Hello, my name is Erikica Jello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases. Oh, I'd like to call to order the special magistrate code enforcement meeting of Monday, May 12th, 2025. Good morning again. My name is Erikica Aello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's
cases. I am a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida Bar and BOR certified in city, county, and local government law. I have been appointed to this position in accordance with the authority set forth in chapter 162 Florida statutes and the city of St. Pete Beach code of ordinances. I am not
an employee of the city of St. Pete Beach and do not represent the city here today and I do not confer with the city's code enforcement officers outside of the hearing process about your cases. It is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters presented. As such, I would like to advise you of certain
matters related to today's proceedings. Today's matters will be heard in the order on which they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed. Every effort will be made to hear all persons having relevant evidence, arguments, or comments related to the specific case that is being heard. If you wish to
speak today, it is necessary that you be sworn in, which I will do momentarily. All testimony given will be done under oath. In all cases, since the city has the burden of proof, the city will present its case first. The respondent will then be given an opportunity to
refute the city's allegations. Formal rules of evidence do not apply to this proceeding. However, I will make every effort to ensure that fundamental fairness and due process is afforded to all parties. After hearing all relevant evidence, I will issue an order. The order will be reduced to writing and all
parties will be be provided with the copy. So, please ensure that we have your current address or email address. Additionally, you're advised that I do not have the authority to grant you a variance, permit, or special exception of any kind. My role is solely to
determine whether a city code has been violated and under some circumstances to provide a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever means are available to you. Please be advised that you may be subject to a fine and a lean may be recorded on your property if the violation is not corrected by the
compliance deadline if one is provided. If you wish to present any evidence today, please sign in at the podium before you speak. And it will be necessary that you swear or affirm to tell the truth. Therefore, at this time, I will swear in any witnesses. So, anyone wishing to speak today, if you could please stand and raise your right
hand to be sworn. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. So, swarm. All right, Mr. Der, are there any changes to the agenda this morning?
Uh, good morning, Madam Special Magistrate. Pete Der, code enforcement manager for the city of St. Pete Beach, case uh 20250035. which is the first case up is continued. And do you need an order for continuance on that? Yes, please, ma'am. Okay.
Any additional changes? And we'd like that continue to June. Thank you. The June. Yes. Okay. So, June hearing is the 9th. June 9th. Okay. 10 a.m. That one will be continued to
June 9th at 10 a.m. Yes, please. Thank you. Any other changes? No, ma'am. Okay. I am um of the understanding that for agenda items uh 5, J, and K, there is a court reporter present. Um any interest from the city
in moving those to uh up in the agenda or just keep them as positioned? keep his position. Yeah, keep them where they are. No worries. Okay, then moving on to uh agendum item 3A. Um case number
20240580, the city of St. Pete Beach versus John O. Kylie and Costadinos ver uh Varsis, address 423 85th Street. Thank you, Madame Magistrate. Louis Cruz representing the city of St. P Beach
code enforcement. This is a status hearing on the progress of securing an after the-act permit. The property obtained the after the fact permit on 23205. City will only be asking for $329 for administrative costs.
Okay. Um, anyone here on behalf of the property owner? Okay. If you could please come up and uh state your name for the record. My name is And Mr. Frostakis, do you have any comments to what the city's doing or do you understand that they're just
assessing administrative fees? Okay, we would rather check. Okay. Uh, great. Then anything else from the city on this one? Okay. Um, then I will um find Done. Yes. I will find that the property is now in compliance as of February
February 3rd, 2025. I will not assess any fines. However, I will assess the $329 of the reasonable administrative cost of the city. Okay, moving on to case 3B. Uh, case number 20240539, City of St. Pete Beach versus Thomas Simmons, 1003rd Avenue. Good
morning, Madame Magistr on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach. Uh, case number 20240539. This was a status hearing for the permit status. Uh, they're still waiting for some additional documents. We'd like to continue this till June to try to get him into compliance.
Okay. So, at this time the they're just going through the permitting process and so you'd like to the city would like to give them a little bit additional time. Yeah, I'm we're trying to work with them. Okay, no problem. So, then I will go ahead and um update the status on this and issue an order to continue to date certain of June 9th at 10 a.m.
Thank you. All right. And was there anyone here? Was Mr. Simmons here? Anyone here on Mr. Simmons behalf for that property? Okay. Thank you. All right. And we are continuing uh there are no repeat violations as far as new cases. We are continuing case 5A. Moving on to 5B 20
case number 20250045. City of St. Pete Beach versus uh Genevieve uh Curtis. Address is 3307 East Bazison Avenue. Thank you, Madam M. Tracy. Rever on
behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case number 20250045. Respondent: Genevieve W. Curtis. Respondent address 3307 East Debates NAV. Violation description. The property is in violation of
46331B 3 and 13. Enumeration 98654 unsightly conditions. 9866A B 22A and two residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St.
Pete Beach. Case summary initial inspection was 113 2025. Notice of violation dated 115 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 428
2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 3307 east of Baznav and pictures of the dead trees on the property. There's some brush that's piled up on the uh west side of the
property there. It's a picture of the unregistered boat. It's another photo of the dead tree. Corrective action. Property owner must remove the dead trees and vegetation and the boat and trailer must be registered or removed. Property is
not compliant. Recommended fine. $250 a day starting 41 until compliant. plus $330 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. I do have I'd like to present the evidence the overhead,
please. This is an email from our city arborist. Uh I took him out to do the inspection on the trees. Could you describe in the record what he's saying in the email? Sure. So, it says uh all the trees are either dead or
in severe decline. Uh the big tree in the back, it it's showing uh dead limbs on it. We did this inspection on Friday, I believe it was. So, it's pretty recent. I don't think the Norfolk pine is fine. He says uh the only tree. Let's see
here. Yeah, the only tree that seems to be in good standing is the uh the Norfolk Island pine. And is there a danger that the dead trees and limbs could break off in a storm and cause personal injuries or property damage? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything
further, Mr. Rivera? And just another picture of the boat. I I didn't have it in the PowerPoint, but there's no tags on it. just for clarification of it being unregistered. And have you had any um uh communication with the property owner? I had
communication with the property owner before we even had a case ever had a case for a different uh it was more of a question rather than an issue. Okay. Um I have not heard from him. I sent notice I I believe we did a nov. We did a courtesy notice. Um I posted the
property, but I have not heard from him. Okay. And just one clarification, neither neither the trailer nor the boat have registrations. Correct. So there's no registration sticker on the boat itself and the trailer itself has no tags at
all. Okay. Okay. Anything further from the city? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Genevie Curtis? Anyone here on behalf of the property owner Genevie Curtis or with relation to
3307 East Deazon Avenue? Okay, seeing none, um I will find that the property and property owner are in violation of the stated code sections. I will allow um I mean those trees are awfully big.
I will allow 14 days for the removal or registration of the boat and trailer. Um, and I will allow um I'm going to go with 30 days for the removal of the trees except for the Norfick Island pine which according to
the city's arborist is in okay condition. Um, and then I will go ahead. 30 days is going to put us past the June hearing. So, I will call a status check on this case for the July hearing, which I
believe is slated for July 7th. Is that still correct? I know it's the date. It's the Monday after the 4th of July holiday, but I think that's scheduled for July 14th. The 14th. Okay. Okay. For July 14th at 10:00
a.m. Of course, the city reserves the right if that schedule is really for the seventh, we can change that and I can amend the order to reflect the same. Um, and I will get a written order out to just for clarification, is it 14 days from the date of the order of the order? Yes.
You're worried about the truck. Okay. Uh moving on to case uh agenda item 5C. Case number 202500084, city of St. Pete Beach versus Linda Dixs as the trustee of the Dixs Family Trust, 106 Second Avenue. Mr.
River, Madame Magister, Steve River, again on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case number 20250084. Respondent Linda E. Dixs, trustee, Dicks Family Trust. Violation
address is 106 Avenue. Violations description. The property is in violation of section 46331C 2 and 3. Enumeration 9864A general maintenance
9866A B 22B 1 and 3 residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection 127 2025. Notice of amended violation
dated 42 2025. Notice of violation compliance date 41620 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 428 2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of
posting at 106 second half. This is a picture of the overgrown vegetation. It's the sea grapes overtaking the sidewalk. It's another angle of the sea grapes overtaking the sidewalk. This is the uh vegetation on
the north side of the property. there. Is that in an overgrown state? Uh, correct. Mr. R, could you go back one? Yes, ma'am. Is this uh with regards to both sides of the property or just the abuing property with the property? The first photos I showed you were the golf side. They were the west side of the
property on Golfway. Uh, this is on the second aside. It's a corner lot. Okay. But I'm from this picture, are you talk are you discussing just the vegetation up against the fence or on both sides? No. Uh, this vegetation would be on the sidewalk side, the street side. Okay. Thank you.
And pile of palm frrons on the property. Another pile of brush up by uh the white picket fence there. This is a picture of the damaged sophet. Corrective action. Property must cut back the overgrown vegetation on both Gulf Wayside and Second A of the
property. Sophets must be repaired and the palm frrons must be cleaned up and disposed of properly. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day starting $417 until compliant, plus $330 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be
associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Um, is Miss Linda Dixs here or anyone here on behalf of the Dixs Family Trust? If you could please state your name and affiliation with the trust for the record. Yes. Good morning. My name
is Lindsay Penaranda. I am the daughter and this is my sister, Jennifer Berg. Unfortunately, our mother and father are not able to be here today. My mother is a full-time caregiver for my father who has Alzheimer's and so she's unable to be here. We do have a power of attorney so that we may speak on their
behalf. You want to put that down? I'm sorry. Notary seals on the second page. Thank you. If you could submit that to the clerks. Do you want the original or a copy? I have both. Either way is fine. Okay. Anything else that you want to say
with regard to the Yeah. So, unfortunately, um, this is my parents second home. They do not live here. We have been dealing with insurance like everybody else. Um, we do ha we did have a property manager looking over the property to make sure that everything was in compliance. Um, I apologize to
the city. We apologize to our neighbors. Unfortunately, the property manager did not do their job. My parents have not been here for the hurricane. We've been waiting on insurance. Um, we have been dealing with contractors to get everything in place. So, um, I was made aware of this when my mother was finally made aware with of it on April 28th was
the first time we heard from the property manager that there was a problem as well as um, that the lawn um, service company that we had been using no longer services the island anymore and that we have to find a new lawn company. So there were multiple problems going on that we were not made aware of.
So we were made aware of that on April 28th. Um and we immediately took action to replace the sophets and get those fixed. So the sophets at this time have been fixed. And then we have also contracted with a um lawn company uh to this is everything
that we are going to repair to get in compliance. The lawn people are scheduled to be there on May 22nd. So, we ask it to extend it at least through that date, hopefully by the end of the month in case they have to move a date here or there, but we are committed to making this work and we do apologize for
the inconvenience to everybody. Okay. And you said that you did have the sophets repaired. Do you have um I mean, it's not required, but do you have any photographs of the sophet? We do, actually, because um I mean, they're on my phone. Can I just put my phone up there? Some to prove it. We didn't
believe him. Um, you can show the phone photos and then just text them to the clerk or email them to the clerk. Yeah, I So there's Well, that's not going to work. They can zoom in. They can zoom. Okay. Is that good? And then I There's another one, too. Hold on one second.
Can't really see this. No. Would you mind bringing the phone number? I'm sorry. There's several of them. I just need to be able to see it. And then there's another one. And there's a couple more and that's it in its repaired state. So the sopet there, the gutter is what you're seeing on the
side. The gutters have not been replaced. You want to show that to Mr. Rivera with the city so he can take a look at that. Mr. Rivera you spoke to my husband. Yeah. Okay. That's the other big one. The front of the property. And just out of curiosity, do you have
plans on having the gutters be fixed? I just don't want to see another code case where the gutters haven't been fixed and they Yeah. So, um we are in the process of um going under contract with either Paul Davis or another contractor to not only fix the first floor, but everything on the outside as well because there's a
lot that needs to be repaired. Okay. because the home I mean is on the water and took a massive hit. Understood. And we just now have the money from the insurance. From the insurance to go ahead and do that. Well, you're luckier than most. So, well, they wrote the check incorrectly the first time. So, then we had to have it reach It's supposed to be coming this week. Okay.
