Stentz, he stated after, he did recall one of the emails that Mr. Stentz asked him about the application and how long it is and do we track it, he did talk to the City Engineer, Ferlita who told him to copy the email to the Mayor and the City Manager and asked him not to reply to that email. Mr . Truong responded to the questions from Attorney Kardash as follows: He stated it was correct that Chelsea Miller was not his supervisor and did not work in his department. He responded no, to did he develop the forms used by the City and it was correct those forms are approved outside his scope of work when he worked for the City. It was correct he is not an Engineer, an Engineer in Training and to that his duties were essentially to process the right-of-way permits received, he explained if the main reviewer was out or on vacation he would help out. In regard to that right-of-way permits were not his main duty or responsibility, they were tangle to his other job functions, he responded correct. To that he mostly reviewed developer permits and developers who were connecting directly to City infrastructure, he responded correct. When he reviewed those things he looked for the proper connection, proper fitting in their plans as they were going to be used in the right-of-way, he responded correct. To that he did not see homeowner right-of-way permits because homeowners do not typically put things in City owned right-of-way, he responded correct. Attorney Weber made and objection and Attorney Kardash withdrew. Regarding his questioning about an email that was sent to him which he was instructed not to respond; he explained that was a verbal communication. To that the 6

Regular Meeting August1,2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board email he was sent was copied to the Mayor and City Manager, he responded correct. To that then people above him in a supervisory capacity, he responded correct. When asked when someone above him in a supervisory capacity, his direct supervisor would request that they answer the email rather him, he responded correct. When asked if he ever received a Right-of-Way Permit from Mr. Stentz, he stated no and to did he ever receive an application for a Right-of-Way Use Agreement from Mr. Stentz, he responded no. When asked if the typically see homeowners that put anything other than a driveway or any permanent structure, fixtures or other building within the City owned right-of- way, he responded yes and to how often he would see that he stated rarely, maybe one in two to three years. To when he reviewed them did he review them for any obstruction to City utilities, he responded yes. To that part of what he does when he reviews these whether from a homeowner or developer as he reviewed them to verify whether or not they are obstructing City access to pertinent infrastructure, he responded correct. Mr. Truong responded to the question from Attorney Weber as follows : In reference to Exhibit 1, he did not see copies to the Mayor or the City Manager or anyone else on the email he showed Mr. Truong and when asked if he saw anyone else involved in that, he stated not that he could see at this time. When asked if he was aware of any City code that requires a Right-of-Way Use Agreement, he stated he did not recall, but he knows anyone who works and leaves stuff in the right-of-way or use that for·a iong time they do need a Right-of-Way Use Permit. Attorney Weber called Mr. Stentz who responded to questions as follows : Steven John Stentz of 591 Baywood Drive North , Dunedin , Florida where he as resided since July 2006 , about 17 years. Regarding the landscaping and things he has done it was noted that the area of Baywood Drive is flood prone and he stated extremely so and explained the location of the neighborhood surrounded by canals or intercoastal and the situation during high tides or storm events with flooding streets and that his property is the lowest in the neighborhood . When asked about Tropical Storm Bonnie and if there was there was significant flooding , he did recall and stated there is significant flooding every year he lived there. In response to the question about Bonnie he stated he had seen the water as high as his hip and up to his stoop and across the street. He explained the problem with the flat driveway and water coming under the garage door multiple times. He elaborated on his experiences with the flooding. When asked if over the years did he make efforts to fortify his home against those types of flooding incidents, he responded that flood mitigation is what he tries to do and he did not come up with this idea on his own , the neighbor directly to the west, which was not in any of the pictures from Code Enforcement, that neighbor took all the dirt from the pool they had put in and piled it up 4-feet of dirt around their house and railroad ties the same as he has; he just copied off them. When asked if the improvements were made incrementally, he stated yes, it was a slow process of adding rocks; it is expensive, but he has been as proactive as 7

