Morning. Sorry about that. Good morning. I'd like to call to order the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement special magistrate hearing from Monday, March 9th, 2026 at 10 a.m. My name is Erikica Aello. I am the appointed special magistrate to hear
today's cases. I am a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida Bar and board certified in city, county, and local government law. I have been appointed to this position in accordance with the authorities set forth in chapter 162 Florida statutes and the city of St. Pete Beach's code of
ordinances. I am not an employee of the city of St. Pete Beach and I do not represent the city here today. 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 on 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 so under oath. In all cases, since the city has the burden of proof, the city will present its case first. Then the respondant will 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 provided with a copy. So, please ensure that I have your
current address and email address. Additionally, you are 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 to affirm to
tell the truth. Therefore, at this time, I will swear in any witnesses. Anyone wishing to speak today, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> So sworn. All right. Are there any
changes to the agenda today? >> Good morning, Madam Special Master Street. Pete Dor, code enforcement manager for the city of St. Pete Beach. There are two changes to the agenda. cases continued 3E 2025 01 0.
We would like that case continued to April. That would be April >> 13th. I believe it is >> 13th and case on the new cases 8 I'm sorry on
the lean cases 8A 2025 0711 continue to April 13th as well. And madame special magistrate we have a a request. Would you please accept our agenda packet into the record?
Um, so first, yes, I will uh for the record, case 3E will be continued to April 13th at 10 a.m. as well as case 8A. Um, at this time, I'm not going to accept the entire packet into the record for all cases as there may be some objections
from council on specific cases. Um, but I will do so uh as composite exhibits per case. >> Very good. Thank you, ma'am. >> All right. If there are no other changes to the agenda here today, then we will move on to case 3A 20230606, City of St. Pete Beach versus Mark Brick
and Lynn Broadick. >> Good morning, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. Uh this is a status hearing for uh case number 20230606. Um the uh property owner was uh trying to apply for a variance to keep the
structure. I did speak with uh Brandon Barry, one of our planning and zoning officials. uh they're still working with getting his paperwork the the additional documents that they needed. So, we're just asking that this be continued to April as well. >> Okay. >> Is anyone here on behalf of the property
owner, Mr. or Mrs. Brick? >> Okay. >> Good morning. So, I would just echo what he was saying. We met last um week. It was March 3rd with the planning department with the city of St. Pete Beach. So, yes, we're still in the process of getting um the variance
application fully completed. They requested a few additional details including um another survey that he's recently requested and a little bit more um information on as to the structure and the modifications so that they have everything fully needed for their packet.
>> Okay. And so, Miss Moore, there's no um objection to continuing the hearing until April 13th. >> No objection. >> Okay. So, this uh that will be continued until April 13th at 10 a.m. I will go ahead and send you an order with that information on it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Moore. Have a good day.
>> All right, moving on to item 3B, case number 20250079, City of St. Pete Beach versus Pette Bosella. >> Good morning, Madam Magistrate. Steven Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Uh this is a status hearing for the after uh the fact permits for
the uh mini splits that were installed at 1706. Mhm. >> I have been in uh contact um with Miss Miss Bosella. Uh she did submit the permits. They haven't been issued yet because she has to go through the historic board. So, we would ask that this also be continued until uh the
April hearing. >> Okay. >> And uh for the record, um there was an order that was attached for continuence, the first order. The second one didn't go into it. Uh if I get the overhead, I do have a copy of the last order. >> Okay.
Same thing. >> All right. So, I will go ahead and continue this until the April 13. Well, let's first is Miss Bosella here. Did you want to say anything, Miss Bosella? >> Hi, everybody. You're >> welcome. >> Okay. So, I will go ahead and continue
this one until the April 13th hearing as well. And Miss Bosella, I'm going to get an amended final administrative order that will bump those dates out so that you guys will have that information. Thank you. >> All right, moving on to 3C. Uh, case number 20240563,
City of St. Pete Beach versus Dolphin Watch 3 LLC. >> Good morning, Special Master Code Enforcement Officer Lucy Knight. Um, I would like to have this case continue. We have sent amended notice of
violation >> continued to >> continue to April >> to the April 13th hearing day. >> Okay. Um All right. Is there anyone here on behalf of Dolphin Watch 3 LLC? >> Yes. Good morning, Luke Laro on behalf of
>> Dolphin Watch 3 LLC. And uh I had been exchanging some emails with folks in permitting. I also brought a copy. Apparently, there is some belief that the the mini splits in this case were brought in after the hurricanes. Um, I
did find an invoice going back to August 30th of 2024, and I can go ahead and enter that into the record. I'm not going to disagree with the continuence. I think there are some matters that still need to be resolved, but I was under the impression that the permits had been applied for and that they had been issued and that everything related
to this case had all been worked out. So, if that's what we still need to do, I'm happy to do that. But I think that just want to make sure that there's proof that this whole issue was created before any of the hurricanes had passed through. Um, just again, just for the
record, Helen is September 24th of 2024. Uh, Milton is October 9th of 2024. So, this is August. So, clearly this predates the hurricanes. And I don't think that there's anything related to hurricane damage or any issues related to that. So I want to be able to clarify
that. Okay. >> But I I consent to the continuence and I appreciate the opportunity to get this cleared up the best we can. >> Okay. Uh does the city have any response to what Mr. Laro has presented as far as the invoices on the mini splits um from August of 2024?