All right. Um, no worries. Anything else that you'd like to share with me in support of your case? No, ma'am. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Uh, any questions from the city to the respondents? No, ma'am. I I've been in contact with her husband. He did email me this
morning uh and told me that the gutters were repaired. So, I just asked that you provide for those. Okay. Yeah, for sure. Um and can you tell me uh Jennifer, you said that you would need until 5:22 for the lawn company. Do you know when the sophets were repaired, what date that
was? Um I believe it was, let me see if my phone tells me when the text message was sent. right here when May. No, after that I'll send some pictures. Sunday, May 4th is when I got confirmation that the sophets were
repaired. Okay. Thank you very much. Yep. Okay. And you said nothing further from you, Mr. Vera? Uh, no, ma'am. Okay. Um, then I will find that the property is in violation of stated code sections. However, I am going to allow the respondents until I know you said you were
contracting with them. They're supposed to come out until May 22nd. So, I will give you until May 26th, which is the Monday after that weekend um to bring the remainder of the property into compliance, which is the um overgrown vegetation and the brush on the property. Um if it comes into
compliance, then I likely won't see you here again, but if I if it doesn't come into compliance and the city wishes to do so, then I will sit um a status check hearing for the June 9th 9th. Thank you. The June 9th hearing. Um, and hopefully everything
will be settled before then. And that comes to me directly, correct? Um, as long as I have your email address or your address, I will go ahead and send the order to you directly. Perfect. And if we don't hear from you, that's good news, right? You're going to hear from me either way because I got to send the order out. So, and just stay in contact with the city between then so that they
have an idea because it'll say in my order that you have the responsibility to contact them when everything is cleaned so that they can come out and reinspect. Okay. Fair. Okay. Thank you ladies. Have a wonderful day. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving right along to agenda item
5D. Case number 20250189, City of St. Pete Beach versus Marilyn Nolan. Um, as the trustee of the revocable living trust of Marilyn L. Nolan, Mr. Rivera, Madame Magistrate, Steve Rivera, City of St. PB code
enforcement case number 202501 0189 Marilyn L. Nolan revocable trust Marilyn L. Nolan trustee is the respondent. Violation address is 103 first a violations description. The
property is in violation of section 4633 2 3 and 4 enumeration I'm sorry 4 A enumeration 9864A general maintenance
98651A B 2 3 and 4 unsightly conditions 9866A B 2 A B and 17 residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the City of St. Pete
Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 412025. Notice of violation dated 43 2025. Notice of violation compliance date 417 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 428
2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 100 uh 103 First A. It's a condemned notice that was posted to the property back in October of 2024.
October 1st, 2024. Correct. This is a picture of one of the condemned structures that's on the property. So, just for clarity, these are two separate structures. There's three structures on the property. Uh, overall,
are all three condemned or only two of them? There's two that are posted. I do have the building official here. I might be able to speak on it a little bit better once I get through the presentation. Um, but I I think all three are considered condemned if I'm not mistaken. It's a picture of some of the debris
that's on the property. And it's kind of hard to see the debris under the tree there, but there's uh some wood stacked up on the side of the building. And this is the other structure. There's a tree on on top of the uh that structure there. You can see it's kind
of leaning over. Some follow-up photos. This is the main structure that's on the property. There's a hole behind the the wall there underneath of the uh plywood. You got pictures of the uh sandbags that are still in public
view and broken window on the second floor. Corrective action. Property must clean up all the trash and debris on the property. Property must be demolished or repaired. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day starting
418 2025 until compliant plus $330 for the administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. I do have the building official here. Uh if you have any questions about the condemn notice.
Okay. Um I have a few. Let's bring the building official. Well, yeah. I mean, you're welcome to do so, but my understanding is that you are not looking. Okay. You can bring the billing official.
Mr. Curtis, could you please state your name and title for the record? Luke Curtis, building official for the city of St. Pete Beach. Um could you please describe the facts and circumstances of the condemnation and also what is required at the building department to bring this property into compliance?
So once it's condemned yeah the the there are three buildings on the property. The building in the front uh I don't believe was there was a condemnation notice put on it but it was the bu two buildings in the rear that
were uh due to severe structural damage from the storm. Um, and as far as the the requirements, these are I believe they are historical buildings and they
wouldn't be subject to substantial damage, substantial improvement. However, uh, action would be required to make them safe or to demolish them, one one or the other. And would either of those involve submitting an application for a building
permit or demolition permit to the building department? Yes. Whatever course of action the property owner chooses, they would need to pull permits, apply for permits. And do you have any contact with the owners or contractors for this property to date?
Uh to date, no. And have any letters been sent by the building department to this property? Uh to my knowledge, I am not sure if uh a letter of uh the damage determination
has been sent to the property. I believe it has, but I would have to check the records. And what is that that letter you're talking about for the special magistrates's information? It would be a substantial damage determination that was made. Okay. But but your testimony
here today is that it's a historic building, so they wouldn't have to meet the 50% rule necessarily if they were going to come in to repair the property, correct? If it was able to be repaired, correct? Correct. Okay. Any further questions of the building official, Mr. Brooks? No. Thank
you. I don't have any questions. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Um, okay. Okay, I do have some questions because the requestment the request from the city is to is for the property owner to have the building either demol the two back buildings either demolished or
all the buildings depending upon if they choose to do so to have those demolished or otherwise repaired. Correct. Correct. Okay. So, the city is not asking for any type of an abatement order to go demo the properties themselves. No, ma'am. Not at this time. Um it it's there's no permits. Some of the other properties in
the area either have a repair permit application in or a permit's been secured or a demo permits been applied for or issued. Uh this property doesn't have any permits applied for. Uh there's been no we've sent notice. There's been no respond response from
it. Basically, we're trying to just get them to have some kind of movement with the property whether they're going to fix it or or uh demolish it. Understood. Thank you please describe how you obtained the uh the address in Springfield, Missouri where the trust TE
is located. Yes, it's uh on property appraiser. It's the mailing address. Understood. Do we have any idea what the prior use of the property was? Was it um I believe it was being used as a
vacation rental. Um but again, I mean I can't confirm that. That's the the primary owner lives in another state and there's three three different structures that were on the property. So, it was either family compound or uh vacation rental and you've not had any
correspondence or um any conversations with the property owners? No, ma'am. Okay. Do we know whether there's a property management company involved at all? I do not. The only record I have to go off of right now is what's on property appraiser.
Okay. Um, is there anyone here on behalf of the property owner, the Maryland Nolan Revocable Trust? Is Miss Nolan or anyone here on behalf of the trust? Okay, seeing no one, um, I am going to go ahead and find that the
property is in violation of the stated code sections. Um, I am going to give 60 days for the property owner to, and I'm doing this because of mailing, obviously they're out of state, but 60 days for the property owner to apply for
um either a demolition or a rebuilding or or renovation permit, whatever type of permit, whatever they choose to do to bring the property in compliance. So, basically 60 days to apply for the permit to come into compliance. Um, and then I'm going to set this case for
status hearing. Um, for it'll have to be the August hearing, which is um the 11th. So, I'm going to set a status hearing for August 11th. if you can try and figure out if you can get in contact
with them. I mean, obviously, I'll send my order out, but um uh like I said, I'll set the status hearing for August 11th, and then we'll make a determination whether or not additional time is needed or if we're just going to go ahead and start assessing fines to to get the property owner to come in
compliance. Um and I will get that order out. Thank you. And it'll be 60 days from my order. Just okay. For clarification. Okay. Moving on to agenda item 5e. Case number
2025212. City of St. Pete Beach versus Horatio uh Hec and Sheila. and maybe Sheila Burke. Sounds good. Good to me. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Stephen
Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20250212. Respondent Horatio Maltavan Hec and Sheila Burke. Violation address 3207 South Deasan Aav. Violations
description. property is in violation of section 4633 2 and 3 enumeration 9864A general maintenance 98654 uh let's see here general maintenance 9865 there's a typo there uh should be
unsightly 9866A B 24 C 1 and 3 residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St. P Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection
was 410 2025. Notice of violation dated 410 2025. Notice of violation compliance date was 424 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 428 2025. The following is a true and
accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 3207 south of Basin A. It's an overall picture of the property. You can see there's some debris in the rightway. There's some uh sections of fence that are still piled up
there. More pictures of the fencing material in the row. piles of pon frrons and some miscellaneous debris. This is uh fencing that seems to be piled up against the fence near the front door. Another picture of the fencing
there. leaves and palm frrons piled up in the driveway there. Corrective action. Property must clean up all the trash and debris on the property. The fence materials need to be removed and the palm frrons and branches in the driveway must be cleaned up and disposed of. property is not compliant.
Recommended fine is $250 a day starting $415 until compliant plus $330 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. River. Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Hec or Miss
Burke? Anyone here on behalf of the property owners of 3207 East Dazison Avenue? Mr. Ver, have you had any contact with the property owners at all? No, ma'am. I I know they're out of state. Uh I sent notice and I actually gave it
a little bit longer than I normally would considering that they were out of state. Um the property does have some storm damage. So, you can see that uh the water lines on the house, but it's just property maintenance and I haven't heard back from them. Okay. And you sent the notice uh via certified mail. Did
you get a return receipt at all? Uh I didn't check. We can probably look into that. would have to go through emails, but we did uh include that with our evidence packet, the the mailings that we sent out certified. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated
code sections. I'm going to give the property owners uh 14 days from the date of my order. In order to bring the property into compliance by removing the trash, cleaning away the debris and palm frrons palm frrons as well as well as removing the fence uh materials from the
property. Um, and we will come back in June 9th to determine whether or not the property is in compliance and assess any fines or fees if necessary. Thank you. Okay, moving on to agenda item 5 F, case
20250165, city of St. Pete Beach versus NXT Acquisitions Corp. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera again on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20250165. Respondent is NXT Acquisitions
Court. Violation address is 39641st A. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 6.23G 23G docs of the land development code
4633 2 3 4 A B and C 9 and 12 enumeration 98651 A B C 2 3 and four unsightly conditions and 9866 A B 2 A
and B 14 18 20 24 and E, residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 36205. Notice of violation dated 44
2025. Notice of violation compliance date 418 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 428 2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of
posting at 396 41st staff. This is a picture of the dock that's in disrepair. It's another photo uh of the dock in disrepair. Couple of boards that are popping up
there. This is the fence in the background there. It's in disrepair. Another photo of the fence. This is appliances. Looks like a washer and maybe a dishwasher stored in public view. building materials that are stored in public
view. Boarded up window, some missing sophet and the unmaintained pool. Another photo of the pool there. Some overgrown vegetation on the side of the structure there. And just picture some dissopet
missing in the hanging electrical wires. Is that a Okay, thank you. Stop work orders. I was just noticing and that was stop work orders for a previous case. Um, had they sent secured permits? Uh, no. They had an application and it expired.
Uh, and that was part of the violation that was sent out was prior. Uh, the new violation that was in there for it uh going beyond the time frame of the permit. Uh, the application had expired. Corrective action. Property must clean
up all trash and debris on the property. The fence needs to be repaired or removed. The dock needs to be repaired or removed. The pool needs to be maintained. The construction materials and appliances appliances need to be removed from public view. The boards on
the windows must be removed and the sophets need to be repaired. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day starting 418 2025 until compliant plus $330 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that
concludes my presentation. Um, as far as the sophets being repaired and I'm assuming if they need to repair or replace those windows, that will need to be required to have permits. Correct. Thank you. All right. Anything further from
the city? Um, you sent it by certified mail both to the mailing address of the corporation, but you also sent it to the registered agent for the corporation, Mark Rollins. Correct. Yes, sir. And I did try to contact one of their property managers
uh at the time, left a message, but I had no response. Okay. And were either of the um if you know off the top of your head, were either of the certified mailings returned to you? No, ma'am. Not off the top of my head. Okay. Is there anyone here on behalf of NXT Acquisitions
Corporation? If you could please come up and state your name and affiliation with the corporation for the record, I would truly appreciate it. Uh Kaylee Arn, office manager. I'm sorry. And your first name again was Kaylee Arn. Kaylee. Okay. Uh Muhammad Agurbas, uh the contractor,
new contractor. Okay. And um Kaylee, do you have authority to speak on behalf of the corporation? Oh yes, ma'am. I provided a power of attorney. Okay, perfect. Thank you. And you guys have both signed in? Yes. So we have your names and yes. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.