Regular Meeting August1,2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board possible with the City of Dunedin with every single department to try to get permission , any kind of form , any kind of person who grants these kind of things, they have been well aware from the beginning , so yes it was very incremental. When asked if there came a point in time when he went to the City and talked to the City Engineering Department about having things in the right-of-way, he responded yes and that Tom Burke and Joan Rice were the first two Engineers he spoke with and it came about that he had because he had a fence he had moved a couple of feet into the right-of-way and a letter from Code that said to ask the Engineers and if he got their blessing then end of story; nothing about a right-of-way use permit or anything and for years it was okay; they came out and inspected and saw that he gradually put the rocks up. The other issue besides the flooding is being at the intersection of Alternate 19 and Curlew, so people going to the north to the beach cut through the actual yard in a neighborhood with children and a bus stop and he asked the City to put in speed bumps, stop signs or something to help. When asked if there was any application to complete when he went to Mr . Burke in 2009 , he stated absolutely not and to was there any fee he paid or that he had to ask for any permission for what he wanted to do he responded , absolutely not and the term right-of-way use permit or use agreement was never in the 17 years until recently, it was just an email exchange of what he was going to do and intentions with the property and he got the blessing , end of story. To the comment that Code Enforcement case went away, Mr . Stentz stated it did . When asked if over the years did he apply for a permit from the City to upgrade his driveway, he responded that he did in 2018 ; his driveway was flat before that, he went through the Building and Zoning and Planning and his driveway became 3- dimensional , the Code Inspector last time talked about the wall wh ich he went through three or four different departments that signed off on all these things , done inspections and looked at all the collateral things going on and it has never been an issue. In regard to the driveway now having a significant pitch , he now does not have flooding issues and his now matches the neighbor across the street. When asked if when he got the sign off on the driveway permit were the railroad ties there , he responded yes; and to also the decorative rocks and stones along both sides of the driveway, he responded absolutely. Whe n asked about what is around the mailbox, he stated there is grass, smaller lime rock boulders and then eventually, you know. To that the City has been out there, he stated the City has been out there numerous times and to was that because he has been engaged with the City on these issues he responded , he has, he has been very proactive , he has a stack of emails where he tried communicate and get with the right people for any person or document or anything he needed . When asked if there came a time when two Code Enforcement Officers, Mr . Elbon and Ms. Miller came out and raised an issue concerning the landscaping in the right- of-way, he stated he has a corner lot and there is lime rock boulders he put out near the end of the road , to him it is not; but Chris Elbon came out and mentioned one or two of the larger boulders at the corner needed to be about a foot lower and measured and told him to cut that part off and he would be good , nothing else about a right-of-way permit or other landscaping being excessive, a safety issue or anything 8

Regular Meeting August1,2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board like that. He acknowledged Ms. Miller was with Mr. Elbon at the time. When asked if he did exactly as Mr. Elbon had asked, he responded, to the T. When asked if subsequent to that did he receive an Affidavit of Compliance indicating his property was in compliance, he responded signed by this Board and acknowledged it was approved by this Board and that was 2020. Regarding if in his mind was the issue over, he stated to the best of his belief yes it was. In regard to why this case came about and Mr . Stentz making reference to the issue of traffic and the City going back a significant period of time and did there come a point in time where he petitioned the City to put in speed humps to calm and slow the traffic, he responded yes. When asked if he petitioned his neighbors to support the effort, he responded there was a group with children and asked the percentage who signed off he stated he easily got 75% of the people , all those near Alternate 19. Attorney Kardash raised an objection based on relevance , this case is not about traffic issues, but solely on the issue regarding use of the right-of-way without a permit or use agreement. Attorney Weber stated this is the heart of the issue and he was going to elicit testimony from this witness, the homeowner has the opportunity to be heard and present what he wants to present on his side of the case that because he petitioned the City and was aggressive about petitioning the City for the speed humps he has endured a 10-year parade of traffic violations and citations, of random Code Enforcement action or retaliatory and unconstitutional behavior and he would present another judge has already found it to exist multiple times. That is the relevance of his testimony. • Attorney Weber stated he addressed it briefly at the last hea ci ng, there is a statement read at beginning of each hearing that Board 's duty is to determine whether a code was violated and he cited law previously that there defenses to Code Enforcement proceedings, estoppel , laches, selective enforcement. Those are defenses recognized by the Appeals Court of the State of Florida ; they are part of the fabric of the law of our nation and why are they part of the fabric is because we have a country that requires every governmental entity to not apply the law unequally. It is called the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. It is not something the Board or any judge or magistrate can overlook and say they are going to ignore the equal application of the law to our citizenry. It is a fundamental right of every citizen and to say the Board cannot take it into consideration or accept it as a defense to a violation of the Code, is not supported by any legal authority. He intends to present his case, if the Board wants to vote to sustain this objection and prevent him from putting on his defense, there are other avenues for him to raise that. Chair Carson stated as Attorney Weber knew, no one on the dais that is a judge here so , he really wants you people to work with them. If he has to get a motion every time somebody objects to something , then sobeit, but if they stay away from that, obviously it would be a lot better. He addressed Board noting they had heard the objection and there will need to be a motion to overrule or sustain. Attorney Ryan advised to be clear the Chair was asking the Board to decide whether or not to allow the respondent to continue to put on evidence related to what he alleges are within this Board's purview allegedly to consider affirmative defenses that include estoppel , laches and selective enforcement per what he said. So, do they want to allow the testimony in that regard and to allow him to preserve record to that effect or do they want to sustain the objection that would mean that the objection is overruled for the 9

