Code Enforcement Board

DUN~ DIN Home of Honeymoon Is land MINUTES OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 1, 2025 CITY HALL, 737 LOUDEN AVENUE, 2:00 PM CITY OF DUNEDIN PRESENT: Chair Phil Stone, Vice Chair Jaime Ballard , Jason Gillette, Jeremy Reynolds, Walter Sweetser, and Matthew Wielinski; Alternate Members Lisa Hunt and Chris Alexander ABSENT: Dan Bolduc (Without Excuse) ALSO PRESENT: Assistant City Attorney Laura Carrera, Secretary to the Board Joan McHale, Code Compliance Supervisor Julie Phillips, Code Compliance Inspector Michelle Gilbert, Code Compliance Inspector Rachel Laurel, Senior Administrative Assistant Katherine Lachcik, Pinellas County Sheriff Deputy Sews and approximately thirteen attendees. CALL TO ORDER Chair Stone called the meeting to order at 2:03 P. M. and Mr. Reynolds 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 topic not on the agenda. · 1. CONSENT AGENDA 1.a. Approval of Draft Minutes for the June 3, 2025 Code Enforcement Board Meeting MOTION: Vice Chair Ballard moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 3, 2025. Second was made by Mr. Reynolds. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. TESTIMONY OATH OF STAFF AND PUBLIC Ms. Lachcik swore in Code Compliance Supervisor Julie Phillips, Code Compliance Inspector Michelle Gilbert, Compliance Inspector Rachel Laurel, and all others wishing to speak. 1

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 3. AFFIDAVITS OF COMPLIANCE 3.a. Case 20-415 (3); Case 21-63 (3); Case 25-1030 City vs John K Harkin 2482 Trade Winds Drive Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Code Compliance Supervisor Phillips recommended acceptance of the Affidavit of Compliance for Cases 20-415, 21-63, and 25-1030. She advised the property has new ownership and found after reviewing the property, the owner was in compliance. She does have photo evidence of compliance, which she presented noting dates. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Phillips advised: The compliance date was June 10, 2025. This is an administrative housekeeping action. MOTION: Mr. Wielinski moved in Case 20-415, for the property located at 2482 Trade Winds Drive, finding the respondent John Harkin in compliance for correcting the violations and to accept the Affidavit of Compliance. Second was made by Mr. Reynolds. VOTE: Motion carried with Mr. Gillette, Mr. Wielinski, Ms. Ballard, Messrs. Sweetser, Reynolds, Alexander and Chair Stone voting aye. Voting nay, none. MOTION: Mr. Reynolds moved in Case 21-63, for the property located at 2482 Trade Winds Drive, finding the respondent John Harkin in compliance for correcting the violations and to accept the Affidavit of Compliance. Second was made by Vice Chair Ballard. VOTE: Motion carried with Mr. Gillette, Mr. Wielinski, Ms. Ballard, Messrs. Sweetser, Reynolds, Alexander and Chair Stone voting aye. Voting nay, none. MOTION: Mr. Reynolds moved in Case 25-130, for the property located at 2482 Trade Winds Drive, finding the respondent John Harkin in compliance for correcting the violations and to accept the Affidavit of Compliance. Second was made by Vice Chair Ballard. VOTE: Motion carried with Mr. Gillette, Mr. Wielinski, Ms. Ballard, Messrs. 4. OLD BUSINESS Sweetser, Reynolds, Alexander and Chair Stone voting aye. Voting nay, none. 4.a. Case 24-966 City vs JULIE & PHYLLIS WILLIAMS 50 SQUIRE COURT Violation of the Florida Building Code Section 105.1 Permits; Required Violation of the International Property Maintenance Code Section 304.13 Exterior Structure; Windows, Skylight & Door Frames Violation of the International Property Maintenance Code Section 304.13.1 Windows; Broken, Glazing Violation of the International Property Maintenance Code Section 601.2 Mechanical & Electrical Requirements; Responsibility 2