Okay, go. Please go ahead and whatever you'd like to um to present your case and refute the city's allegations against you. Uh yes. So, as far as the uh current uh vi violation with the um uh like the stuff that he mentioned, uh
there was some some debris here that's been cleaned up. This portion is where the fence is. That entire fence was taken. I also want to point out that the house behind us, that fence is obviously part of this person's responsibility, too. property seems to be hit hard as
well, but we obviously demoed and demolished like took away the entire fence for both property lines. Um, same thing just property side of things. This is the dock. We removed all of the um
decking. Uh, placed the pool drained and and placed the pool cover here. Uh we also hired a pool contractor to we are going to demo and replace the pool. Okay. Another photo of the deck. Um exterior pictures for all the grass and
everything. Uh side of the house as well and front of the house. Um the only item that was not cleared um obviously as you said with the requirements for the permits was the boarded up window that was damaged during the storms. Okay. And has a permit been applied for at this time? I
know you have your contractor here. Uh we are almost ready. You know we got the plans. Uh we're going to most probably submit this week or next week. We are just waiting for the stem from the engineer. Okay. Do you have a um application in to replace the decking on the dock or are
you replacing the decking on the dock with a contractor on an exemption or something? Uh that's going to be with um the permenting process as well um going to be submitted uh with the current building permit that we have or that we are going to apply for. Um and then the pool obviously the pool contractor will
pull their own permit for separate um the pool renovation side of things. Have you already engaged the pool contractor? Yes, actually they are submitting it today. They have you know they have sent the plans also but they are submitting today to the So the pool contractor is going to submit their
permit pull their own permit and they're submitting plans today. Okay. Okay. Anything further um that you'd like to say on your behalf? Um no, I um we take the seriously uh and you know, we are
working to get everything uh proper. We did have a previous uh contractor that was um on the case. Uh as uh Mr. Rivera mentioned that the prior permit uh had expired. um he pretty much just kind of disappeared and spent, you know, about
about a year just kind of not doing anything. Um so obviously now we have a new contractor that's clearly willing to to be here and present. So um that's I just ask for a little bit more time to Okay. And how much time do you think that you guys will you said you've got
the plans ready to go so within the next two weeks you'll be able to submit them? Yes, that's correct. Yeah. at minimum like you know prior to the next hearing date we will definitely have uh permits everything submitted to the city and um issu and pulled and that side of things
going obviously issuance is the only the right but you can't control that that's on the city right okay any further questions from the city um does the building official have anything further that they want to add no okay nothing all right thank you very
much Um, I guess my next question is have and I guess Kayleie, real quick, did you provide those pictures to the city of the property being cleaned up? Uh, yes. I I submitted uh photos to Mr. Rivera via email and I can also provide this
with the evidence. I can leave this as Yeah, if you could leave that with the clerk. And then can you also tell me what date did that did you email that over to Mr. Rivera? Um, I emailed this morning actually. This morning. Okay. Okay. Thank you. We appreciate that. Okay. then I am going to find um that
the property owner is in violation of the state of code sections. However, I am going to give um until well let's do it dates certain. So let's do until
June 6th for the property owner to apply for both a pool permit and a general contracting permit um for the repairs to the sophet. pool um and the window and any other miscellaneous uh
issues and the dock um and any other of the miscellaneous issues that were included in the city's presentation that would have required a permit. Um so we will see well if you if you secure if you get you apply for the permit we may not see you back here but if you do not we will see you back here at the June
9th um magistrate hearing um for a status check and we'll see where we all are at that time and then of course you you guys will get a written order to that effect and I'll just if you provided your email address I'll email that to you guys. Okay. Yeah. Did you have anything Mr. Yeah. Uh just
on the dock they did it because it was storm damage. As long as they don't reinstall it, they don't need to apply for a permit. Okay. So they can keep the tide poles there. Yeah. And then see what happens going forward. They may at some point decide to put a new dock in, but they don't need a permit to remove the storm damage debris. Right. It looks
like they've already removed it from the pictures. I think Mr. Mr. Brooks had asked a question on if they were planning on repairing the dock. So, I'll just make that caveat in there that if they are planning on repairing the dock that they secure the required permits. Um, not a problem. Okay. So, then um
again by June and it's better with D if you go ahead and do it while it's still in that hurricane period. So, the sooner it's actually in your interest to try to get the dock repaired soon. Okay. Um, but my order will be that the deadline to secure whatever permits are necessary for whatever work is being
done to bring the property into compliance by June 6th. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. All right, moving on to the next agenda item, which is 5G. Case number 20250211, City of St. Pete Beach versus Starlight Tower Incorporated. Mr. Cruz.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Lewis Cruz representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is code enforcement case number 2025 0211. The respondent is Starlight Tower Incorporated. Violation address 7,000
Beach Plaza. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 98-123.1 permits required of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial inspection was
492025. Notice of violation dated 49205. Notice of violation compliance date 425 2025. Notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 4:30, 2025. These are a true and accurate
representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 7,000 Beach Plaza, April 30th, 2025. This is the unpermitted block wall reinstallation. It looks to be their accessory structure for a parking
garage. This was done by an unlicensed contractor. Stop work order that was posted on the property day of corrective action. Property must obtain an after the-act permit for the concrete block wall reinstallation. Property is not compliant. The
recommended fine is $250 per day starting 426 2025 until compliant plus $329 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And Mr. Cruz, is this a commercial
property or a residential property? Yeah, it's a condominium. Yes, ma'am. It's a residential condominium. Yes, sir. But as a condominium property, it would require a licensed contractor to do work. You couldn't pull an owner permit. No. Yes. Has to be a licensed contractor. Thank you. Um, anything
further from the city? No. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone here on behalf of Starlight Tower Incorporated? Thank you very much. If you could please come and state your name and affiliation with the corporation for the record. My name is Joy Clark and I'm on the
board. Good morning. Edward Wolf. I'm part of the board. And you both have the authority to speak for the condominium board? Yes. Okay. And have you provided the clerk with proof of that? Is there I don't know what proof would
be and that's that's the question. So my understanding is condominium boards cannot members of condominium boards cannot act on their own. Can you testify here today that your board has directed you to come here and represent the board and its interests? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I can clarify we're the only two that
are local right now. Everybody else is out of state. Understood. Um Okay. And um do you have anything to respond to the city's allegations with regard to the violations? I do. Um you know, we got devastated by two hurricanes and um
I have a picture here of like this is even before nightfall. So more water came in of this particular structure that we're dealing with. It's not dwelling. And um you there was all kinds of information going around at the time. There was a 50% rule. I think one of guy
on the board talked to somebody who was in the building and they in the building department and they said if it is just repairing a wall that's damaged during the storm go ahead and do it. You don't have to build permits. They were overwhelmed with permits. We were acting on that information. There was
information about the 50. There was all kinds of information. We weren't trying to mislead anyone. This is a picture of like I said the wall and undated. I have a picture. I don't know if the 50% rule applies. I mean, it we were told it did.
And so, I have a picture of the whole structure. It's not dwelling again. And it's just a um small portion of that structure. Um a bird's eye view. I think it goes that
way. So, you can see it's not it's just a garage facility. And it's that wall that's there on the side. maybe 10% of that structure. Um, so this guy that was doing it when we were getting our whole first floor
was devastated. So we got a lot of contractors bidding on that. Um, this guy was under one of those contractors that we didn't go for that restoration, the first floor units, but we had gotten background checks on him. He really he was really good. um he was under we were
under the assumption when we first talked to him that he would be working with that GC that GC was out. It was just you know like with this other stuff the 50% rule and us being told by a building official that we didn't need to get a permit for that we just said yeah go ahead and repair that. The other
thing that he was going to do was a planter in front of the building. So it wasn't like we were trying to deceive anyone. All right. So when all this went down we literally got swatted. So the building department had four police cars with lights flashing. They posted the
red notice when they could have just posted the red notice and talked to us, but it was just all this drama. Devast We're already devastated having all this done. It's just a lot. Just a just a lot. So I I guess we're asking for
mercy, but at the same time, we feel like we were bullied a little bit. and it's just don't we've got um been trying to find another contractor to do this. This is a outside of the scope of all the other work we have to do. We're also doing the milestone put on us by the state at the
same time pulling all those permits, pulling all the permits to put this back together. And it's just a lot and I'm just um I guess here to ask for a little mercy and maybe give us some time until we can get this back on track. So just
for some clarification, the you do have NGC is the contractor that's working for you for your the main structure. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah. And also another one doing the milestone stuff. I mean sure that and that's separate and apart. I'm not want I don't want to touch We got a lot of building officials coming. So we
wouldn't intentionally try to deceive the building department because we got a lot of those permits swirling around. Sure. And there's there's been no suggestion that that was that was done by any means in trying to to sweep something under the rug. My question is you have NGC doing some of your
contracting work. Yes. Um but you did not have them do this portion of it. No, because we were told by a building official that we didn't need a permit to fix this wall. Um I have another picture. Who was who was the contractor that did this work?
Who did this work? Yes. Name was Brandon. He does masonry work. He has a license to do the what's his last name? I didn't bring that information with me, but he they hauled him to jail because they swatted us. So, we had four police
cars. So, they hauled him to jail. Um, and I I got a call from the attorney. We're not pressing charges on him because he we were all under the assumption that we didn't it was just misinformation. We just didn't know. He was licensed to do masonry work, but he's not a licensed GC. Yes. and he
wasn't working under anyone's uh certification for reconting. It was the wall was breached. We were just trying to get it to repair the wall. Understood. And this planter you said you you heard from a building official. There's only one building official within the city. So, well, it was a building inspector
because I wasn't here. I wasn't even I was elected on the board after I was a designer. So, they brought me in to help make things look good again. But you know that this law this this permit uh this violation the first sentence on that any application intends to
undertake any development activity. We weren't developing anything. We were just development activity is further defined. Reconstruction is development activity. And even though this is technically a residential property, it's not. It's considered commercial especially for purposes of the Florida building. The word development is kind of ambiguous
to me and and perhaps I mean I'm I'm a lawyer so I can't really say much. I do this stuff all day. I do. Um, so I don't think anyone's saying that it was done necessarily intentionally or to try and thwart it since you do have a general contractor. Have you contacted your GC to see if they will help you with this
unpermitted work issue? We're having a meeting with him tomorrow, but we also have another GC that we can bring that we are talking to. It's crazy. Sure. I understand. And everybody's overwhelmed. And so we have another GC we're talking about who can just oversee this particular fixing this wall. Okay. and
rebuilding that planter that was right here. I don't know if you can put it on the It's just a little planter in front of the front door. Okay. You're just trying to fix. Sure. Okay. So then um and when are you meeting with this new tomorrow? I he is doing all of our first
floor units were totally wiped out. The Gulf just took them out to the street. Sure. And so um I don't know that he wants to take this little minor project on. We haven't even talked to him about it. We were really quite frankly a little nervous to ask him to take on our
you know because we got swatted. So we don't know is that going to put us under a magnifying glass that every little thing we do is you know going to be you it's nerve-wracking. It's nervous. I can understand and you're and trust me from all the way down from Manatee County all
the way through up to the panhandle people are dealing with all this stuff. So I do I can understand it gets a little off balance sometimes you know. I do I can understand. Um there are a lot of people in this boat. Um anything further that you'd like to say in support of your asking for mercy or you
know if if we have to get a permit, we'll do it. But we need we need time. I mean we've got so much going on. How much time do you think you would need since you are meeting with a contractor and you have the ability to contract NGC that maybe could put this under? I uh I've been really working on it. I
mean every day. And like I said, we're talking to the contractor tomorrow. And this is really he has more um interaction with I haven't even spoken to this contractor yet. Okay. So, Mr. Wolf, could you maybe state um your position on this? I am speaking
with the contractor tomorrow. I highly doubt he will take this on. We do have a couple of irons in the fire um where we're looking at this particular gentleman trying to find another general contractor. Um I can't give you a sound
date of when we will have one. This is something that we Do you need board approval to hire the next contractor or do you already have board approval to seek and hire a contractor? Our board has given us authority to do that. I mean, this is something, ma'am, that, you know, we we didn't know, but we
should have known. Understood. And we will know in the future. Understood. And so, I can only tell you that we we really would like some time to get the GC on board. We know we've got to pull the appropriate permit and we will do so. I wish we had a firm no from the
gentleman tomorrow, but I suspect tomorrow will be a no. And I'm just trying to figure out how much time that you would is realistic. I'm I'm obviously not going to give you all six months to find a general contractor. Um, is two weeks appropriate? Do you think you could do it within 30 days? I mean,
you don't have to go back to your board. So, it sounds like you have the authority. I would need a minimum of 30 days to to at least file for the permit at that point. And that's all I'm asking you all to do is to file for the after the-act permit. So, and I know the the issue is going to be getting a contractor when there's already been work done. Um cuz that contractor is
going to want to come out and see what work was done and then it's going to and is the the project's not completed at this point. Is that correct? That is correct. You're 100% correct. So they would have to either correct any issues that might be there or build on this project. I know that can be difficult. So that is correct. If I had 30 days to try to secure a contractor to get a
permit file, that would be appreciated. Okay. Um anything further from the city? Uh special magistrate. Yeah. So he they've obviously already um had told you that a permit has not been applied for. We just checked the uh the system um about a minute or two ago. Joanne
Boland, our permitting manager, just looked into that. Nothing's been applied as they have stated here today. Um and if you would like to hear from the building official kind of what transpired that day. Um it might be good information to have on kind of what happened with the it's your it's your case. Calls the building official. I was
going to say I don't think anyone's disputing that there is a violation. I think the respondents have admitted that there is a violation. I think the issue is going to be I I would like to hear from the building official. I guess well I don't whatever you have whatever the city would like to to and also if I
could ask the photographs that were shown if they could give them to the clerk they'll become part of the record. They've been handed over. She took them back. So I want to make sure they go back over to the clerk. You can get copies from the clerk after the meeting.