Regular Meeting August1,2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Attorney Kardash and for the City or sustain the objection and instruct him to move on. MOTION: Ms. Butler moved to overrule the objection , with the instruction to Counsel to tie his line of questioning to the particular violation here at issue. Second was made by Ms. Caron. Chair Carson determined everyone understood what was being done here. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously with Ms. Butler, Ms. Caron , Messrs. Pauley, Gillette, Bowman and Chair Carson voting aye. Voting nay, none. Attorney Weber noted for the record objection to the qualification in the motion; however, he understood the motion. He continued his questioning of Mr. Stentz who responded as follows . When asked if the City Manager directed enforcement action against him in the past, Mr. Stenz responded , yes. Attorney Kardash objected and questioned the foundation. Attorney Weber stated the foundation , he believed he showed this Board to tie it directly to this violation was that they have the email in evidence that the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager who lied about being involved in the initiation of this case . Attorney Kardash objected to that characterization of testimony as he has not been impeached and no evidence presented . Attorney Weber stated he asked the witness twice did he have any involvement in the commencement of this case, no , no , no and he presented the email communication with the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager and George Kinney, let's try the right-of-way permit on this guy. Attorney Ryan at this point asked that Attorney Weber refrain from speaking objections and go back to answering her objection ; if he would like to answer it with that he has laid the foundation , but she will also say to please do not use terminology like liar; if he would like to refute a witness she invited him to recall a witness he may do that, but she advised that kind of transcript is not helpful to his client or to the City. Please go back to the objection made as to the foundation , if he could not make it a speaking response , just respond to that she would appreciate that. Attorney Weber stated the foundation was made, he set forth what the foundation was, that the very people he intended to establish were retaliating against Mr. Stentz are the very people who initiated this case. Attorney Ryan noted he was not testifying. Attorney Weber stated he was telling her what he was going to prove with this line of questioning. If it is not proven by the email in evidence already; then . Attorney Ryan noted he stated he already laid the foundation with prior evidence that was admitted into evidence and asked if that was a summary of what he said and Attorney Weber responded , correct. Attorney Weber noted for the record that they were here on a violation involving failure to get a permit and the City over his objection was allowed to talk about sight triangles, potable water lines, a number of different things that were not within the scope of the charge. Attorney Ryan verified with Attorney Weber for the record that he did object at that time. 10

·Regular Meeting August 1, 2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Attorney Weber continued his questions of Mr. Stentz who responded as follows . To if there was a point in time when the Sheriff of Pinellas County was staki ng out his house to enforce Dunedin parking violations and when did it start to see if he was parked more than 72 hours in one space, he responded yes and that at the direction of the City it started in 2013 when the Engineer Department suddenly put No Parking signs in front of only his house; he moved his cars across the street they came out a few months later and years later and followed him a basically surrounded his house. Also , in 2017 at the direction of the City, Deputy Sheriff's parked on a daily basis for 10 or 11 months every day in front of his house and across the street. When asked if that struck him as normal behavior for a city government, he stated no, not any government he has ever seen . In response to the question about chalking his tires he explained it started every day, two days, three days Deputies coming out opening his car doors, leaning against it, looki ng underneath. Attorney Kardash renewed her objection to the relevance on this as it has nothi ng to do with the right-of-way use permit and that connection has not been drawn per the Board's motion. Attorney Weber stated again he would establish the very people who initiated this case are t he people who have been engaged in this 10-year campaign. He believed that is sufficient foundation to meet the confines of the Board 's ruling. Attorney Ryan explained to the Board that before them was whether or not Attorney Weber is complying with the prior direction which was to keep testimony regard i ng th e- alleged affirmative defenses relative to this code violation and tie to that. Now, Attorney Kardash for the City has renewed her objection that motion is not being complied with as to relevance. Attorney Kardash stated she would also object on the basis that there is an existing court order that addresses the facts and the situation he is testifying about and she does have t ha t court order available. MOTION: Mr. Pauley moved to sustain the objection and that Attorney Weber has to move on. Second was made by Ms . Butler. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously Ms. Butler, Ms . Caron , Messrs. Pauley, Gillette, Bowman and Chair Carson voting aye. Voting nay, none. There was discussion regarding the exhibits presented: Attorney Weber continued questioning Mr. Stentz who responded as follows. Atty Weber presented Exhibit 1: Order granting motion to dismiss from 6/13/19 In reference to Exhibit 1 as of August 1, 2023 Mr. Stenz stated it was an order from a Pinellas County Judge and commented regarding the finding and the parki ng issues, 4 7 parking tickets with various violations. When asked if in 2021 did the City finally appeal one of the parking orders, he responded they did and acknowledged this was the same time frame of the first code enforcement violation regarding the right-ofOway was correct. When asked if there was a point in time when the Pinellas County Sheriff refused to issue any more parking tickets; he responded with information about Sher ri f Gualtier i. 11