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Code Compliance Inspector Gilbert reviewed Case 24-966: An Affidavit of Noncompliance is being submitted. At the April 1, 2025, Code Enforcement Board hearing, the Board ordered a correction of the violations by June 6, 2025, or a fine of $250.00 per day, per violation; the total of 4 violations would equal $1,000.00 per day. The property was inspected on June 9, 2025, and it was found that the violations remain. The water was active as of June 4, 2025; there is still no electricity at the property. Board Questions Chair Stone recalled this is the case with the mother and daughter where the daughter was inviting friends to squat in the backyard. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends a fine of $1,000 per day commencing June 9, 2025. Respondent Comment Phyllis Williams asked if the Board would approve an extension. She explained she contacted Gulf Coast Legal Systems, and after several conversations, a person there named Alexandria was going to file a petition to get her daughter's name off the property so they could sell it. What happened is Alexandria got a new job and did not do what she said. She asked if anyone was taking her place and she said no. She contacted Bay Area Legal and she has an appointment on July 8th . Chair Stone noted at the last hearing that the Board made it clear that there are two separate issues and this Board has no jurisdiction over removing her daughter's name from the deed, only for the code violations, which Ms. Williams acknowledged she understood. Chair Stone commented asking for an extension because of not securing legal counsel to assist in that is a separate issue. Ms. Williams stated she took out a loan and was going to get the permits and the windows in. Unfortunately, that fell through, and they have now charged her double the amount of the loan with hidden fees. She tried and does not know what else to do. Chair Stone asked for any comment from the City. Inspector Gilbert stated she has provided multiple names for legal counsel in order to help make it easier to sell the property. She provided contractor names to obtain permits. It is up to the homeowner to follow through. Currently, the permit is needed for the work that was done; many of the windows were put in and are not to Code. There might still be areas at the back of the house that are still not in, and if they are in it was against Code. She is at a standstill as far as Code Compliance. In terms of allowing more time, that is done and then it goes on again. Board Questions Chair Stone asked if Ms. Williams had estimates from contractors; she explained that is why she went for a loan. Chair Stone explained the objective of the Board is to abate the violations and the City is requesting them now because of not being in compliance despite the Board giving extensions; they are now looking at assessing fines of $1,000 a day. He noted from the 3

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board description of her financial situation that is not really going to provide the incentive to abate the violations. Ms. Williams stated her only last hope is with the lawyer and she can sell the property and be done with it. Mr. Wielinski noted this case has been ongoing since January 2025. Mr. Reynolds verified with Ms. Gilbert the fines cap at 20 days, so that is looking at a $20,000 lien on this property. He questioned at what point the City would look to foreclose on the property, or whether it is homesteaded and cannot be foreclosed on. Ms. Gilbert responded that is a legal question and she could not answer. Chair Stone discussed with Ms. Williams her equity in the property and difficulty in obtaining a loan; should there be a lien on the property and the City forecloses, she could lose all the equity. When Chair Stone asked if she had obtained estimates from contractors, Ms. Williams stated she has not yet. Mr. Reynolds advised counsel had researched the property and the property is homesteaded, so foreclosure would not be an option. Mr. Alexander commented if it is known there is an urgency to remedy the situation, but not knowing the cost going to get a loan, something does not make sense there without knowing the cost. That should determine how much of a loan to ask. He thought the Chair was wanting her to understand the serious situation without a serious response. Board Discussion Mr. Reynolds inquired if it is within the discretion of the Board to cap the imposed penalties at cost of enforcement. Chair Stone explained the Board can assess fines that can be converted to liens and then the City Commission, upon petition, can reduce the lien amount. Mr. Reynolds clarified with Chair Stone at this point the fine amount per day is set. MOTION: Vice Chair Ballard moved to find Case 24-966, property owners Julie & Phyllis Williams, property address 50 Squire Court, was in violation of the Florida Building Code Section 105.1 Permits; Required and the International Property Maintenance Code Sections 204.13 Exterior Structure; Windows, Skylight & Door Frames; 304.13.1 Windows; Broken, Glazing; and Section 601.2 Mechanical & Electrical Requirements; Responsibility after the requested compliance date of June 6, 2025 and to accept the Affidavit of Noncompliance for a $250.00 fine per day per violation for a total of a $1,000 fine per day commencing on June 9, 2025. Second was made by Mr. Reynolds. VOTE: Motion carried with Mr. Gillette, Mr. Wielinski, Ms. Ballard, Messrs. Sweetser, Reynolds, Alexander, and Chair Stone voting aye. Voting nay, none. 4

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board 4.b. Case 25-1290 City vs JUDITH C LAINE 2016 WOODWARD AVENUE Violation of the Dunedin Code of Ordinances Section 34-1 (A) Environment; Offensive Accumulation Violation of the Dunedin Code of Ordinances Section 34-32 Premises to be Kept Clean of Offensive Accumulation Code Compliance Inspector Laurel reviewed Case 25-1290: This case came before the Board on June 3, 2025, where the Board found the property in violation of the ordinances as noted to be corrected by June 17, 2025, or a fine of $150.00 per day would be imposed. A reinspection on June 18, 2025, found the property was not in compliance. A reinspection yesterday, June 30, 2025, found the property was in compliance. An Affidavit of Noncompliance is being submitted for approval as well as an Affidavit of Compliance . MOTION: Mr. Wielinski moved to find Case 25-1290, property owner Judith C. Laine property address 2016 Woodward Avenue, did not correct the violation of the Dunedin Code of Ordinances Sections 34-1 (A) and 34- 32 on or before the requested compliance date of June 17, 2025, and to accept the Affidavit of Noncompliance. Second was made by Vice Chair Ballard. VOTE: Motion carried with Mr. Gillette, Mr. Wielinski, Ms. Ballard, Messrs. Sweetser, Reynolds, Alexander, and Chair Stone voting aye. Voting nay, none. MOTION: Vice Chair Ballard moved to find Case 25-1290, property owner Judith C. Laine property address 2016 Woodward Avenue, in compliance for correcting the violation of the Dunedin Code of Ordinances Sections 34- 1(A) and 34-32 and to accept the Affidavit of Compliance. Second was made by Mr. Reynolds. VOTE: Motion carried with Mr. Gillette, Mr. Wielinski, Ms. Ballard, Messrs. Sweetser, Reynolds, Alexander, and Chair Stone voting aye. Voting nay, none. 5. NEW BUSINESS · 5.a. Case 25-1267 City vs NHIEL & ROSEMARIE DELA TORRE 1120 IDLEWILD DR N Violation of the Florida Building Code Section 105.1 Permits; Required Code Compliance Inspector Laurel reviewed Case 25-1267: Case Summary The property is a single family home in the R-60 Zoning District. 5