Mr. Curtis. So just for 100% clarity, so I was uh with Mr. Cruz uh reported to the site. One of my inspectors informed me that there this work was going on without a permit. Uh and that's what um spurred us to visit the site. And at the
point that we saw the the work, the wall had been almost completely the block had been placed. But uh in talking with one of the representatives on site at the time, and I can't remember his name, but he was he did say he was a resident and he was on the board. It wasn't even
storm damage. I guess a truck had clipped the wall as it was coming around the corner. Um the the person performing the work was not a licensed contractor. They were were hired to do this. They they didn't hold any contractor's
license. Um, we did call the deputies to report on site simply because the city doesn't have uh jurisdiction or authority to um take any action against an unlicensed contractor.
So, the the call went to the sheriff's department, who was our police force, and then they responded to the um the deputy or the detectives that were were looking into this. Uh and that was pretty much the extent of what
happened. We posted a a stop work order on site. Um and to date, yeah, we just to reaffirm, we have not seen any permits for that work. And that stop work order is uh for just the accessory structure or
as your in your discretion as the building official is that for the entire building or the all the structures on the the lot? Just just for that scope of work on on that portion of the garage where that work was being done. Okay. Uh it doesn't impact the the other work the rehabilitation after the post storm.
Okay. Um do you know if anyone ever told them they didn't need a permit to do this work? None of my staff would have said that. uh inspectors are all very uh are licensed in the building code to perform this work and they know the requirements and they would not have
said no permit is required especially for something structural in this regard. Uh there is temporary bracing put up which is concerning to me because it is just that it's temporary bracing uh and this is a structural work that's being done. So yeah we do want to see that
action is taken quickly. I understand they're having difficulties getting a contractor, but it is concerning that the state of the building that it's in just to for the safety of the structure itself. Sure. Is it also a a safety issue for residents who
are in the parking garage or visitors that are in that area or other public uh I can't attest to that because I don't know how they constructed the wall. Uh is there a potential of it falling? There's always that potential because
it's not complete. They haven't poured the cells in the in the block. So, there is that potential, but I I couldn't say definitively just because I I didn't see it as they were doing it and inspections weren't done. So, we don't know what is
if the required steel is in there or how they the foundation for that if any alterations were done or if it's secure. Okay. No further questions. U Mr. Chris, when you inspected it, this is not a habitable structure. That's correct. Correct. It's a garage. Okay. Thank you,
Madam Special Ministry. Pete Dor. Um, is there a way because you kind of asked the two questions about um they're representing the board and I was wondering if the concern is if these two members, let's say, resign or move, how can this be memorialized so
that two other new members don't show up to say we'd never heard from these two members? is there the the respondents are not these two individuals. The respondents are the Starllight Towers. So, they're responsible for sending their agents if two new people come and say that we didn't know anything about it. I would find that disingenuous
considering that they've gotten information from their board to be here. Okay. I was just wondering if it could be documented in a minutes or that provided to us or maybe you have a recording here. So, um that you give your names and addresses and emails to the clerk that way we can keep in touch
with you. Phone number, right? And I will send you the order. And madame magistrate for the for the record um two things. One sure we are both residents. I'm one of the guys on the first floor that's been completely wiped out. So uh we're not moving. Joy and I are both brand new members of this board. We've
been here for approximately two and a half months on the board. I asked that question of whom was talked to in the building department. We did not get a name. So hence my comment of we didn't know but we should have known. in the future we will have the names and and anybody that we speak to and we will come here for that. Do you have a
management company as well? We do. It's resource property management. Okay. Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate it. Oh, and one more thing. Those those two garages to the best of my knowledge having been in there. Uh I can't tell you who owns those. I could go back and look at a list, but those
garages have been vacated and they're not being used. Okay. So, are the garages individually owned then by individual residents? Yes. Like for instance, I have mine. I don't know. We have a list of who is the um the occupant of each garage. I do not have
that with me. I apologize. But they're not using either garage that you saw in the photo. Okay. So then the ownership structure of those particular of that particular garage is the condo association owns the garage. It's it's common property, but the individual residents own their individual inside
basically. Basically, sort of like how the condo unit is. It's exactly like the association would be responsible for the exterior reconstruction. Okay. Just wanted to make sure that we're Are your spaces deed to the owners or are they just assigned um numbers? First come, first serve. Good question. I pay a
maintenance fee for my one garage. So it's everyone does probably too. But on your deed, does it say not only your unit but also a parking space number 33 or something? Yes, on mine it does. On mine it says at 26. It's a co-op. Okay.
Great. Okay. That makes more sense then. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anything further from the city? No ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Um I am going to find that the uh respondent uh has is in violation of the stated code section. I
am going to allow for 30 days for the property owners to secure a contractor and apply for a permit. Um that will put us back here on July 14th for a status check. um to determine whether or not
additional time is needed or if uh the condo association has worked in good faith in order to get a contractor. Um so I would just suggest Mr. Wolf that if you could make sure you document your efforts in trying to get a contractor. Um if you're not able to do so, please work with the city, work with Mr.
Rivera, make sure yeah that you guys are in contact with each other and hopefully I don't see you guys back here in July. Um and good luck to you and I will make sure to get you the written order to that effect. Thank you. Okay, moving right along. Uh, agenda
item 5H, case number 202500010, City of St. Pete Beach versus Emily Hagen as trustee of the Emily Hagen Revokable Living Trust. Thank you, Madame Magistrate. Lewis Cruz, representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is code
enforcement case number 20250010. Respondent, Emily B. Hagen, trustee, Emily B. Hagen, Revokable Living Trust. Violation address 3217th Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violation of section
4633 enumeration 2. 9865 unsightly conditions 1 B and 4 and 9866 residential and commercial property maintenance A B 2 A and B 6 7 C 2 and 3
of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial inspection was 13 2025. Amended notice of violation dated 48 2025. Amended notice of violation compliance date
424 2025. Notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 430 2025. These are true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at
32177th Avenue, April 30th, 2025. And this is the exterior of the property. It has trash and debris and still left in a state of disrepair. Looks like some was from the hurricane and some has just been in this
condition for quite some time. Just different fascia board there. Deteriorated paint. Door frame in disrepair, overgrown grass, debris, palm frrons,
trash. Different shot of a different piece of the fascia board and dead palm fronds on the side of the property. Corrective action. Property must clean up all the trash and debris on the property. The fascia boards in
disrepair need to be repaired. Door trim and frame must be fixed. Any rotten or deteriorated wood needs to be removed and repaired. And exterior surfaces on the home that are faded or or andor deteriorated must be cleaned and
painted. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 per day starting $425 2025 until compliant plus $329 for administrative cost and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that
concludes my presentation. Thank you. Is there anyone here on behalf of the property owner Emily Hagen as trustee or anyone here on behalf of the trust for Miss Emily Hagen? Have you been in contact with the property owner? Any representatives at
all? No, unfortunately not. I know I I had had a previous case um with that property previously. Um I know it was a mother and a son that was living there. I haven't talked with them in quite some time and they haven't reached out pertaining to anything, you know, associated with this case. Okay. And uh
do you happen to know if the certified mailing was returned at all? Not off the top of my head. No. Sorry. Okay. Um I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code section. Property and property owner are in violation of the stated code sections. I am going to allow
um for 14 days from the date of my order to get the property cleaned up and apply for any permits that might be necessary in order to fix some of the sophets and other um issues that might require a permit. If none are required, then obviously that doesn't need to be
complied with. Um, but from 14 days from the date of my order to comply and um, a status check to set be set for June 9th at 10:00 a.m. to determine compliance with my order and assess any fines and fees as necessary. Thank you.
Okay, moving on to agenda item 5. I, case number 202500014, city of St. Pete Beach versus Steven Parks. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Lewis Cruz representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is code enforcement case number
20250014. Respondent Steven G. Parks. Violation address is 4208th Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 46-33 enumeration 1A and 2. 9865
unsightly conditions 4 and 9866 residential and commercial property maintenance A B 20 C 2 and 3 of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial
inspection was 13205. Amended notice of violation dated 48205. Amended notice of violation compliance date 4212025. Notices of hearing dated and
posted on the property 424, 2025. These are true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 4208th Avenue, April 24th, 2025. This is the property in question here at
4208th Avenue. Bags of debris and trash left on the property. Just a couple different angles of the trash and debris on the property that's been left in this condition for months now. Overgrown grass, different kind of
trash and debris spread out through the yard. Corrective action. Property must clean up and remove all trash and debris from the premises. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 per day
starting 422 2025 until compliant plus $329 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Have you had any contact with
Mr. Parks? No. Unfortunately, not. This is a property that you have adjudicated previously. Um, he as of right now, I'm pretty sure it's two leans on the property from previous cases. Um, I have not heard from him and I haven't seen his truck at the property as I have previously. So, I don't know if he's
completely left it. I'm not 100% sure. I have not talked to him. Thank you very much. Um, is Mr. Parks here or anyone on behalf of Mr. Steven Parks? We don't see him in the audience. Mr. Parks or anyone here on behalf of Mr. Parks?