Regular Meeting August 1, 2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Attorney Kardash objected noting this is the same line of questioning, the objection was already sustained based on relevance . Attorney Weber stated he thought they were entitled to present their case and they believe it is directly in the confines of tying it to the incidence of code enforcement issue. Chair Carson overruled. Attorney Weber continued : In regard to the reference to the Sheriff was the reason Sheriff refused to enforce the refusal to issue more traffic tickets because the No Parking signs on Baywood Drive are only at his house Attorney Kardash objected - speculation. Attorney Weber stated it was in the email, spelled out it was because there were only signs in front of Mr. Stentz's house. Attorney Ryan noted a point of order that while Chair Carson said , overruled, however, as a collective they did sustain the objection as to this line of questioning so, in keeping with that collective action then he would instruct Attorney Weber to move on from this line of questioning . When he said overruled she was not sure if he meant in antithesis to what the group said or if he meant to say the Board had already heard this. Chair Carson clarified for the record that Attorney Weber should move on. Attorney Weber continued with questioning Mr. Stentz who responded as follows: To if he filed a grievance against Mr. Quintas professional Engineering License, he responded that he did and that it was before the proceeding was initiated by the City. When asked he stated he~h~s. filed grievances against Joan Rice as well as Mr. Quintas over the speed hump issue/process which the neighborhood did not get. He stated the Florida Board of Professional Engineers agreed they did the study incorrectly. Attorney Kardash objected to this as to relevance as well. Attorney Weber responded , the same that the gentleman had a 10-year problem with the City they believe is retaliatory and selective. Chair Carson stated he thought the Board realizes where he is coming from and that they all agreed that is an issue so, to just move on. Attorney Weber continued with questioning Mr. Stentz who responded as follows: Regarding how he received notification of this code enforcement proceeding was he presented an engineering study pertaining to his house, he stated yes, and then later on; he received the initial notice May 2023 when Chelsea Miller came to his door and they spoke, the City paid $5,000 for an expert to survey and look at his yard later on , just his yard . There was no discussion about his neighbor's yard. When asked if to his knowledge there is any code enforcement proceedings against his neighbor claiming they do not have a right-of-way use permit, he stated absolutely not and he has done public records requests dozens of them. Also, he is very friendly with his neighbors and does not want them to have any kind of harassment, but he has neighbors with entire yards covered with rocks and pebbles, barriers, big pots and basically the same thing the City is arguing about getting access to the pipes underground . Regarding access to the pipes, does the City have access to the potable water system. 12

· Regular Meeting August1,2023 Attorney Kardash objected - speculation. Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Attorney Weber asked Mr. Stentz if he walked onto his yard could he grab the valve and shut it off and Mr. Stentz responded yes, that he lives on a corner and has one of those purple reclaimed water boxes and the potable water is a couple of feet away; also for the neighborhood there is a valve that has a key that he thought shuts off the whole street, easily accessible. He stated he recently did a public records request for anything to do with the shut off valve and there was nothing, no complaints; He elaborated on the size of the infrastructure and accessibility to the valve. When asked if he shut off valve was relocated by the City in the last year, he responded , no. In response to if since he had been living there had the City ever say they needed to do something on the pipes in the right-of-way in his yard, he responded no. He continued to comment in reference to previous comments about the boulders being cemented into the ground that they can be easily moved for the repair and moved back. When asked if he made a public records request since the last hearing in front of this board specifically about access to the valve to utilities to his property, he responded yes. Attorney Weber presented as Exhibit 2 emails beginning with date of 7/14/23 as the request for public records and the response from the City which Mr. Stentz acknowledged he recognized and explained his request for any work order or emails, anything having to do with the water shut off valve and there was nothing. Mr. Stentz stated he would be happy to do it if the City asked him to move some boulders a couple of feet or somethin.9, .. but no one has asked , not until th i violation released . When a~ked at any time prior to the last hearing had anyone with the City every raised an issue about access to the City's utilities, Mr. Stentz stated , no never. When asked if in the Engineering report the City came up with first in this case was there any mention of access to the utilities, he responded no. To over the years interacting with folks at the City about the landscaping, di rt and boulders did anyone ever tell him prior to 2022 that he needed a permit for any of those items, he responded absolutely not. To was the Building Department aware of those items when they inspected the driveway, he responded they have and noted the various improvements to his house when Building people were at the house numerous times. To did he continue to make improvements and enhance his property during the period from 2009 to 2022, he stated he had just like all his neighbors with rocks and boulders and so forth. BREAK (2 minutes) Attorney Kardash asked follow up questions of Mr. Stentz which he responded as follows . To that is it correct that he is not a licensed Contractor, licensed Engineer, Architect or anything like that, he responded he is not and he is not a FEMA Flood Plain Certified. To that his property is not characterized as a FEMA repetitive loss property, he responded that he does not need to be any of those things to know what knee deep water or water in his garage looks like. 13