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Florida Building Code Section 105.1 Permits Required Any Owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any impact-resistant coverings, electrical , gas, mechanical, or plumbing system , the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain a required permit. Notice of Violation was posted to the property and City Hall and sent Certified Mail to the property owner on May 1, 2025. Compliance Date: May 31, 2025 Certified Mail Delivery Confirmation was signed by the owner on May 3, 2025, at 3:18 p.m. Notice of Hearing was posted to the property and City Hall and sent Certified Mail to the property owner on June 16, 2025. Certified Mail Confirmation was signed by the owner on June 18, 2025, at 1:05 p.m. This is a complaint driven case. The first complaint was on April 17, 2025, for work being done at the property without a permit. On inspection she posted a stop work order. On April 21 st additional complaints came from neighbors that people were working through the stop work order. She spoke with a contractor who called the office to ask how to apply for a permit, which she explained and advised him to keep in touch during the permit process, which he agreed. On April 22 nd additional complaints were received from neighbors that work was still being done through the stop work order. She went to the property and spoke to the owner, who invited her into the home to see the work done; they removed a door and installed drywall, renovated one large room into two rooms, installed new electrical outlets and a new wall , as well as new bathrooms. On April 30 th a voicemail was left for the owner asking if she and the Chief Building Inspector could inspect the home, which he said was fine. On inspection they found no additional work was done. On May 1, 2025, the property was posted with the Notice of Violation and met with the contractor and an architect. They talked about the Notice of Violation and that they had until May 31, 2025, to obtain the permit. Later that day they got a phone call from the contractor, who said the owner changed their mind about remodeling the home and wanted to know what to do. She advised he would need to speak to the Chief Building Inspector. The Chief Building Inspector advised they could continue with the plans and obtain the permits or remove what was installed and bring it back to the way it was before. The contractor said he wanted to remove the work that was done and restore it back to the way it was. On May 29 th pictures were received from the neighbors saying there had been extensive work done to the home during this timeframe. On June 3, 2025, she left a voicemail for Mr. Dela Torre to make an appointment for 6

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board reinspection after the Notice of Violation; the appointment was made for June 4, 2025. On June 4, 2025, she and the Chief Building Inspector inspected the property and noted the work that had been demolished and removed and what was left, which Ms. Laurel described in detail. Upon inspection of the Permit Records, it indicated that Mr. Dela Torre had applied for a permit which was voided due to this not being the primary residence of the owner, and a licensed contractor would need to apply for the permit. That was on June 16, 2025, at which time a Notice of Hearing was posted. Board Questions Mr. Wielinski clarified with Ms. Laurel that as of today there was no permit and that she did not know if the work that was done was by a licensed contractor. Also, the only way to obtain a permit now is with a licensed contractor. Respondent Presentation Chair Stone determined there was a representative present for this case. Kevin Wells of 4905 - 34 th Street S.; St. Petersburg stated: He did speak with the Code Compliance Inspector about the project. About 15 years ago, he remodeled a property for the owner, pulled the permits and got everything done, and they were living there. They bought another house and started another project without permits, so they called him and asked him to help them. When he went to the property when he was taking his tape measure out of his truck, a neighbor to the west came over and made comments about what he was doing there and so forth, and he avoided the conversation. The Sheriff came and mentioned the stop work order, so he contacted the Code Compliance Officer and let them know he would be helping the home owner to come into compliance. From that point, there was a lot of harassment to the point where the homeowner decided he just wanted to sell the house. Because they were wanting to have a business there, he talked to them and explained they should not do that because they had already done some demolition work on the tile that they were never going to make their money back. After deliberating they decided to move forward, but the goal at that time was not to cause any more concerns and just put the house back like it was. He explained he pulled-up pictures prior to this owner purchasing the house and that there was no door in the kitchen, so the goal was to put it back like it was to make it more functional. He spoke with Code Compliance and called to let them know the plan, which was to restore it back. He had pictures of things being put back to where they were prior to their purchase, the original plans that should be on file at the Building Department. Board Questions for the Respondent Chair Stone clarified that Mr. Wells is a contractor and asked if there was ever a contract signed with the property owners. Mr. Wells stated there was not; he came out initially just to do some blueprints and assess the situation. He advised the owner was present, but wanted him to speak for 7