Okay. Um, and you said that that had been all that debris had been left there at least since January and it's still in the same state. There's been no movement on it, no clean up or anything. Yeah, we got extended time. That's why you see that that amended notice of violation. We tried to give people a little bit more extra time. Um, especially because,
you know, some of the certified mail got messed up as a couple of other cases. So, we gave that extra time. Um, resent their notices and I still have not heard anything from the owner. Okay. Um, I am going to find that the property owner and the property are in violation of stated code sections. I am going to
allow for 14 days from the date of my order to uh clean up the debris from the property as well as apply for any permits for anything that's necessary, though I don't believe that there is. Um, and we will set a status check for June 9th to determine the status of the property and assess any fines and fees
at that time. Thank you. Okay, moving on to case 5J. Uh 2024 0529, City of St. Pete Beach versus Richard Allen Long as trustee of
the Richard Allen Long Revokable Trust. Good morning, Special Magistrate Ayakar Shell, code enforcement officer for the city of St. Pete Beach. Uh this is case 20240529. The respondent is uh Richard
Allen Long, trustee for the revocable trust. Richard Allen Long. Violation address is 6700 Gulf Boulevard. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 33.4 conditional
uses G. 6.24 outdoor dining and outdoor drinking areas. B 6 A B and C 98-123.1 permits required 98-75 failure of property owner to
comply with the land development code and the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Here we go. Case summary. The initial inspection was uh September 19th, 2024. The amended notice of violation was sent on March 13,
2025. Um the compliance date for the amended notice of violation was 3:23, 2025. Notices of hearing was dated and posted on the property, April 30th, 2025. This is a true and accurate
description of what I witnessed. the affidavit of posting um at 6700 Gulf Boulevard on the property on April 30th. These are some uh Facebook's postings from the grilling and chilling
uh account which show advertisement for um music being played at their outdoor bar area in the rear which is what we're trying to get into compliance. Another advertisement. This is the unpermitted
bar installed and the unpermitted use of the property. So all of this area in the rear of Grillin and Chillin has been constructed without a permit. More pictures of the unpermitted bar installed. And just for clarification, is that an
electrical wire that's being run from the main building out to the Yes, it is. Okay. Again, further pictures of the unpermitted bar installed. And this is towards the rear of the property
extending beyond the bar. More evidence, pictures. The stopwork order was posted on the property back in September of 19th and uh they continue to operate without a permit. This is a
picture taken from the rear actually from the adjacent condominium from the back and you can see patrons there enjoying themselves. Since then, since April, we have seen um an erected roof
structure installed over the bar. This is what most current pictures look like today. A completed bar area. So, this is unpermitted bar installed, unpermitted use of the property with a stage for live music. The corrective action we're
seeking is the property must obtain an after the-act permit for the unpermitted bar installation. The property must also cease live music and entertainment. The property is not compliant. The recommended find is $250 per day starting from March 24th, 2025 until the
com compliant plus $330 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with the case. I do have the uh permit administrator here with me and the building official that can further
elaborate on where they are with any permits that they've applied for and the difficulty that they've encountered trying to reach compliance. So, I think before we do that, which I would like to hear from them, but I would like to also know, so you showed me pictures of um otherwise unpermitted work on a
commercial property for the installation of an outdoor bar, but within the city of St. Pete Beach, is it did this property owner already have a conditional use permit to have the ability to have an outdoor bar facility? Okay. So, there is no conditional use permit. Correct. They need a conditional
use permit. There is no conditional use permit. So, they're not even allowed to have an outdoor bar at all. Correct. Okay. Um, and has anyone, you said that they have a stage for live music. Do you have any evidence to support they have been playing live music uh at night or
anytime during the day? Well, those advertisements that you saw that were posted on Facebook um are current all the way up until last month. So, they're advertising it, but have is there any evidence to support that they've been actually I I I I see that you know, one
is I'm advertising for it. The other is am I actually doing it? They have been. I have personally observed it. It's been hard to get pictures of that uh evidence, but they Did you personally observe the music? Yes, I have. But have you also received complaints from
neighbors regarding the music? I have from the condominions in in the back on the side. Okay. Yes. Thank you very much. Okay. Would you like to rectal? It's a bit Okay. A Y A K O.
Last name R U C K D E S C H E L. Okay. Would you like Joanne Bolan, the permanent administrator? The city's case, whoever you would like to call next as your witness. Yes, please. before I let Jo got some video footage
here of um them actually playing overhead please there's any sound is that from and what is the date of this April April 20th. Can we zoom in, Ryan or Jamie?
Okay, thank you. And Madam Special Mastery, that's from Facebook. Just for the record, I didn't hear you. What did you say? Madam Special Master Trade, Pete Der for Code Enforcement. That is from Facebook for the record. Okay. So, I'll take grit for what that's worth.
Thank you. If you could please state your name for the record and your position with the city. Joanne Bolan, permit permit administrator, city of St. Pete Beach. Um, we had a denied permit
inhouse. The permit was submitted on March 14th and actually February 28th. I correct myself. 2025 and uh reviews were done and denied
uh twice already. March looks like denied February 28th denied again by planning and zoning March 5th denied by building March 3rd denied again by building April
3rd. Comments for the previous comments have not been addressed. The floor plan does not clearly show the space. Please provide a floor plan that shows all the required elements including but not limited to the required restroom accessible route and what measures are being taken to meet the FBC
accessibility requirements. Number one, commercial project provide load calculations. NEC 2102 provide floor plan 107.2.63 project valuation submit construction cost estimate from
contractor. The $1,000 project cost is inconsistent with ICC project valuation tables. FBC 1054 plan showing the bar, plumbing, electrical addit. FBC 107.1.5 plan showing that plan showing
the required rest rooms FBC plumbing 403.16 and plan showing the required accessibility ADA FBC accessibility 101.1 and Miss Bolan. So, the permit that was applied for, was that just a straight
building permit for only the construction of the bar or was that a building permit with a conditional use permit? There was no conditional use permit. Is that why it was denied by planning and zoning? I can see um planning and zoning's denial
says, one moment, please. I have to go into this. I apologize. Um, this was denied by Brandon Barry. Number one, show all outside improvements to scale on a copy of the property survey. Uh, number two, show that the outdoor seating area meets the
relevant requirements of LDC section 6.24 B25. Um, they he actually attached a link for Munich code where they can see the standards there. Number three, submit a copy of the alcohol service permit
authorized to no view bar or state if your operation will take place under the approved scope granted to grilling and chilling in 2020. And number four, outdoor smokers are not permitted in seating areas pursuant to LDC section
6.24A1C. Please remove smokers from the seating area. That was the denial from planning and zoning. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Miss Bolton. Thank you, Yoki. Does all this equipment still remain on the property? Yes, I believe the equipment
is still there, but they have posted on overhead, please. again on their Facebook page. I don't know if you can see this or not. Doesn't show it. I can read it to you. They did post on April 26 that they
are down but not out. Grillin and Chillin Bar area is closed until further notice. Okay. So, at this point, as of their post on April 26, they've said they're nonoperational. And have you witnessed any operation at that location at all? I have not. And there's been no further complaints from the neighboring
properties as far as you know? No, not recently. No. Okay. Madam Special Mistrate, Pete Dur on behalf of the city, I did receive a call from the proprietor who um explained to me that he would cease and desist operating
until a permit is issued. Okay. And Mr. Brooks, I may perhaps you know this and I know that there's been testimony to say that a conditional use permit is required for the outdoor I see here it says outdoor dining but for the bar use it looks like
their permits were not otherwise denied or there was no planning and zoning comment with regard to needing an out or a conditional use permit. Um can you just confirm that a conditional use permit would be required at this location for this type of use?
Uh, we'll call Brandon Barry from the planning department. He's the expert witness. If you give us one moment, we'll bring him in. In the um amended notice of violation, you'll find code section 33.4 conditional uses. And it states that
subject to the provisions or restrictions contained in this section and elsewhere in the code, allowable conditional uses in the CC2 commercial corridor golf boulevard district are as follows. Subsection G outdoor dining
drinking areas that provide for outdoor music roof dining andor drinking areas. And Brandon is here to talk about what types of uses at this location would require a conditional use approval and
that would include hearings, public hearings and which public hearings uh which boards would hear that. Will you please state your name and position with the city for the record? Yes. Brandon Barry, senior planner. So bars are permitted use at
this location. Outdoor drinking is also permitted as an extension of the bar use. The city requires a conditional use permit specifically for the introduction of outdoor music um within a restaurant seating area. So that that is the portion of the request that would require conditional use. Okay. Thank
you. That actually makes more sense then. So, if they were to become operational, secure the necessary building permits for the the uh structural components that they've done, they could without getting a conditional use permit continue to operate as an indoor bar and
as long as their um state license for distribution or sale of alcohol allows them to have the outdoor area. They would be able to do that without a conditional use permit from the city. Correct. That's correct. without a conditional use permit. We do have a few administrative items that we have to look at in the permitting process which were requested of them. But if they meet
those requirements, they can move forward and they're otherwise good. But if they want to continue to have live music that would require a conditional use permit, correct? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Barry. Does the city have any questions for Yeah. Does the existing um is does this use have an existing indoor
bar or is this a separate entity from the adjoining uses? That I I don't know. I believe it's a takeout restaurant if I remember correctly, but I'm not certain. So, okay.
Okay. Do you have any more information on that question? Is this affiliated with the adjacent uh business? It's indoors or is this separate? No. So, the indoor business is is a barbecue uh takeout restaurants that provides food
and there I don't believe there's any bar facilities in there. So, it's not associated with that at all. And this is a separate as far as you know business entity that's operating in this area. Operating under a different name, No View Bar. Um, do you happen did you check with the
state to see what their if they have like a 40CP? Of course, I can't remember it, but what what type of license they have for that re that that specific area? Um, and who that license is registered to? No, I have not checked that. To our knowledge, they do not have one. Can you
But nobody But nobody checked. Brandon, can you please answer that? That had been something that staff had requested as part of the building permit application. There had been a sign off back in 2020 for Grillin and Chillin specifically. I I don't remember the
exact entity it was associated with, but that was signed off as part of the city's COVID provisions which were temporary. Um, I believe the request was for a different entity when this came in for a building permit and to my knowledge that entity had not been signed off for
outdoor alcohol service. So, thank you. Okay. Anything further from the city? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? I believe it's the Richard Allen Long Revokable Trust. That's me. Okay. If you
could please come up, please state your name for the record. Richard Allen Long. And you are a trustee of the Richard Allen Long Revokable Trust. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, sir. Um, and do you have somebody with you who's also going to be uh testifying? I'm the business owner of Grillin and Chillin. Of Grillin and
Chillin. Okay. Um, and what is your name for the record, sir? Jason Bowie. Jason Lowry. And have you signed in? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um and either one of you, whoever would like to to respond to the city's allegations, I'll take whatever you
have. I'd like to respond. Um so after CO in 2020, um I was advised by the health health inspector that to check to see if my area be zoned for me having a back area for seating and barring. Yes, it's a carry out restaurant. Um, and so
I went to the motion of trying to do that, me and my wife and Brendan Barry approved of it. But me being a little bit green in the area of kind of um, doing new stuff at the business, I didn't pull any permits back then. This is back in 2021. Um, there was still
stuff going on from COVID residual closures with the city and everything like that. So, it was very difficult, but I did hire uh, contracted workers to do the job. Um, let's fast forward to now. I've actually had that bar open, that seating area back there since then.