Regular Meeting August 1, 2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board To not being a licensed Engineer he is not aware of appropriate slope or water retention on the property, he responded he is aware that if he puts big boulders in the yard to keep the water in the street where it should not be in his house. To that he is not licensed to perform any form of remediation for flood damage, he responded that the question assumes he needs to be any of those things. Chair Carson asked that Mr. Stentz just answer the question. Mr. Stentz to the question of did he have a license responded he did not. When asked if he was aware of how the slope on his property effects the runoff into his neighbor's property or into the city street, he responded it keeps it away from his house. Regarding his testimony about a permit for his driveway in 2019, the paperwork was entered into evidence at the last hearing, the Building Permit Application and asked Mr. Stentz to read #7; Resurface driveway, asphalt and he stated that was generally the project, it was to resurface and elevate the driveway. When asked if anywhere on the permit it mentions a retaining wall, he stated that it does not need to and that the retaining wall is part and parcel of the driveway and to take it away it would collapse and the Zoning Department and multiple people inspected, took pictures and signed off on it including the Engineering people. Attorney Kardash commented to be clear because he is not a professional, he is not necessarily required fill out paperwork correctly, but he is expecting this Board to know that he knows how to appropriately build his property up for flood remediation and asked if that is his testimony, Mr. Stentz responded that is exactly his testimony and he elaborated on what he had done just as his neighbors have done as well. Attorney Kardash referred to a disclosure statement attached to the building permit under which is says, I understand that State law requires construction to be done by a licensed contractor and have applied for the owner build up permit under an exemption from the law and asked if he was the owner of this property in 2019, he responded yes, he has been the owner of the property since 2006 when he bought it. She asked then whey did he just recently as June file a Quit Claim Deed with Ms. Nohora Lopez Peada deeding the property to him if he was the owner of the property in 2019, he responded that is why he is saying the question calls for a legal conclusion as to the word owner which means to him is probably something to a judge or attorney or somebody else; he and Nohora bought this house together, they owned it together, her name is on the title yes, he pays the mortgage, utilities are in his name, it is his house. When Attorney Kardash noted his name was not on the deed, he responded, who cares. When asked if he had ever heard the term slander against a public official, did that mean anything to him, he responded he has and when asked if he believed it was okay to make false accusations against public officials, he asked if she meant like Joan Rice, the ones like the Florida Board of Engineers, the Ethics Commission where he complained about Jennifer Bramley which is why everyone was even here today; he does not say anything that is not true. Attorney Kardash presented Exhibit 3: ICMA complaint dated 6/7/23 and showed it to Mr. Stentz. Attorney Weber questioned limiting the defense ability to raise issues of retaliatory behavior, but cross examine the defense on those same issues. Attorney Kardash explained the exhibit was being offered for impeachment purposes and because his client directly raised it. 14