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 him. Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Mr. Wielinski clarified with Mr. Wells he works for a licensed contractor, GenX Builders. Mr. Wells explained they applied for the permit through the homeowner that came back and the permit has not been resubmitted, and it is the intent of the homeowner to resubmit with GenX Builders as the contractor, which could occur at any time. They received the letter from Code Compliance. They are now trying to determine the best course of action. Mr. Sweetser asked his first date of working on the project and Mr. Wells explained his first day was not to work, but to meet with the owner; that was in mid-May. At that time, they had already demoed the floor tiles and added two walls and the electrical in the kitchen. He did not recall the exact date he started working, but it was the day he called the Code Compliance Inspector to explain their intent. Ms. Laurel advised April 21, 2025, is when Mr. Wells called to question her about applying for a permit. Mr. Sweetser noted this began on April 17 th and the owners were notified with a stop work order; then they started working again anyway. He questioned if that was done, by whom, and whether that person was licensed and was the company Mr. Wells works for involved in the work done after the stop work order. Mr. Wells stated the answer is no. Code Compliance Inspector Laurel stated he did work through the stop work order, yes. Chair Stone explained that Mr. Wells did not really have any standing to come before the Board because he is not the property owner; however, he did indicate the property owner was present. He suggested the owner, Mr. Dela Torre, come forward to speak, noting there is no signed contract of official engagement of Mr. Wells; he appreciated that he came in today, but he had no legal standing to testify. Attorney Carrera advised Chair Stone was correct and that the owner would have to provide an assignment in writing to authorize Mr. Wells to speak on their behalf or step forward and present his first and last name and address and state that for the Board. She explained the Board has the discretion to consider the testimony of Mr. Wells when weighing the facts of the case; however, it will not be binding on the case because of no expressed authorization by the owner. Chair Stone asked Mr. Dela Torre if he wanted to speak and to please speak on the microphone to go on the record. Ms. Lachcik swore in Nhiel Dela Torre of 3398 Clarine Way W., Dunedin, who stated he authorized Mr. Wells to do renovations of the property at 1120 ldlewild Dr. N. Chair Stone verified with Mr. Dela Torre that he understood the nature of the complaint that he had work done without the proper permits. Chair Stone explained that according to the law, to submit for a permit, you must reside on the property or have a licensed contractor. Mr. Dela Torre acknowledged he bought the property for investment. Chair Stone explained to apply for a permit, Mr. Dela Torre needs a contract with the licensed contractor that Mr. Wells works for. Mr. Dela Torre acknowledged they had talked with the contractor about the work and the cost; however, it was not a signed contract. Mr. Alexander clarified with Mr. Dela Torre that he did have an estimate agreement with the scope of work. 8

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Mr. Wielinski asked if Mr. Dela Torre had paid Mr. Wells directly for the work he has done and he responded yes, to Kevin. Mr. Wielinski commented his point being it sounds like the contractor was not involved. Mr. Wells stated his job was to hire the architect, which they did; he was paid to bring the architect on board to get the plans together and get things lined up; they were paid, the architect was paid, and they submitted plans already. Ms. Laurel reiterated that permit submitted by the owner was voided. Staff Recommendation Requesting compliance on or before July 31, 2025, which is 30 days from today's Board hearing for the owner to obtain a Building Permit or, given that the severity of the violation is major, a fine of $250.00 per day the violation continues to exist. Board Discussion In response to the question from Mr. Reynolds, Attorney Carrera advised: Under State Law, the Code Officer must provide reasonable time to come into compliance for a first-time violation. In this case , the Notice of Violation was issued May 1, 2025, with the compliance date of May 31, 2025; that is the duty under state law. Given the facts for the first-time violation, the Board decides what is a reasonable time for a finding of violation; that is the first order. That is separate from the Code Officer's duty to provide reasonable time at the time of observing the violation. Chair Stone noted 60 days have now passed. Mr. Reynolds explained his concern was for the case being overturned on appeal because of a past case years ago. Chair Stone noted Counsel seemed to indicate that reasonable notice has been given and the staff recommendation allows for an additional 30 days to comply before any fines begin. He determined the Board should move forward and if the respondent wished to appeal, that would be their choice. MOTION: Mr. Wielinski moved to find Case 25-1267, Nhiel & Rosemarie Dela Torre property owner, property address 1120 ldlewild Dr N, in violation of the Florida Building Code Section 105.1, Permits Required, and that the Respondent shall come into compliance by July 31, 2025, or-suffer a fine of $250.00 per day, per violation thereafter until compliance. Second was made by Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Sweetser noted this would actually be 90 days, as this began in late April, and they would be given until late July reprieve on the fines. The stop work order was broken and violated. Chair Stone recognized there were neighbors in attendance who wished to speak; therefore, he tabled the motion and opened Public Comment. Public Comment Thomas Foy of 1078 ldlewild Drive expressed his surprise at the reaction of the property owner in this case and so-called contractor that was not going to speak in that regard. He 9