Um, I, uh, had literally bought my own bar from my house and just kind of put it there and had some seats. And, um, up until now, I have had karaoke and other music there. Um, just one day a week. It was Sundays and it was one person with
one with one speaker. Um um I was also told by the fire marshall, they've been trying to work with me for years because I've been there for six years to try to get my smokers up there. I've been using commercial spots and stuff like that and paying them to have and then to have my
smokers and stuff like that. Um as I've been working with the city and sorry those officials to try to get that area approved. Um let's just say I recently um in September before the storm I had to stop work order on work that was done
back in 2021. Um the next door neighbor who was subsequently losing her business went on a campaign of calling not only the sheriffs but the ATF um the state and the city. And um so each thing as
they came along, I kind of the sheriff um when they came for the music, they said, "This is not even loud enough. We don't know why we're here." But the person who owned the restaurant next I mean the wine spot next door, she had a friend who lived in a condo behind us. So he would like kind of sneakily take
pictures and stuff like that. But um what I did find out was that I was not in compliance. I did not have my permits. Okay. So I've been working with not only the state but the city to try to rectify the situ issue. Um the reason why I continue to do work was because
the state I actually have I don't know which way to do but the state had given me the approval of of all the work that I did and um they said that I was approved
and so that's why I needed to erect the pergola and put the other stuff there. All right. So once they approved that, I also did submit plans three times to the city um to try to get the work approved to try to get the permits
approved. Um the original permits were supposed to be approved for let's see says the electrical outlets, plumbing, sink, outside bar, and smokers. So that was all on the original permit that was done in 2028. this this
year. Um I've I do have my own beer and wine license. That was done back in 2020. Um there's the name of my bar. I didn't think that mattered, but um I originally called it the Chill Spot. Then I called it the No View Bar, but it's still underneath Drillin and
Chillin. I have the license. I showed the ATF that. They said fine. They came back twice with um with officers. Um the health department has been back two time two times. She said you you've complied with the state health. The fire marshall has been back there. She approved my
smokers. My smokers are um back behind the seating area. And when the music is playing um the smokers are not going and yes, the people the well the one or two people will sit in that will stand in that area and sing to whoever patrons were there. I had um one incident that
where things got a I feel a little bit out of control during a karaoke. Um there was a crowd that came and then I immediately when the sheriff got there I told everybody to leave it just got too crazy and I and since and at that time I said you know what if there's no more
than 15 people back here you know we can't have any we haven't had any incidents since the person moved uh the person the business that was next to me she her lease was not renewed and ever since then I haven't had any problems either from the neighbors or anything
like that about music. But when I did speak to Mr. Pete Derer about um about the perpeting issue, he advised that I just don't have anybody back there. Um I did request that I you know it is a carry out restaurant and I do would like to have at least seating back there. I
do have my my my liquor I mean my beer and wine license the 401c is active but I can't use it. I understand that but I would I was hoping that I could at least have patrons be able to sit back there. He told he advised me not to which I have complied. Um on 429 I had a great
conversation with Mr. Luke Curtis to discuss some of the things that he would under see on the business on the plan so I can start rectifying the issue with getting these permits. Um he did let me know what to do. I've since done that and I was going to submit that today the
new the new plan. So another submittal today. Um, I did pay a fine um back on $335 fine for the building permit fee, commencement of work without permit, um,
Florida search charge, plan review fee, and the stop work order. Okay. So other than apply, you know, I do apologize sincerely for operating without a permit and I was just I'm just trying to do the right thing by being
able to get these permits. Okay. To you operating my business. So just for clarification purposes, you are working with the city presently to try and get the after the fact permit for the structures and the electrical and the plumbing and everything that you've done for the outdoor bar. Is that correct? Absolutely. And you had a licensed
contractor that did all that work for you? I have a licensed contractor that has signed on. I have a licensed plumber and electrician that is that they that was in the permits that they had that that they have. And then you're now you're right now you're working you're doing another submitt to the city for comments that came back from the
building official. He said it was only um the reason why the permits were denied were because of documentation. So that's when I went to Mr. Luke Curtis to discuss some of the some of the confusion with the whole no view bar and it being associated with your liquor license versus Okay. But um the state
when they did the ATF when they came they said there can't be two different liquor licenses on this spot number one and and they never did. The Novi Bar never had a a beer and wine license. They don't have a beer and wine license. I just called it the Novi Bar. Okay. So,
um, I did have somebody managing that bar who's no longer managing that bar because they were just kind of being disingenuous to kind of what I was trying to do, but, um, other than that, we I would like to get operating sooner than later and maybe have these permits be approved. Okay. And at this point,
you're not allowing anyone out into the outdoor space and there's no live music. I have pictures to show what the area actually looks like now, which I pretty much put all pushed all the tables to the side. I put a I usually have two cones there.
Everything the pergola is down. All the chairs are folded up. I don't have anybody sitting back there. About the bathroom, the health department says I'm not going over through the bathroom with them again. The bathroom is is the same usage as when she
when she assigned well from 2019 when I started my business she said if anybody needs to use the bathroom they just have to go inside to use the bathroom okay and I just have to show them where there is she said nothing has changed with that okay so and that's what the health department that's what the health department says I
mean she advised me that you know there's people that said well you should retaliate and stuff like that I'm just not into doing stuff like where I'm going to call the city and state on other people but I just would rather just handle my issues and just kind of just be able to continue running my business. Okay, understood. Um, any any
questions from the city? I have a few. Is the bathroom in the kitchen? The c the bathroom is through the kitchen. Yes, it is. So, your patrons walk through the kitchen to use the bathroom? Yes. Is that allowed? Yes. That's what the health department she says. If anybody walks up, they and they need to
use the bathroom, I just let them in. I point She said just point to point them to where the door is. And I keep my bathroom clean. And there's never been a line. Not a lot of people that we need to use the bathroom, but when they do, they they do it successfully. Nobody's had a problem. You said you had a
licensed contractor. The existing bar and refrigerators and taps and electric and plumbing. Was that all installed by yourself or a licensed contractor? So, this was done back in 2021. By who? By by a different contractor. Um, he is no
longer in business. um my electrician has since passed and the plumber who did the work is uh working in a different state. So now that this has all arrived now three years later, it was hard for me. But I did find a contractor who signed on Coastal Palms. Um he was here
earlier, but he has he had to leave. I have had a a plumber and electrician sign on also to the to the previous work. What was the day that you closed the operation outdoors here? I believe it was two and a half weeks ago now. Um I mean I stopped doing You know the
exact day? No, I stopped doing music before that and then after talking to Mr. Der, you know, he just basically said just kind of just don't have anybody go back there and that's when I just I said fine. So So right now you have two cones there to prevent people from going back there at night. Well, I
personally when we're open, we just tell people not to go back there, but at night I have two cones that pretty much, you know, nobody's been back there. I check my cameras. Is it accessible directly to the sidewalk or street or do they have to go through your indoor area
to reach this area? No, they can if somebody like I've had transient people go back there. I've called the sheriff's, you know, in the past because it's it's just an open area. It's like a breezeway. Um, has the electricity been disconnected? What do you mean? Is there So, can I
turn the power off from out back? Yeah. Is there a way that a transient person could go in and plug in or and possibly get hurt electrocuted there? Yeah, I do have a breaker that I could probably flip off from somebody going back there to using any electricity, but I haven't
had that issue in years. Have you Is the breaker on or off right now? Probably on. And then how about plumbing? Have you disconnected the plumbing to that area? Yes, I've disconnected and stopped usage of everything. There's no TVs back there. The perl is
down. It's just uh just the stuff is just there. So, the TVs are there and the cords are there. TV's down. Just not there. It's taken away. Yes, sir. How about the refrigerators? The refrigerator is unplugged, not in use. I haven't taken it away yet. I was just hoping that I'll be able to wait
the time to get my permits and the um bar tap the keg. There's no tap. It was just cans and bottles. So, I don't have I didn't put no tap in. It's just like one of the pictures that look like I saw like a beer handle and then canisters.
It must be a very very old picture. I don't have no beer tap back there. Hold on. Uh, if we could pull up the evidence photographs, if you keep going down until the bar where it shows the keg machine right there. Oh, back one.
Yeah, backwards. Backwards. Stop. That's a kearator. Yeah. That So I had a old like So back in 21 I was going to put a beer tap back there. I never used it. See it's right there.
That thing. That's what I'm asking about. Is that plugged in? I was using that as a refrigerator. Um the keg the kegarator was never ever hooked up. So I never used the keg. So that keg was actually full. Is that still there? No, sir. And the kegarator is not there
either. Neither are those fans. How about the wall outlets behind the bar? You'll see them on the left hand side of the bar. Those wall outlets are still there. And then the wall outlets um on the inside of the
bar. I'm sorry. The ones to the left and the ones behind. Yeah. Still there. Yes, sir. Were those there prior to the construction or those just outdoor outlets or did you have those installed with this construction? that that was installed in 2021. Okay. Thank you. Are
they GFI? Yes, sir. They're approved by the health department and the and the fire marshall's comment. She's approved. She's checked that area more than once. And then if you could scroll down to the stop work order on a uh a door
stop work order was done right before What is that door? That's the door to the inside of my restaurant. And does the public to the inside of the the carry out restaurant? Yes. Does the public what? So if they were going to the bathroom, they would go through that
door, go through the kitchen, and then go into the bathroom. So yes, I would I would uh open Well, I usually keep the door while we're there. I keep the door open. Um but if somebody needed to use the bathroom, they would open. I'd open the door and I could shut down. Phone is
dying. And but literally when they walk in the door, she just told me that it kind of just point and direct them to the bathroom and it's just straight through the kitchen. So if that door is closed, that doesn't prevent people from entering this outdoor space. They can still get in to the outdoor space. But
for those two orange cones that are there? Yes, it's a breezeway. Um it separates both buildings. So And what about when you're not there? What's stops a transient person from going back there or child? Nothing, sir. Okay. I wasn't I think um the fire marshall said there can't be anything in that
breezeway blocking anything. It's a it'll be a fire hazard. So I can't put a gate or anything or type of fencing. Okay. Well, I to call the building official L Curtis. Well, you don't it's not your case yet. So, I'm sorry. And not be calling witnesses in the respondent's case. So, I appreciate
that. Does the city have any more questions for the respondent? No. Is there anything else that you would like to share with me? uh just supporting your case. I just would really love to just kind of be able to operate my business. Um and you know, I
love this community. I've given back to this community throughout the storms, throughout COVID. I've given free pull pork sandwiches. I love to kind of just do my barbecue and continue just being a model business on this beach and you know, that's what I just try to do.
Okay. And also, you do have the ability to ask any questions of the city. Do you have any questions for the city with regard to the allegations against you? No, not at this moment. I just know that I need to get these permits in and completed and I'm just working my best to do that. Thank you. And then um Mr.
Long, anything from you? Pardon? Do you have anything that you want to share? Um just the fact that I didn't receive the notice of violation until the 30th I believe of uh se of April.
And I had signed the permits for him to do this work I believe back on the 3rd or 4th of March, wasn't it? Yes. And u but like I said, the u the picture of the notice of hearing I didn't receive until like I said uh it came to me on
like the 30th of April. Okay. And which is also the same date as the posting. So I just have one question for you. Yes. Do you have a written lease with this tenant? A written what? Lease? Yes, we have a lease. Does your lease have a
compliance with all laws provision? I'm pretty sure it does. And like I said, my attitude towards this was uh that he should require every permit that was required that he needed to get and if I needed to sign him, I would or look at him and see the situation. And so,
like I said, I came down here, believe it was here the 3rd or 4th of March and uh signed the permits for him to proceed and get things after the fact if they can be gotten after the fact. But my my attitude towards Jason was to do this by the permits.
And do you understand that if there is a code penalty that could result in a lean on the property that you own? Not until now. This is the first day. This is the first I've been notified that there's been a a fine put on the building or put on his business at the two end as of as
of the 24th of April. This is my first notice of that. Mine as well. I was in my restaurant and then I turned around and there was just something hanging on my door. Nobody even said anything to me. I was in there with a door wide open. I was sitting in there. I turned back to my door and just hanging there.
No, no, nobody even said anything to me. So, and my notice was the 30th of this. But you're both here today. Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions from the city? No, not for these two witnesses. Thank you very much. You guys obviously stick
around because the city would like to We'd like to call a rebuttal witness, the building official. Sir, Mr. Curtis, could you state your name and title for the record? Luke Curtis, building official for the city of St. Pete Beach. And could you
um assist the special magistrate with any further facts and information that might be relevant to this case that would help her? So, the initial uh work was observed just prior to the storms, I believe. Um I visited the site with uh one of the
code officers noticed the work and we uh or the code officer uh attached the stop work order. So this dates way back to then at the very least. Um and then so we do have permits that have been
applied for. Uh there are concerns with the permits whether they can actually meet the code. Uh this is an existing business inside, but they're expanding the business outside and so it does need to meet the required codes for
accessibility, the electrical codes that apply and plumbing codes. Uh so there's multiple aspects to it that are concerning um that we need to make sure that they can meet the code prior to us approving anything. the current conditions that were out
there. Do they meet the current building codes? Uh, I did not do an inspection of the work that was done, just merely that the work was done and that it needs a permit. So, I I can't attest to the specifics as far as the electric or the
plumbing. Uh, I will comment that the um means of egress to that area would not comply with the accessibility codes or ADA requirements. But beyond that, yes, I did I did not look at the specific work for code compliance, if you will.
And is this on the main street, the 6700 G Boulevard? Yes. And is there anything that prohibits the children from entering that area after hours? Uh, at the time that I was on site, no, there was nothing to uh prohibit any
anybody from walking into that area back there. Okay? No further questions. Mr. Curtis, could you one moment? You can I make one point? Uh, yeah. Hold on one moment. Let me ask a question of Mr. Curtis and you are welcome to ask Mr.