. · Regular Meeting Dunedin Code Enforcement Board August1,2023 Attorney Weber stated the objection is you cannot impeach someone on a collateral issue if it has been determined to be a collateral issue. Attorney Kardash stated it was not determined to be a collateral issue; in fact there was about 20 minutes of testimony regarding this matter before it was sustained. Attorney Weber repeated his objection for the record, if we eat at the bad apple, let's do it. His objection is they were restricted from going into these areas and now they are being cross examined on it. Attorney Kardash wanted to enter the Exhibit 3 into evidence over the objection of Counse l. Attorney Kardash continued questioning Mr. Stentz who responded as follows . Regarding the order he had been waving around regarding selective enforcement and that did not end the issue and he continued to allege selective enforcement against the City, he responded yes; and to if it was correct that he was doing that here today as well , he responded that he has a federal lawsuit filed in Tampa right now. When asked if his neighbors have complained about his property in the past, he responded, no that his neighbors have not complained about him or his property. Attorney Kardash referred to the email Ms. Miller entered into evidence was not a neighbor complaining that started this particular violation , he responded stating she was using the word neighbor improperly the same as the word owner; there was one person who did not live on his street who the City had told to clean up his property and now he is saying this and driving by and calling the Code Inspector. ~ ·· • Mr. Stentz continued to comment regarding the selective enforcement. When asked if it was correct that he did bring his selective enforcement case that was heard by a three judge panel of the Circuit Court and essentially the court said that ensuring a smooth flow of traffic, access to mail and prompt emergency services are classic, legitimate government objectives, installing no parking signs where Mr. Stentz was parking was a rational means to achieve those objectives; the Court need not find that is best or fairest; it is not arbitrary and under the equal protection clause that is sufficient so, the Court determined there was no selective enforcement; he responded by asking her to tell the Board how they got that ruling and stated that Joan Rice, the Traffic Engineer at the time wrote an email to Mr. Quintas who is an Engineer claiming that an abandoned house across the street from him, which no one had lived in for years wasn't getting their mail and she made up this story that the mail wasn't being delivered ; the Appellate Court saw these things and took it for granted they were not getting their mail; he stated that Joan Rice lied to the three judge panel and that is how they got that order. Attorney Weber asked that the order Attorney Kardash read from be submitted into evidence which she agreed. Attorney Kardash for the record to be clear that Mr. Stentz that the Engineer lied , the Code Enforcement Officers lied , the City Manager has lied; she asked who else has lied to him; he responded he did not know how to answer and noted her previous objection and that it was too vague a question and he did not know where to begin. Attorney Kardash noted that he had not addressed the findings and the Engineering study for the independent Engineer who was hired by the City and asked if that was correct; Mr. Stentz responded by refuting that it was an independent Engineer as he was hired and paid by the City and sent emails regarding including items in his report. 15

Regular Meeting August1,2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Attorney Kardash asked then every Engineer who has touched this and found against him is lying is what he is saying here today; he responded that he did not know how to respond. Attorney Kardash and Mr. Stentz continued to discuss the issue of Engineers reiterating the previous questions and testimony. Discussion ensued regarding the decorum in the proceedings with Attorney Ryan requesting that all parties be respectful particularly for the record for the benefit of the respondent, the City and the Board. Attorney Kardash noted for the record there was no objection to her questions. Attorney Weber questioned Mr. Stentz who responded as follows. When asked regarding the opinion he was read to from the Circuit Court Appellate Division was it the conclusion of the court that the mere placement of no parking signs only at his house was not selective enforcement, he responded that was exactly right; the Attorney Weber stated the Court said if he could prove that other people were parking in that no parking area and not receiving tickets, that would be selective enforcement was that right; he responded yes, and to that it is in the Court decision, he responded it is. Mr. Stentz responded quickly, to that the original judge tossed this case out against him ; to that it was right that the City got the Appeals Court to reverse the selective prosecution findings based on the signs, he responded it was remanded back to the lower Court and he won and elaborated on what the City spent, $41 ,000 and during the time of COVID. Ch-a rr Carson determined this had nothing to do with what is going on l:lere. Attorney Weber continued regarding the court cases against Mr. Stentz the City lost and also the sight visibility case in 2021 they attempted to bring to this Board , they abandoned and Mr. Stentz stated they did. Attorney Ryan noted for the record Alternate Board Member Sally Caron was leaving the meeting at 4:00 p.m. Attorney Weber continued his questions to Mr. Stentz who responded as follows. Regarding his testimony about Engineers lying to him and referred to Exhibit 2 and asked who were the three people in the email discussing, Mr. Stentz stated this is a year after this Board signed off and told him his yard was in compliance, Jennifer Bramley around the time he filed the ethics complete writing Chris Elbon telling him to go out and retry the same thing this Board had already approved and also George Kinney is copied . He acknowledged that Deputy City Manager Quintas was on the email and that he recalled his testimony and that was the basis of his assertion that Mr. Quintas lied to this panel. It was clarified the Exhibit 2 referenced was from the previous hearing on July 11 . To that he made a complaint to the City Managers' Association about the conduct of the City Manager just prior to this; Mr. Stentz stated it was the conduct with the parking , the LOP case where they lied to the traffic magistrate, every complaint he has made about one of the staff at Dunedin is backed up with emails; every complaint he has is legitimate. When asked if he has slandered any public officials, he responded no he has not. To if he had petitioned his government for redress of his grievances, he responded he has and acknowledged that is the right of every citizen . When asked if he knew that a 16