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 commented: Dunedin Code Enforcement Board They learned the intent was to have a 24 -hour business operation without the owner living there. The neighbors present and many others have concerns that the quality of life and the neighborhood will change drastically. ldlewild is an older neighborhood that is being revitalized with homes being fixed up. There are playgrounds adjacent to the back side, bird sanctuaries in the middle, and children running around; it is very peaceful. When you look at a home that was originally a 3-bedroom/2-bath of 1400 to 1500 square feet that their understanding was going to be turned into a 6-bedroom unit for basically a rooming house, including the garage with maybe 2 bedrooms there, that is not what the neighborhood is made of or should be moving forward. He understood some of this is not the purview of this Board; however, what is their purview is the blatant disregard for how this process works. The owner did not even want to come up and talk on his own behalf and look how much work was done after the stop work order. From the beginning of this process, from coming in at night to do work and so forth, it was apparent they were purposely doing it because neighbors are out during the day and not early evening and at night seeing the work. He asked that the Board consider what happens with that property moving forward; the neighbors care the same as the Board members about their street and the right quality of life in the future. Kelly Foy of 1078 ldlewild Drive commented: Theirs is a no-outlet street and for her to go in and out, she has to pass by the house. The reason the gentleman did not know any of the answers to the questions asked was because she has never seen him, and she is in and out the street about 50 times a day. She has never seen his truck. She knows Mr. Dela Torre's car and his children and wife's cars. The work did not even stop the night the sticker was put on; they were there that night with the lights on, moving things in and out of the house. The trailer was dumped two more times. About a month ago, she sent out a picture to the group chat showing they had all new white cabinets in the garage; they were never going to stop work. That is what upset them the most. Code Compliance is on their street quite a bit, but the workers just wait until night, even with the neighbors sitting outside across in their driveway. Chair Stone asked the penalties or sanctions for violating a stop work order. Chief Building Inspector Chuck Pitt advised: The penalty with the Stop Work Order is $150.00 for posting the stop work order. There is also four times the amount of the permit fee. The Chief Building Inspector has the authority to assess the penalties and fees. As soon as the permit is applied for, the fees are already there, as they are calculated automatically. Mr. Sweetser asked if the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (PCCLB) been 10

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board involved in this at all and Mr. Pitt responded no. Mr. Reynolds asked if, at this address in that zoning, it is allowed for short-term rentals without a Special Use Permit. Mr. Pitt stated he believed so and that they can do a boarding house if there is not another boarding house within 1,000 feet. That would mean an application for a boarding house that has to have the proper plans routed through the Zoning Department, and if it passes there is nothing that can be done. Chair Stone reminded everyone that before the Board is the lack of a building permit and not zoning issues or rooming houses. Kelly Laird of ldlewild Drive asked if the owner utilized this unlicensed contractor before and he pulled permits, why did he not know to pull permits for this one? The other one is right across the street. Mary McAliney of 1110 ldlewild Drive commented: She lives right next door. She did communicate via email there was a lot of work being done day and night and there were no permits pulled. They have a home on St. Andrews Drive she believed is licensed for four, and there are six people living there; when they did that construction, they pulled no permits for that either. As a neighbor, her concern is what else are they are going to do without pulling one permit? Chair Stone, seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, closed the Public Comment and called for a vote for the motion on the floor. VOTE: Motion failed 4-3 with Mr. Gillette, Mr. Wielinski, and Ms. Ballard voting aye. Voting nay, Mr. Sweetser, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Alexander, and Chair Stone. MOTION: Mr. Reynolds moved to find Case 25-1267, Nhiel & Rosemarie Dela Torre property owner, property address 1120 ldlewild Dr N, in violation of the Florida Building Code Section 105.1 Permits; Required and that the Respondent shall come into compliance by July 15, 2025, or suffer a fine of $250.00 per day, per violation thereafter until compliance. Second was made by Mr. Alexander. VOTE: Motion passed 5-2 with Mr. Gillette, Mr. Wielinski, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Alexander, and Chair Stone voting aye. Voting nay, Ms. Ballard and Mr. Sweetser. 5.b. Case 25-1416 City vs APPLBY PROPERTIES LLC 2616 Woodette Dr Unit #1 Violation of the Dunedin Code of Ordinances Section 103-14.4 Transient Uses within Certain Zoning Districts; Prohibition Case Summary Code Compliance Supervisor Phillips reviewed Case 25-1416: 11