>> Could we have a copy of it, please? The >> I do and I I I've got copies for I've give I'll leave a copy for the clerk and if I can approach Mr. Of course. >> Thank you. Appreciate it, sir. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. >> No, we don't have any. Okay. Okay. I
will um tentatively I I I guess because we're not hearing any evidence today just for purposes of the city. You will have copies of the um the invoicing. I'm not going to be accepting them into evidence because there's been no case presented by the city. Since there is no
um there's consent to the continuence, I will continue this matter until the April 13th 10 a.m. hearing. Um and at that time, Mr. Laro, if you'd like to go ahead and reenter that into evidence if this case continues, then I will accept. So, I will accept that at the time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, moving right along. April 13th is going to be a very busy day. >> Moving on to agenda item 3D, case number 20250731, City of St. Pete Beach versus Dolphin Watch 2 LLC. >> Good morning, Madam Magistrate. Steam River on behalf of the city of St. Pete
Beach code enforcement and PowerPoint, please. >> Case number 20240563. Uh, the respondent is Dolphin Watch should say 2 LLC. Oh, I'm sorry. This is the wrong case.
Apologize. There we go. Case number 2025 0731. Respondent is Dolphin Watch 2 LLC. Violation address is 1405 Golf Way. Violation description properties in violation of section 20.03
permitted principal uses and structures of the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 1212025. Irreparable and irreversible notice of violation dated and mailed certified 121205.
Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 1212025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 1405 Golfway. This is the Airbnb advertisement. So, here are the reviews. Uh, the ones
in green are the ones that were permitted. Uh, the property is in an area where they do allow three short-term rentals within a 12-month uh, period. So, you can see August of 25 stayed a few nights. September of 25 stayed a few nights. Another one in September stayed a few nights. Then we
have November of 25 stayed a few nights. Now, if you look at the date, the bottom uh right corner, 1219, it showed uh another November 25 stayed a few night, I'm sorry, stayed with kids, and then two weeks from that was uh stayed with a
pet. The property is permitted to have three short-term rentals within a 12-month period, and all following rentals must be monthly. Property is not eligible to be rented shortterm until December of 2026. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $1,000 per violation
for the three reviews totaling $3,000 plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. I do have a copy of the Airbnb review policy. Okay, I will go ahead and accept that and the PowerPoint
into evidence. U Mr. Rivera. So, the three green ones I'll say stayed a few nights. You said those are all permissible because they occurred in the the in a 12-month period. There were three in a 12-month period. >> Yes, ma'am. >> The one in the two in November and the one that was posted that says two weeks
ago. >> So, >> from the date 1219. So, I understand it was two weeks prior to 1219. >> Correct. >> Which would put it at the beginning of December or >> end of November, beginning of December. Correct.