. ·Regular Meeting August1 , 2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board citizen has a right to expect not to be retaliated against for that. (Inaudible) He acknowledged that was the basis for one of the federal lawsuits he filed. Attorney Weber called City Manager Jennifer K. Bramley for questioning who responded to the questions as follows. She is employed as the Dunedin City Manager for 6 years at the end of August 2023. Her responsibilities are three main things , prepare a budget for adoption by the City Commission ; the enforcement of all laws and ordinances of the City of Dunedin ; and the day to day operations of the City of Dunedin. To that certain of those functions being delegated to others, she responded yes. In reference to what he identified as Exhibit 3, (Exhibit 5: Trask memorandum dated 5/29/20) regarding the appeal the City took to the Appellate Division when asked at this point in time was the City Commission being involved in matter concerning Code Enforcement involvi ng Mr. Stentz, she responded no ; the City Commission asked her questions regarding code enforcement involving Mr. Stentz, they were not involved in that Code Enforcement action . In reference to the last page of the memorandum , in response to the /ates complaint on May 24, Sheriff Gualtieri indicated that PCSL was not issuing citations on Baywood Drive due to the extensive history and procedural posture previous citations and pending the resolutions of the appeals; when asked if she recalled the Sheriff refusing to issue any more citations against Mr. Stentz at about this time period , she responded yes. In reference to that memo it goes on he opined "there are ways we could issue future citatioos, qut it wi/1 require modifications to the signs by the City." To did she re call that issue arising in May 2020 , she responded yes. When asked if she had a meeting to determine whether or not the no parki ng signs on Baywood Drive should be anywhere other than Mr. Stentz's house in response to the Sheriff's not enforcing it , she responded that she did not recall the meeting , she did recall the discussion. To did she recall not wanting to punish anyone else on Baywood Drive but Mr. Stentz by moving the no parking signs , she responded the issue in particular was a vehicle that was parked in the right-of-way that impeding the flow of traffic and that did not occur in other areas, the vehicle was on a curve and staff thought it was a public safety issue so , to expand those no parking signs elsewhere where vehicles were not impeding the flow of traffic would be incorrect; that was her conclusion . To was it right that as a result of the City's decision not to make modifications to the signs, the Sheriff continued to refuse to issue more citations to Mr. Stentz, she responded that the Sheriff refused to issue citations until the appeals issue was resolved. When asked why the City abandoned that case after the appeal was over, she did not recall. In reference to what he identified as Exhibit 5 (May 27 , 2020 email communication from City Manager Bramley to the City Attorney, Mayor and Theresa Smalling) City Manager Bramley did not recall the email . When asked if she directed the City Attorney to keep the City Commission apprised of matters going on pertaining to Mr. Stentz, she responded that she did not recall directing him in particular in this case , but she typically would to keep the City Commission informed when there is an ongoing code issue, especially when a 17

