Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Code board finds homeowner in violation after unpermitted shed; permit process cited as cause of delay
Summary
The Safety Harbor Code Enforcement Board found Benjamin and Ashley Runnels in violation for an unpermitted shed at 605 Sixth Street South, ordered compliance by May 7, 2025, and awarded the city $410 in prosecution costs; the board set a $100-per-day fine to begin after that date.
The City of Safety Harbor Code Enforcement Board on Feb. 19 found Benjamin and Ashley Runnels in violation for constructing a shed without required permits at 605 Sixth Street South and ordered the owners to obtain permits and bring the structure into compliance by May 7, 2025.
Paul Bushey, Community Compliance Officer, told the board his investigation—triggered by a complaint in August 2023—found the shed was built without a permit and that the city had mailed notices and posted the property. Bushey said the city recommended allowing additional time for the owners to obtain permits, then imposing a $100-per-day fine beginning after the compliance deadline and awarding $410 to the city for prosecution costs.
The respondent, Benjamin Runnels, described efforts to secure both city and county approvals. He told the board he had hired designers, paid variance and application fees, and encountered delays at the county level requiring specific digital stamps and a materials test; he asked for more than the standard 30 days to complete the county steps. Runnels said the accessory structure was built to house a golf cart, was not a neighborhood eyesore, and had survived recent storms.
Board member Holly Myers moved, and Beth Cardenas seconded, that the board find the respondents in violation of Section 5.01(d) of the Safety Harbor Code of Ordinances, allow compliance through May 7, 2025, impose a $100-per-day fine after that date if compliance is not achieved, and award the city $410 in prosecution costs. The board voted 7-0 to approve the motion.
Ms. Myers said she supported a longer compliance window than the city's initial 30 days because of the “onerous process” the homeowner described. Mr. Runnels told the board he had been actively communicating with engineers and county staff and hoped the extra time would allow completion of required materials testing and final acceptance by the county.
The board's written order will state the findings of fact, conclusions of law, the compliance deadline and the fine schedule and will be mailed to the respondents at the property address.