>> So, it's the city's contention that all three of these occurred in November >> within that November, early December time frame. Correct. >> Okay. Which then would put them all underneath a 30-day time frame >> to our belief? Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Anyone here on behalf of Dolphin Watch 2 LLC? Mr. Laro? >> Yes. I'm here and uh I provided a copy of a motion to dismiss to my colleagues and I would hoping to address some of these
issues coherently if I could. I've got a copy for the clerk, but I don't know if you still have that or would you like another copy? >> If I may have another copy. >> Okay. If I may go and uh since I'm going to go through
this a little bit, I'd like to go ahead and present that to you so you can follow through. Absolutely. Thank you. >> The uh the first issue that we brought up here was the fact that the property in question has been owned since I think
2003. And in prior cases, what we did is we went through the actual adoption process where the short-term rental ordinance was first adopted. Um, candidly, we went
to circuit court, but because most of the entities in that case owned the property after the ordinance was adopted, there was really no way to challenge that because no one had the right to challenge the notice, which we felt was inappropriate as far as the
adoption. Now, I know that that sometimes might be questionable as far as being able to rule on that, but we went through this whole process. And I remember this specifically because we went and we made a public records request of the city. The city didn't have any of these documents anymore. So,
we went to the library uh in St. Petersburg where they actually keep all of the records from the then St. Petersburg Times. Um it was difficult because everything was backwards and upside down from the way that they kept the microf fish. So we had to try to go
through it pop, you know, the the whole way we could. But I know that certainly this body's well familiar with the fact that in order to adopt any kind of a restriction on the use of the property, it has to comply with 166.041. And
there's I laid it out in the motion all of the different requirements that need to be addressed for that. And unfortunately the uh the city didn't do any of those things properly. If you look at uh subsection uh two tab number excuse me tab number
three is the actual section that goes into the the basis of the violation and it goes back to ordinance number 2016-9 which created that section. But that if you look at the ordinance itself, that
predicates all of the short-term rental ordinances. So it goes back to the very first short-term rental ordinances. All of the other ordinances have been amendments to that ordinance. So basically our position is that this is an amendment to a nullity. Um tab number
five is dealing with the issues as far as what was provided to us in our public records request. And I think that that's what our our qualified code enforcement officers already presented. But if you look at the rest of this tab number six is the warranty deed to show that this
property was was basically purchased by this entity back in October 31st of 2003. And then we go back to the very first ordinance that talks about the short-term rental. So ordinance 200418, if you turn to the last page, you can
see that and They talk about the different readings here. These readings according to the statutes have to be predicated on notice in the paper. There's a notice and opportunity to be heard in chap in in uh section 166.041.
And we went through that and what we found was that if you look at tab number eight, um that's the legal notice. I know it looks a little rough, but that was the best we could get from the microfich. The statutory requirements are that these be a quarter page, that
there be a description of exactly the property within the city of St. Pete Beach that would be affected. And quite honestly, there's nothing in this particular notice that complies with any of those requirements. In fact, if you look if you look at the one to the
right, which is not the St. Pete Beach notice, that one is much more in compliance with the statute. So, these all would go in the legal section of the paper and it gives the locations and all the rest of that. The legal notice on the left should look more like the legal notice on the right, but it does not.
Um, if you look at the next page, we blew that up and it talks about the different ordinances. And the very first one there is 2004-18, which talks about the changes that it would make. So, if there's a change in the permitted use of the property, it
needs to comply with the statutory requirements for the adoption of the ordinance. And with all due respect, this simply does not. Uh, the next agenda item that we have is in tab number nine, and they go through all of the different uh the reading of this,
and quite honestly, there's no reference there as to any of the other agenda items. They didn't properly identify either that this was being confirmed by the local planning agency and there's no reference there as to the requirement
that the notices were published properly. So, we included number nine as sort of the minutes from that hearing back in August of 2004. Uh it it's signed by the mayor, but there's nothing there that shows that it complied with the ordinance. Tab number 10 is again
more of the agenda report. And uh this talks about the motion to approve. They adopted the ordinance on that date and moved it on for the next reading. The next reading we have is August 24th of 2004. That's at tab number 11. And
basically in this tab, it again talks about this ordinance. The problem is is that there is no notice of the uh August 24th. when you look at the uh the notice and I think if you go back to tab number 13 uh again
there's another small and this one's dated July 31st of 2004. There's a very small uh legal thing and we've got that one on the very last page of page number one. Uh this goes back to 2004-17.