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 Case Summary Dunedin Code Enforcement Board This is a request for Declaration of Violation; the property is currently in compliance. The property is a condominium located in the MF-15 Zoning District. Violation of the Dunedin Code of Ordinances Section 103-14.4 Transient Uses within Certain Zoning Districts; Prohibition Rentals under three months in duration are not allowed in residential neighborhoods or other districts not specifically allowing for such uses. Rentals of less than three months must be located in zoning districts specifically providing for such transient and commercial uses. Notice of Violation was posted to the property, at City Hall, and sent via Certified Mail to the property owner of record and the registered agent on June 2, 202~. Compliance Date: June 12, 2025 Certified Mail Delivery Confirmation was not received from the property owner; it was received from the registered agent on June 5, 2025, at 10:56 a.m. Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and City Hall and sent to the property owner of record and the registered agent via Certified Mail on June 17, 2025. This is the property advertised on Airbnb; a photo was taken June 2, 2025. When attempting to book the property from July 13 - 21, eight nights, she was taken to the payment page. On June 16, 2025, the Airbnb advertisement was again requesting a 14 minimum night stay. Attempting to book June 6 - 20, she was taken to the payment page. There was only one review for this property for May 2025, where the person said they would love to stay there again and they stayed for about a week. On June 26, 2025, the website had been changed to 90 days, bringing it into compliance. Staff Recommendation The request is for a Declaration of Violation, and any future violation of the same ordinance in the next 5 years by the same property owner will be considered a Repeat Violation and be subject to a $500.00 per day fine. Board Questions Chair Stone determined no one was present for this case and Ms. Phillips advised she received an email from the owner stating he did receive the notices; he was very sorry and it will never happen again. Mr. Reynolds advised five years ago he worked for Airbnb as an escalation manager for about 6 months and inquired if that presents a conflict of interest where he should recuse himself. Attorney Carrera advised it did not. Mr. Reynolds inquired if there was a way to send notification to Airbnb that short term rentals less than 90 days are not allowed at this address. From his experience, if they receive a letter in the mail, they will not let anyone do that at that address again. Ms. Phillips explained she would have to research into that; she can look into it. 12

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Mr. Reynolds stated he was suggesting that, as part of the order of the Board, they could send written notification to Airbnb that short-term rentals of less than 90 days are not allowed at that address. He thought if it prevents a future Board hearing for the cost of a letter it is worth it. Chair Stone commented it is an interesting suggestion and would address some of the repeat offenders on a frequent basis. He did not know what the Board could do procedurally now; Counsel would have to provide guidance as to the language of the order and he was not sure the Board could do that at this time . Attorney Carrera advised the Board is only obligated under State law for the Code Officer to mail notice to the party and the mailing address listed for that party on the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's site. There is no duty, as Airbnb is not a party to the case. She was sure there are other platforms other than Airbnb that promote and advertise short-term rentals. It is a great idea that would have to be looked into; however, there is not necessarily any duty under Code Enforcement to mail any type of notices. Mr. Reynolds commented while there is no obligation to send them a letter, the Florida Statutes empower the Board to issue documents and orders to enforce the City Code. If that helps to enforce the Code, then why not do it? Attorney Carrera commented it is something that can be addressed with administration and with staff to determine if that makes sense. MOTION: Vice Chair Ballard moved to find Case 25-1416 Applby Properties LLC property owner, property address 2616 Woodette Drive Unit #1 was in violation of the Dunedin Code of Ordinances Section 103-14.4 Transient Uses within Certain Zoning Districts; Prohibition and Supporting Code Dunedin Code of Ordinances Sec. 103-14.6.(B)- Prima Facie Evidence after the requested compliance date of June 12, 2025; however, is currently in compliance. This Declaration of Violation serves as notice that if the Respondent is found in Repeat Violation of the same Code section within 5 years from the date of this Order an immediate fine of up to $500.00 per day may be imposed. Second was made by Mr. Reynolds. VOTE: Motion carried with Mr. Gillette, Mr. Wielinski, Ms. Ballard, Messrs. Sweetser, Reynolds, Alexander, and Chair Stone voting aye. Voting nay, none. 5.c. Case 25-1427 City vs 2002 Fruitridge Street LLC 3040 Belcher Road Violation of the Dunedin Code of Ordinances Section 103-14.4 Transient Uses within Certain Zoning Districts; Prohibition Case Summary Code Compliance Supervisor Phillips reviewed Case 25-1427 (Repeat Violation): This property is a single family home located in the R-60 Zoning District Violation of the Dunedin Code of Ordinances Section 103-14.4 Transient Uses within Certain Zoning Districts; Prohibition 13