Regular Meeting August 1, 2023 neighborhood in a state of unrest. Dunedin Code Enforcement Board When asked if she was familiar with any complaints by anyone in the neighborhood pertaining to Mr. Stentz not having a right-of-way permit, she responded, no , no one issued a complaint about Mr. Stentz not having a right-of-way permit. When Attorney Weber asked if it was correct that was initiated by her, Mr. Kinney and Mr . Quintas, she responded no. · To that Mr. Kinney was the one to suggest that referring to Exhibit 2. Attorney Kardash explained if he was referring to Exhibit 2 from the previous hearing they did not have that, Exhibit 2 from today was the court order and parking citation case; Exhibit 2 was not at their desk. Attorney Weber provided the exhibit he was referencing. When asked if it was Mr. Kinney's suggestion to get at this issue with Mr. Stentz with a right-of-way permit; City Manager Bramley read the email and responded that she was not reading that; she did not recall the email exchange, but it wasn't to her knowledge his opinion that we could get at the issue with a right-of-way permit; he requested that the Code Enforcement Officer visit the site and they have discretionary decision making process so, no he did not initiate it; only a Code Enforcement Officer can initiate a Code Enforcement case. To that Code Enforcement had just filled out an Affidavit of Compliance and brought it to this Board and asked why she and Mr. Kinney and the Deputy City Manager sending him back out specifically on this property involving Mr. Stenz, she stated because you can see from the pictures there are large boulders in the right-of-way over live infrastructur e, potable water and reclaimed water pipes so , that is an issue that had to be addressed; it is a Code Enforcement violation in her opinion , but she does not direct them ; she does not initiate it; the Code Enforcement Officer initiates the case; she has no discretion in those terms . To that the Code Enforcement people had just gone out there, why were they going back, she responded , they had and typically the Code Enforcement Officer will issue a notice of violation for everything on the property, in this case they did not and she did not know why. When asked who employs her, City Manager Bramley responded , the City Commission. Attorney Weber presented what he identified as Exhibit 6. When asked if she recognized the email from the Mayor, she responded no. When asked if she did not recall receiving an email from the Mayor in May 2020, between you and me this thing has been going on for years we need to put a stop to it, we 'll talk tomorrow, she responded she did not recall receiving it, she saw that she did as her name is on the email. When asked if she talked to the Mayor about putting a stop to Mr . Stenz, she responded she did not recall that conversation. Attorney Kardash questioned City Manager Bramley who responded as follows. In reference to her testimony that she has been the City Manager for the City of Dunedin for coming up on 6 years and it was correct that she is a credentialed City Manager, she responded she is an ICMA credentialed City Manager. When asked to briefly explain what that means, she explained there are ethical tenants of the International City/County Managers Association that you have to study 18 ... ' .,

'Regular Meeting August 1, 2023 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board and take continuing education classes to support you are a credentialed manager; you have to reapply every year with 40 hours of continuing education and prove you are following the tenants of the ICMA Code of Conduct. When asked if it was correct the complaint filed against her essentially attacked her adherence to the ethics she is certified in; she responded that it was her first complaint in 33 years in this business. To that before coming to the City of Dunedin she has been serving as City Manager 33 years, she responded she has been in municipal government for 33 years; she was Deputy City Manager in the City of Coral Springs 4 years and now 6 years here as City Manager. To that she was not notified of that particular complaint until June, she stated she was not notified by ICMA until June that there was a complaint and to how many months was that after the initiation of this case, she did not recall the date of the initiation of this case; however, it was not prior to the initiation. To that her duties and responsibilities being defined by the City Charter, she stated that was correct. To that is specifically Section 4.01 of the City Charter, she responded correct. And that includes management and supervision of all City departments, she responded correct. To that those include carrying out the laws, ordinances, acts of the Commission faithfully and ensuring they are faithfully executed by City employees, she responded correct and she does essentially supervise all City employees. When asked when a City employee has a question about how to proceed , sometimes they would seek guidance from her, she responded , yes that was correct and yes to that she provides that guidanc e' and responds to inquiries from her employs, she responded she does. To was it correct that when those questions about the best interest of the city be it expenditure of funds or anything of that manner, many times employees would seek her advice , she responded that is correct. That that she

1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD City Hall, 737 Louden Avenue AUGUST 01, 2023 2:00 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER CITIZEN INPUT Opportunity for the Public to address the Board 1. CONSENT AGENDA 1.a. Approval of Draft Minutes to the July 11, 2023 Code Enforcement Board Meeting Review and Approval EXHIBIT: A. Draft Minutes 7-11-23.pdf 2. TESTIMONY OATH OF STAFF AND PUBLIC Swearing in of all staff and public who wish to provide testimony 3. AFFIDAVITS OF COMPLIANCE 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.a. CASE 22-631 City vs Nohora Lopez Peada / Steven Stentz 591 Baywood Drive North Violation: DCO Section 105-30.6(A) Public Safety Discussion EXHIBIT: A. OB 22-631 591 Baywood Dr N.pdf 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.a. CASE 23-1194 City vs Lillian A. Mesich 235 Grove Circle S Violation: IPMC Section 302.7 Accessory Structures Discussion

2 EXHIBIT: A. NB 23-1194 235 Grove Cir S.pdf 5.b. CASE 23-1275 City vs Gregory S. Layne 1416 Windmoor Drive Violation: LDC Section 105-27.1.1.1(F) Boats, RV's, Trailers Discussion EXHIBIT: A. NB 23-1275 1416 Windmoor Dr.pdf 6. OTHER BUSINESS Schedule meeting date for next Code Enforcement Board of September 5, 2023 ADJOURN 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) 298-3043. 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.DUNEDINGOV.COM.