Curtis questions um or make a point. Um the Florida building code with relation and I know this is going to be done through the pering process because um the respondent has said that he has submitted additional permitting papers today in response to your uh comments as
far as the work that's already there and getting an after the fact permit. would you have to go out there to inspect to make sure that that was done correctly and where does that fall in the permitting process? So, the permits right now are in review. They've been uh the reviews have been denied uh from
both planning and zoning and building. And as far as the process, so they have to show us on the plans that it all the work is that was already done that well they they haven't um complied yet,
right? Regardless of of this particular case, if somebody comes in for an after the-act permit, they have a licensed contractor. The licensed contractor, engineer, plumber, whomever is going to submit a site plan to you if one is necessary. But locating all the things that were done previously,
um, and anything else that they're seeking to have been done. And then that at that point, you wouldn't go out to inspect necessarily as so much as do a review of of what's there first. We we so once the permitting process has gone through and been approved, we would have
to go out and do inspections in uh hypothetically if there's anything like for example if there's something behind a wall electrical or plumbing that would need to be inspected then potentially those elements that are hiding uh those elements that need to be inspected would
have to be removed for the inspection process. So there is that potential. Sure, I understand that. Um okay. And in this case, there's no engineering. So, an affidavit of a of the previous contractor wouldn't suffice at this
point or it might, but we're not in that part of the review process yet. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Okay. And I know you said that these things had been denied and I've heard that term from the city before, but no permit has officially been denied. Correct. This is we're still in the com commenting period. Correct. Yeah, it's the the
permit itself hasn't been denied, but the reviews have been denied and comments go get sent out to the applicant. Once they uh rectify those issues or address those comments, then we could potentially approve it. Okay. Okay. I don't have any further questions
for you, Mr. Curtis. I think Mr. Allen, did you have any um just the address is Mr. long by the uh survey, the official survey. Mhm. And but there are three businesses, two three uh on that 6700.
And they each have an individual address. 6700, 6702, 6704, 06, 08. He is08, not 6700. And uh that's why when I got this official notice in the mail, the certified letter, it said
6700 Golf Boulevard, which is actually a different business. So the address for this this notice is not the correct address. It should be 670, but they're going by the Pineelis County property appraisers, which shows that it
says being one whole section of property. So that's I guess that's the issue. But I can understand having the address correct would help me would help you. Okay, I understand that. Thank you, Mr. Long. I had one more for Mr. Long. I had one more question for you.
To the tenants at 6702, 6704, 6706. Do they have any objections to this operation? Not that I'm aware of. No, I don't think so. Did you check with them? Um, yes, on on an ongoing basis. I mean, they're aware of
the situation and nobody's had any complaints to me about it. So, I didn't go ask it specifically, do you have a complaint, but if there was one, they would have let me know. Do their leases require you to check with the other neighbors as to new businesses that come
in? I don't believe so. Okay. I I can say that I've talked to all my neighbors and they've actually have no problem including their residential neighbors in the back and the gym. So the gym, yes. Um she has no problems and she's actually helped me with the spacing so I could actually have the
smokers back there. We've we've worked together and as for like I said once that person who was next to me moved out, there has been no complaints from the residents behind me or from anybody else. I haven't had any not one complaint. Who was the person that moved
out or business? 6710. It was a separate building next to me. She I believe that is a different No, it's okay. So, thank you. Anything further from the city? No.
Okay. U Mr. Dr. Curtis, while I have you here, if um there have been comments going back and forth, does the city have a policy on how many back and forths? I know the state does and I know FBC does from a commenting point of the city, but
not necessarily from the applicant. Um is there any type of policy that says after X amount of submitts, it's just there's not going to be any comments or do you work with them until either you can issue or deny the permit? So statutoily speaking, there is a a
provision in there if it's denied three times, they can be charged again for fees. Uh from from our perspective, if they're trying or from my perspective, professionally speaking, if they're trying to uh work through the process, I I'm I'm not going to limit them. uh I
mean within reason but yeah I I just my intention is if to review it as per the code if they can make it work then yeah I'll work with them as best I can. Okay. And um if something's submitted today do you know what your backlog looks like as far as reviews. I know you guys have got
a lot of other stuff going on. So we do but we're staying up on plan review. So for this it would be a resubmitt and it would be done within 10 business days. 10 business days. Okay. Your honor, we do have a concern with the availability of the access to the area as an attractive nuisance um for children, for
tourists, for not something that's before me. If you want to take up a separate issue, that's a court matter to be determined attractive nuisance unless it's otherwise in your code, which I don't see that that's been cited here. Also, if somebody is on that property, that's trespass. That's private property. Um unless that's a public
walkway, that's also not something that's presently before me, unless you can sight to somewhere where it is. Sure. Let me try to make an argument. Sure. Um, under section 98-123.1, um, permits are required for development activity. And that would include putting
electrical and plumbing, um, and other, uh, improvements in this area. And the rationale here is that those permits that were required for electrical are required by the Florida Electric Code to ensure that the area is safe not only
for the owner but safe for any people who may enter the area without some way of putting a gate or a fence or fencing this area off. Um we've heard testimony that transients
have been in there. Um, it's attractive that teenagers or spring breakers might go in there and sit in there and drink beer. Um, not their beer, but could go in there on their own. Um, if so, we can bring a separate notice of violation for
pro perhaps another another uh code section. But, um, simply putting these orange cones up there, I don't think is enough in the city's view to ensure that we're not going to have, um, an injury there.
Okay. Maybe that falls on the on the owner. I mean, we're not liable as the city. Um, but we certainly don't want to see children get hurt, spring breakers, tourists, or other transient people. Sure. You know, utilize the area. There's no security guards. the testimony that was given here today.
Also, typically in a conditional use, they would have security as part of that conditional use. And understanding that the conditional use is not an issue here today because there's no live music and so that would that would not prevent the bar from operating. That has that doesn't implicate the electricity. Um
live music can be done with speakers that don't need to be plugged in. Um and the live music the testimony from both sides here today has been the live music has ceased and from the city is that that's the conditional use issue. So that wouldn't not that would not be implicated here today. I think um let me make another different alternative
argument. Then if we are going to have your last bite at the apple. Okay. So if we are going to have an outdoor um bar area that did receive permits I believe and we we could ask the building official but an outdoor bar would have to have some mechanism to secure the
area once the bar closes and this doesn't have that. Okay. That's not before me today. So I do appreciate that. the issue that's before me and and I'm bound under chapter 162 as you know to only to only adjudicate what's before me will go out and inspect whether or not you have the
right to go out and inspect and whether or not there's a different issue then that might come before me at a different time if I'm even the right person to adjudicate those types of issues based on a code violation or something that's a state statute. Okay, we'll look into it. Thank you. I I appreciate but I do appreciate the argument, Mr. Brooks. Um,
as far as what's before me today, the testimony here today was from there's been no uncontroverted testimony from the respondent that the fire marshall came out and said that they can't put up fences or gates or anything because that ingress and egress through that breezeway is required to remain open.
So, the cones are what the property uh or the tenant has put up there in order to do that. Also, anyone that's going on that property after the business is closed, that is trespass. Um, so while I appreciate the city, there's nothing before me that would allow me to put in
any type of order that they are required to turn off all electricity or erect a fence or anything like that. If if there was a different code section, I might be able to say that. But right now, we've I've got a conditional use permit violation, an outdoor dining or outdoor drinking area violation, a not
unpermitted work violation, and those are the three violations that are pending before me. So, um, with that being said, I am going to find that there is, um, that there was a conditional use violation, um, that that violation has
been cured. Uh, and so I'm not going to obviously assess any type of um, cure for that violation. I am going to find that there was a violation of the outdoor dining and outdoor drinks area. There is presently a violation of the
permits required and the failure of the property owner to comply. So that's 98-123.1 and 98-75. Um so there were violations of 33.4. There was a violation of and were
violation of 6.24 based on the credible testimony here today. Those things have been those activities have ceased. However, the construction of the outdoor bar area still requires after the- fact permits. That's still in process, which there's credible testimony from both
parties um that suggests that um based on the testimony of the building official, those reviews are taking about 10 days. So, I am going to all lot um let's see what is today's date is the
12. So, I will all lot um I'm going to give the property owner until June 5th um to secure the necessary after the fact or permitting um for the
construction, the plumbing, the electricity, and other construction that happened in the outdoor uh bar area. And then we will reconvene here on June 9th for a status check to determine where we are in that process, if there's been a
good faith effort made, if those um permits were able to be secured or if that um that the uh area has been dismantled or electricity capped, plumbing capped if if they're not able to actually secure the permits to uh
operate in that area. With that being said, I'm also going to include it in my order, even though I found that there's a violation. It's no longer outstanding. I am going to um include in my order that there shall not be any operational use of any outdoor live music in that area and there shall not be any patrons
in that area um until such time as the proper permits have been secured and final inspection and everything has been signed off. Um so I think that I I know it doesn't address exactly, Mr. Brooks, what you were looking at. That addresses our most of our concerns. Thank Um, but I wanted to include that in my order and
I believe that the the tenants already ceased operations back there. Um, but that's not going to impact his current operations for the barbecue business at all. It's just that outdoor area. Um, and then I am going to put that all in writing. I have your information. So, I
will make sure I email copies of that to you and then we move on. Yep. What about these fines? There's no fines being issued or assessed today. I've given the you and your tenant the opportunity to secure the permits that are necessary. So, we'll come back in
June if the permits haven't been secured. We'll talk about why that happened if that was something that was, you know, or if there should be any fines or fees should be assessed. Okay. There's a possibility I may not have be available for this hearing on the 9th, but I mean I can be in touch with
everybody. Yeah. make sure you stay in contact with the city throughout this period and if if there needs to be a continuence or something needs to happen, you can address that and then you guys can address that with me at a at a different time because I may not be here, but I will be up in touch. Okay, I
appreciate that. And I think you're the next case up too. So um so thank you for that, Mr. Long. And we're moving on to agenda item 5K. Case number 20250193, City of St. Pete Beach versus Richard Allen Long as the trustee of the
Richard Allen Long Revokable Trust. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Lewis Cruz, representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is code enforcement case number 2025 0193. Richard Allen Long Revokable Trust. Richard Allen Long, Trustee.
Violation address 6800 Golf Boulevard. Violation description: The property is in violation of section 98-123.1. Permits required of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial
inspection was 42 2024 or excuse me, that's a type of 2025. Notice of violation dated 43 2025. Notice of violation compliance date 420 2025. Notices of hearing dated
and posted on the property 424, 2025. These are true and accurate representations of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 6800 Golf Boulevard, April 24th. This was the permitted structure
previously approved by the city. On the front there, it's that white metal fencing as well as the vegetation there. This was the unpermitted structure built by the outdoor dining area. Could you zoom in on that if
possible so we could see what that material looks like or maybe describe it with words? There was a white uh metal fence, I guess. And now now what is it? No, I couldn't really see what was under it. They put like a fake vegetation
screening there. Can you go back to the notice sign? Mhm. Yeah. So, right there. Oh, that's a where it shows up. Yes. And I think I have a couple more um that might show it a little bit better. Um so that's like an opaque where you can't see through it
because of the fake leaves. Mhm. Yes. Um so they kind of built a completely different structure to what was approved previously. Um they were from what I was told they were just trying to um kind of do some noise screening there cuz it's right along G Boulevard which is
obviously as you know our busiest um road we have in our city. Um, so this is what they constructed um to I guess alleviate some of that noise. Do you know if the white fence is underneath the I I couldn't tell and I didn't see them start to deconstruct it. Um, so I I
don't know exactly what was actually under there, but it does it looks to be a whole different structure itself. Height, the height and everything. Okay, thank you. There's a little bit closer. They have the wood posts now. They kind of put those through the ground. Were those 4x4
Are those 4x4 wood post? Yes. Were they in that picture of the previous structure? Cuz you could go back to the previous structure. So, you're talking about this one? No, those were not those were not part of the approved um plans that that
the city um allowed this property to do. Okay. You could go back. I'm sorry. Just a couple different angles there. Corrective action. The property must obtain an after the-act permit for the unpermitted structure or remove the
unpermitted structure and replace the approved slashpermitted vegetation and structure. Um the property is now compliant. I did go by this morning. I did get an email from the property owner's lawyer. So I would like to show that
please overhead please. So now there's just no fence there at all. Yeah. Yes. Um if you need any further clarification, we do have Brandon Barry in here, but um part of that actual permit on the front
there with that fencing was having specified type of vegetation which was taken up t excuse me taken up due to the structure that you know the unpermitted structure that they put in. Um so they do have those potteries for right now. Um but that will need to be addressed at a later time to make sure that it's put
back to um what if they want to change it up just make sure it's approved. They have reached out to Brandon Barry and they will start working on getting that done properly. They just need a little bit more information on the plan and zoning side. Okay. And then on the notice it said that there was a or on the agenda it says prohibited signs as
well, but that's Yeah, that was rectified. I just that was part of my notice of violation. Um that was um taken care of before I went to go post the property. the sign was already gone. Okay. And what was the date that you noticed the removal of the beams or
vegetation, whatever? Just this morning. I I got that email. Um so it came in either Saturday or Sunday when I was not here. So I went out this morning um previous to being here today. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Okay. Anything further from
the city? No, that'll be all. Thank you, Mr. Long. Anything in response? I'm also returning an attorney. So, okay. You ask me what you need. Well, I'll let your the attorney introduce himself and state
his name for the record. Mr. Brooks, how are you? Madam, how are you? My name is Joe Melende. Thank you, Mr. Melende. I have the privilege of representing this unique fellow, Mr. Long. Um, there's no doubt that there was a
violation of the code and that the tenant, unbeknownst to my client, the owner, installed some 4x4s and created a fence without a permit. And in addition to that,
um, tied a uh, a banner to a previously damaged permanent monument sign. Within hours of becoming kning known to both my client and the
tenant, the flag was the banner was removed. And this tenant has at our insistence removed all the structures that um he installed and erected without a permit.