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Rentals under three months in duration are not allowed in residential neighborhoods or other districts not specifically allowing for such uses. Rentals of less than three months must be located in zoning districts specifically providing for such transient and commercial uses. Definition of a Repeat Violation as defined in Chapter 162.04 "Repeat Violation" means a violation of a provision of a code or ordinance by a person who has been previously found through a code enforcement board or any other quasi- judicial process, to have violated or who has admitted violating the same provision within 5 years prior to the violation, notwithstanding the violations occur at different locations. Notice of Repeat Violation and Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and City Hall and sent Certified Mail to the property owner of record and the registered agent on June 5, 2025. Certified Mail Delivery Confirmation was not received from the owner; the owner of the LLC has not updated their mailing address with the Pinellas County Property Appraiser. The mail for the LLC is still going to the former address in Brandon. Confirmation was received for the registered agent on June 17, 2025, at 12:57p.m. On July 11, 2023, Case 23-904 was brought before the Dunedin Code Enforcement Board for a Repeat Violation for this same Code section. The respondent was not present; the Board found the respondent in violation and imposed a fine of $500.00 per day for 5 days totaling $2,500.00, and the fine was paid. During a routine inspection on Host Compliance, the property was again listed on Airbnb on June 2, 2025. When attempting to book the property, she was advised the minimum stay was only 3 nights and she tried to book the property from July 1, 2025, to July 4, 2025, and was taken to the payment page. There were reviews, one in April 2025 and one in May 2025. On June 3, 2025, the same listing was found on Airbnb again with 3 nights minimum. When she attempted to book it from August 1 - 4, she was taken to the payment page. The listing was up on June 5, 2025, again for 3 nights; she attempted to book for June 25 - 28 and was again taken to the payment page. On June 6, 2025, the website had been changed to 90 days. On June 25, 2025, she checked the website again and it still had 90 days; however, the reviews indicated there one time in April for a few nights and a short time in May and there were 3 stays for the month of June for a total of 5. To verify those 5 stays, Ms. Phillips showed a snapshot from the City's Host Compliance program which shows the property, the LLC, the address, and indicates three documented stays in June, one in May, and one in April. Staff Recommendation Staff recommendation is a fine of $500.00 per day for the dates of June 2; June 3; and June 5, 2025, totaling $1,500.00 Board Questions Chair Stone inquired regarding the dates of violation since Ms. Phillips indicated 14

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board evidence of short term rentals in April and May as well. He noted from what they are charging, a fine of $1,500, they are still making money knowing it is a violation. This is the second Repeat Violation before the Board. Chair Stone determined there was a representative present for this case. Respondent Comment Tom LeVieux of 2704 Saint Cloud Oaks Drive, Valrico, FL commented: Very easy, he would pay the fine. It was a mistake. One of the owners misunderstood and changed the calendar on him. He is the property manager. Chair Stone explained the fine had not been set yet and noted his question to Ms. Phillips about there being other repeat violations and that there were multiple violations before the June dates that she is requesting a fine be assessed. Mr. LeVieux stated: He was not sure because he had information that there were 2 stays in June and one of those is still there for 3 months. One other person stayed maybe 5 or 7 nights in June. He did know that when Airbnb says June, sometimes that is when they left a review, not that they stayed there in June; he could not speak to that. The first violation was in 2023. Ms. Phillips advised the first violation was on March 7, 2023; it came back as a Repeat Violation on July 11, 2023, and again today. Mr. LeVieux stated they had a technical difficulty; they use software that adjusts all the calendars for the Airbnb and Vrbo that had a glitch that put it on the 3 days or 7 nights, whatever it was. That was changed and one of the owners misunderstood this go-around. There will not be any problems going forward. He advised the guest that was booked for June 9 is still there and he acknowledged that is for 90 days or more. MOTION: Vice Chair Ballard moved to find Case 25-1427, property owner 2002 Fruitridge Street LLC, property address 3040 Belcher Road, in Repeat Violation of the Dunedin Code of Ordinances Section 103- 14.4 Transient Uses within Certain Zoning Districts; Prohibition and Supporting Code Dunedin Code of Ordinances Sec. 103-14.6.(B) - Prima Facie Evidence; the Respondent is currently in compliance. The respondent shall suffer a fine of $500.00 per day for the days of June 2, 2025, June 3, 2025, and June 5, 2025, totaling $1,500. Second was made by Mr. Wielinski. VOTE: Motion carried 6 -1 with Mr. Gillette, Mr. Wielinski, Ms. Ballard, Messrs. Sweetser, Alexander, and Chair Stone voting aye. Voting nay, Mr. Reynolds. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 6.a. Code Enforcement Board Member Comments 15

Regular Meeting July 1, 2025 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Chair Stone announced the retirement of Secretary to the Board Joan McHale and this will be her last meeting with the Board. He personally thanked her and expressed his appreciation for her guiding him through the process and becoming the Chair. The Board members expressed their appreciation to Ms. McHale for her service and everything she has done and congratulated her on her retirement. Discussion ensued: Regarding the cap on fines, which would be at the discretion of the City Commission. In terms of when the City's Public Nuisance Ordinance begins to apply as a property like the short term rental on today's agenda; Attorney Carrera will have to review the ordinance to advise on that issue. The County has the abilities on its Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, which it seems the City of Dunedin does not have to impose massive fines immediately which can be appealed. The Sheriff's Office also gets involved in an unlicensed person working on a property. He questioned what can be done about such situations as today with knowingly blatant violation. Discussion ensued with staff members providing some information. Chair Stone summarized the discussion indicated the Board is looking for recommendations as to other enforcement options that might be available. Attorney Carrera acknowledged that was correct, and she will do that research and report back to the Board. 6.b. City Attorney Comments - None 6.c. City Staff Comments - None 6.d. Set next meeting date of August 5, 2025 The next Code Enforcement Meeting is August 5, 2025. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn made by Vice Chair Ballard and seconded by Mr. Wielinski passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3:44 P. M. NOTE: This meeting was recorded and those recordings are a part of the official file. ~ViuC~~.\:,"Is~ Dunedin Code Enforcement Board 16

1. CONSENT AGENDA 1.a Approval of Draft Minutes to June 3, 2025 Dunedin Code Enforcement Board 2. TESTIMONY OATH OF STAFF AND PUBLIC 3. AFFIDAVITS OF COMPLIANCE 3.a Acceptance of Affidavits of Compliance Case 20-415 (3); Case 21-63 (3); Case 25-1030 City vs John K Harkin 2482 Trade Winds Drive 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.a Case 24-966 City vs Julie & Phyllis Williams 50 Squire Court Violation of the FBC Section 105.1 Permits; Required Violation of the IPMC Section 304.13 Exterior Structure; Windows, Skylight & Door Frames Violation of the IPMC Section 304.13.1 Windows, Broken, Glazing NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY HALL, 737 LOUDEN AVE. JULY 1, 2025 2:00 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER CITIZEN INPUT Opportunity for the Public to address the Board Review and Approve EXHIBIT: Draft Minutes 6-3-25 CEB.pdf Swearing in of all staff and public who wish to provide testimony Review and Approve EXHIBIT: 20-415 1 AC.pdf EXHIBIT: 20-415 2 AC.pdf EXHIBIT: 20-415 3 AC.pdf EXHIBIT: 21-63 1 AC.pdf EXHIBIT: 21-63 2 AC.pdf EXHIBIT: 21-63 3 AC.pdf EXHIBIT: 25-1030 AC.pdf 1

Violation of the IPMC Section 601.2 Mechanical and Electrical Requirements; Responsibility 4.b Case 25-1290 City vs Judith C Laine 2016 Woodward Avenue Violation of the DCO Section 34-1(A) Environment; Offensive Accumulation Violation of the DCO Section 34-32 Premises to be Kept Clean of Offensive Accumulation 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.a Case 25-1267 City vs Nhiel & Rosemarie Dela Torre 1120 Idlewild Drive N Violation of the FBC Section 105.1 Permits; Required 5.b Case 25-1416 City vs Applby Properties LLC 2616 Woodette Drive Unit #1 Violation of the DCO Section 103-14.4 Transient Uses within Certain Zoning Districts; Prohibition 5.c Case 25-1427 City vs 2002 Fruitridge Street LLC 3040 Belcher Road REPEAT Violation of the DCO Section 103-14.4 Transient Uses within Certain Zoning Districts; Prohibition 6. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion EXHIBIT: 24-966 Order of Board 4-1-25.pdf Discussion EXHIBIT: 25-1290 Order of Board 6-3-25.pdf EXHIBIT: 25-1290 NOH for 7-1-25.pdf EXHIBIT: 25-1290 AP.pdf Discussion EXHIBIT: 25-1267 NOV 5-1-25.pdf EXHIBIT: 25-1267 NOH for 7-1-25.pdf EXHIBIT: 25-1267 AP.pdf Discussion EXHIBIT: 25-1416 NOV 6-2-25.pdf EXHIBIT: 25-1416 NOH for 7-1-25.pdf EXHIBIT: 25-1416 AP.pdf Discussion EXHIBIT: 25-1427 REPEAT NOV 6-5-25.pdf EXHIBIT: 25-1427 NOH for 7-1-25.pdf EXHIBIT: 25-1427 AP.pdf 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 2

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. Make all comments and queries to or through the Chair. 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 Florida Statute 286.0105 - 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.DUNEDINGOV.COM. 3