and he's now in the process of attempting to get a a plan developed in a permit to uh uh finish uh repairing the area. The storm uh the storms tore up all the canopy that was
there tore up all the vegetation became an out source. So, both have been removed and we don't know that he he the tenant doesn't know that he wants to put vegetation back there other than and have some other plan that works better than than what than what was in the
place before. The plants just don't do well on the heat of the sidewalk in the street. So, they're thinking about potter big large pots. I think he's got them up there now and he's talking to Mr. Barry about a about a plan and using
them in the process but this whole may I may I take the liberty here. I represent the owner not the tenant and the owner oftentimes is at the victim is the mercy of the tenant and by the time the owner gets
the notice of the violation all the damage has been done. Uh, and I'm going to suggest to the city that they do something to prevent this inequities happening all the time
to owners, absentee owners. Mr. Mr. Long basically lives in Panama in the jungles of Panama. He he owns a lot of rental property here on the on the beach. Um, but a lot of things happen while
he's in the jungles of Panama. unbeknownst to him that his tenants have done and notices very seldom get to him in the jungles of Panama and all of a sudden we've got a huge problem on our hands. And
so a lot of times if you just go to the tenant and say look you got a you got a mistake here you got to address it. The tenant will respond immediately and well in the meantime Mr. belongs out there in the
jungle. Uh so I'm going to make a suggestion that the definition of of the uh so-called violator be changed in the code so that both the perpetrator and the owner can
be cited and has provided a notice of violation. Right now with the definition only one can because it's or you can only site one of the two. You can't cite both. Um, my suggestion we going to change the definition of that term
violator. Secondly, I'm going to make a recommendation to to uh to the city that if you're going to select a violator who's not the o the person in possession or one or the other that both
parties be given notice because more than times if you send a notice out that prop that tenants's going to respond and and respond properly and quickly. Uh so but in each of I've had four cases now involving Mr.
Log and I've charged him a lot of money. Uh he's been a victim of of of his tenants. He's been a victim of the process. It's it's the implementation of of this these ordinances and that often
times he doesn't know what the hell is going on from time to time of this properties. uh if he had just gotten notice which he didn't uh of of the violation it would have been corrected immediately that the notice violation
was dated I think the 3rd of April the correct date the correction date was April the 20th I think he gets the notice of he gets the notice of violation on the 30th of April long after the period of time within which he
could make the correction fortunately Mr. Mr. Der was kind enough to call him uh on the 24th of April and say, "Allan, you have a problem. You have another problem at at this site." And Alan says, "Oh my god, I got another problem at this site. Can you please tell me what
it's all about? Come on down here. I'm I'm here. I'm I'm out of the jungle. I'm here now. Just tell me what's going on here so I can know what to do." So Mr. Door kind sent Mr. Cruz. I don't know who's Mr. Cruz. Yes. Sent Mr. cruise to
the site and for the first time on the 24th of April did Mr. Long even know that there was a problem there was a violation or not uh the tenant Mr. Toto Shinik or whatever his name I call him I call him
Steve was there but his wife was and after the meeting Mr. long went and told the wife says, "Look, we got a problem here. You you got to get your husband to get this thing straightened out." The minute that Mr. Stavine learned of the problem, he immediately took the flag
down and began dismantling the fence and removing despite the fact that he wanted to use the 4x4s to stabilize the new canopy that he was going to put up. He has removed those just so not complicate these proceedings today. He's going to put them back in hopefully with the permit.
Uh but my question my point is is that I think something's got to be done about this particularly when you look at the situation from the point of view of the an absentee owner and in fact Mr. Long has to get back to Panama right away.
His wife brother just committed suicide. She she's there alone. He needs to go and he's going to look and uh he he's going to be out of the country again. Is there any way that any notice that he he that are given to him that can come to
me? If please if you sign in on there put that you're his representative I will communicate directly with you as his representative. Pardon me. I said if you put your name on the sign-in sheet there as his representative then 100% then I will communicate with you as his representative. It's down there and the email and uh yeah make sure we have your
email and also the tenants and we get the list of tenants and their emails. Yes, I I don't hear too well and the sound here vibrates my hearing aids. I apologize. I've lived too long. We certainly can do what you've requested with regard to courtesy notice to the
tenants and we can give courtesy notice to the tenants as well as a courtesy notice to you future notice of violations on these properties and then also the orders that are coming up. If you can rank for that, solve our problem. That we're all about compliance. So, that would be great.
Thank you. You know, I could have argued you wrapped the money, but No, we want compliance. So, yep. Any addresses you give us, we'll put in the files and we make sure we contact all of you, including the tenants. Yeah. Okay. Can you do you happen to have the date
that the tenant removed the structure from the property? Uh um that's right. Uh we removed um we're talking about the the wall the
wall with the the ve the faux veget. Uh within 24 hours I first cut off the um the 4x4s. Um then we just try to figure out what was the problem. And I think within
let's see uh the final removal of those 4x4s was done I believe uh uh today is the 12th. So it was done around the 8th or or earlier. Okay. And that was the final
just 4x4s that were there on a three and a half foot height. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Uh, can I uh Steven S Van T O D O R C E V I C. I just wanted to explain those 4x4s.
I don't know if it means anything or not, but we we just wanted to strengthen since we had a we had a a fence there before. Mhm. Um I took it as we can have something, but we uh the 4x4s were first
put in to strengthen the existing uh metal uh 2 by twos that were holding the canopy. Sure. And uh in during the storm, they got loose. the canopy was uh torn and so forth. So that was the
initial my initial thought. Okay, I'm going to put them next to them. I'm going to tie them together and they're all going to be cut. You know, initially they were 6 foot or 7 foot high. But because they had to be put in to the
ground, we didn't want to cut them specifically to the height. So we might have made a mistake. So we put them there. They were going to get cut to the height of that particular uh fence that you see or like a fence, but they were
going to No one's saying that you you might be able to still do that. No, we won't do it without permission. No, no, I I and then I I understand. I understand. Yeah, I understand. And we took it we took it all out. Okay. And so the final date on that was May 8th. Yeah. Thank you. Anything else that any
of you have to say, Mr. Long? Anything from you? You don't have to. You don't have to say anything if you don't want to me or almost wrong. I just uh I don't know about the the big gorilla in the room is the prior case
the prior leans against 6800 and me and I don't think that's even going to be dealt with today. But that's the fine that's concerning to me that seems to be on the uh seems to be hitting me since
like September 11th of last year. Yeah, that's not before me today. So, unfortunately, I can't address that with you today. But this this has come up since then. And this has come up since I've been back in the country. And I think that if this issue that we're
dealing with now hadn't come up on you wouldn't know about the previous issue, that we would be dealing with the bigger issue right now instead of this issue. And uh I I would suggest and I can't advise you on what to do, but the city does have a mechanism for lean reductions, fine reductions. You may
wish to talk to the city and and to your attorney about the processes pending petition. Okay. That's not I I I can't unfortunately I can't address that today, but I will address it if it comes before me. Okay. And I I appreciate that. Um that's the big gorilla in the room. I can understand that. Yeah. I
expect Mr. longer to leave immediately after today back to go back to Panama and um in the future proceedings I'd like to have some significant notice so that he can make arrangements to come back to the states. Well, and that's between you and
the city if you guys want to work out specific dates or whatever. I you know I'm impartial. I don't I don't schedule my own hearings. These are all scheduled through the city. Um I'm just here to listen to evidence and adjudicate as best I can. So I would suggest keeping
in in touch with either Mr. Brooks or or with the code officers to make sure uh whatever you need to do for coordination on that. Um anything further you have any questions from your honor particular matter? Okay. Anything further from either of you from this partic um then I
am going to find that um that there is a violation of the stated code section the 98-123.1. Um, however, um, the property has come into compliance as of May 8th.
Um, yeah, I was going to ask now that now that you have the information and the evidence that the property is now in compliance, does the city still wish to proceed with fines? If so, then we'll need to do so at a future hearing. Um, the city will not be looking for any fines. I apologize, I missed that there on the tail end of my presentation
there. Um the city is only going to be asking for the administrative costs which are going to be $329. Okay. So no fines or fees will be associated with uh this violation. However, I will assess the reasonable administrative cost of the city of
$329. And I will get you a written order to that um that point. Um to your point as far as the violator, that's going to be up to the city commission how they want to structure their code. So if you want to make that pitch to the commission, please feel free. All the players I knew were gone. So well um you
know that's a legislative decision based uh based you know some part in chapter 162 and there's going to be limitations on that but that's for the commission to decide. So at this point I will get you all the written order on that. That's fine. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you all and I think we have a lot more pleasant experience than I thought. I can make it worse. No, I'm just kidding. Okay, we have no uh agenda items under 67, but we have one lean reduction under
8A case number 2021 0123, city of St. Pete Beach versus Sava Roto Savak. I apologize. Good afternoon, madam special magistrate. Pete Der, code enforcement manager for the city of St. Pete Beach.
This is a lean uh reduction request for Mr. Sava. um his fines acrewed to $363,000 or a little bit more than that and he has uh requested that he that the
lane be reduced to $1,000. Um and it relates to Could we go to the overhead? Thank you. to this case um back in
2021. The city has no objection, madam uh special magistrate, to the $1,000 um reduction plus 525 administrative fines. Okay. Is anyone here on behalf of the
requesttor? If you please come up, please state your name um and affiliation for the record and if you have anything to say, please let me know. Yeah, I'm Slovita Sartoic. I am his power of attorney. This is dad. This is his property. I just became aware of this in January when I took over
everything helping him out. So, we're just asking you to We apologize for him not paying attention to the wonderful letters. He's by himself. He's almost 89. Oh, congratulations. And we took care of everything. Cleaned up the property and moved the cars with no registration.
Okay. Okay. As there's no objection from the city to the request, I will go ahead and grant the lean reduction to $1,000 plus the $525 in administrative costs. Um, my order will come to you. Just make sure I have your contact information. Uh, you will have 30 days in which to
pay that. Um if it's not paid within the 30 days um then it will revert back to the previously um scheduled amount. Where do you pay it in the city here? Uh you'll have to contact the city and they will be able to assist you with payment of that and then I will get you a written order to that effect. So if you
pay today and the order comes to you later, you can simply ignore it because you've already taken care of it. Thank you. Okay. Well, that was the easiest thing I did today. That was quick. I know. My case, by the way.
Um, okay. Well, that being said, our next meeting is scheduled for June 9th at 10:00 a.m. Same time, same place. And I will see you all then. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Have a good day.