So the problem is is that excuse me with these notices uh there isn't even a second notice that has been included. Nothing was published in the paper to provide anyone notice of how this ordinance was adopted. And I think that
in the motion that I filed I I cite all of the case law. Candidly there's a statute of limitations that applies to challenging these adoption processes. However, if you own the property at a point in time where you would have been
entitled to receive notice and then action is taken by the municipality to enforce an ordinance that was improperly adopted, you can raise those adoption procedures or the the absence of compliance with the statutes on an asapplied basis. And I think I've
included most of the case law that deals with that. So from our perspective, if you go back to the very beginning of time, so to speak, in 2004 when this ordinance was adopted, and it's again, it's 2004-18,
it's our respectful position that the requirements to adopt a valid ordinance were simply not met. And I think that on my motion, if you look at page four, it talks about all the requirements. We actually excerpted those components from the statutes that talk about what you
have to do to get it done, the notice of type change, and we adopted the entire thing. Um, page six summarizes what I just provided in paragraph number 18. Uh, there's no record the ordinance was ever noticed for hearing on October 10th, and there's the only notice for
October 10th was for a different ordinance, and then there's no notice for the October 24th hearing either. So, no mention of any document emanating from the first public hearing. Um, from our perspective, this property having been purchased by this owner prior to
the adoption of this ordinance, it's our position that the ordinance is null and void. Um, more critically, the information that's been used to try to establish the violations, and I know that you have the, you know, the the
circled dates on these different rental periods. Um, it's our position that the social media that's used is all hearsay. And I know that I got a copy from the Florida Bar. I'll go ahead and present that if I may. Try not to knock that
out. coffee. >> That's my highlight. >> Thank you. >> So, basically, in order to establish any proof of of the alleged violations here, the code enforcement inspectors get on
the internet and try to see exactly what the I guess the the the responses are to the people that may have stayed there. I would respectfully submit that this is hearsay. Um, this goes into great depth that there's no
way to authenticate anything on social media postings. And the problem is is that the evidence that's been presented is being used to prove the the truth of the matter asserted. That the truth would be that based on this internet
research, there's some evidence that of the six entries that were there, three of them may have complied. three of them apparently have not um quote I stayed for a few days things of that nature um just from the outset I don't know that
those those generic references to a period of time really confirm that anybody stayed there for any specific period of time but the overarching argument is that all of these internet postings without some way to authenticate this regardless of what the policies are of Airbnb or anything of
that nature that that this is just absolute inadmissible hearsay and and quite honestly we think that the two basic arguments here is one that the ordinance that's being used as the predicate to establish these violations was never properly adopted. So I think
that's it's null and void abonio but from a evidentiary standpoint dealing with what was presented today that all of those internet postings that have been relied on to try to I guess circumstantially establish that there was some period of time less than 30
days. It's our position that those are just hearsay and I'm I I hope that I haven't gone too fast through this. I know there's a lot here. I'd like to go ahead and make sure that I can provide a copy of this to the clerk, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> I don't have anything at this time, Mr. Laro, but I might have a few questions after the city um has a response. Any
response from the city? >> Is this on? >> Okay. Um, so your honor, um, I have not been I don't recall receiving a copy of this, so I would be asking for the opportunity to respond. Um, clearly it
is a, uh, reasoned illegal position and I would be like to have the same opportunity to present the city's counter views. Um, initially my first reaction would be that I am not certain that um, your honor that you have the
ability to make a decision on the enforcability of an actual ordinance. Um, and I would be researching that issue and also of course the u the issue on the statute of limitations. I think the city we probably will have a
contrary view to that. Um so again my request would be that you provide us with a limited period of time and we'll respond to the legal arguments that have been raised today. Um and the same would be true regarding the um representation
concerning social media. I do know that in the quasi judicial hearings before um a magistrate, the formal rules of evidence uh generally do not apply and in some instances hearsay is admissible
as as evidence uh to um to show that a violation has occurred. So um at this time that would be the city's response. we would just be requesting the opportunity to address the legal arguments that um that have been raised
at this hearing. >> Okay. Any response to that, Mr. Laro? >> I I had circulated this earlier, but I've never wanted to deprive my colleagues of the ability to review and respond to whatever I've submitted. Uh just been not to rebut anything that's
been said. I I I would agree to the requested continuence. Um, the only followup I would have is that I know that when it comes to quasi judicial hearings, the rules of evidence are somewhat relaxed, but there still needs to be something other than the hearsay
to support any decision that there's been a violation. And since that's all we have, then I would respectfully submit that that remains a very strong argument on our part. But I certainly look forward to working with my colleague and whatever we can do to try to get this resolved, I'm more than
happy to comply with any request on the part of the city. >> Okay. So, I do agree with um Miss Suprick that I would like to have um a briefing done on this, but I'm going to do it a little bit differently. Mr. Mr. Laro, there was
an argument from the city that the city doesn't believe that I have the jurisdiction to hear the as applied challenge for the ordinance. So, if you could please first before the city responds to your motion to dismiss um give me briefing on my ability to hear the as applied challenge. Um in addition
to I know you've asserted that hearsay is not acceptable at a quasi judicial hearing such as this. Um but provide me some case law that supports that contention that hearsay is not as not a viable means to enter evidence for a quasi judicial hearing based on compet substantial evidence. So, two things
jurisdiction and your hearsay argument. Um, would 10 days be sufficient to get me that briefing? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, 10 days from today, my order will likely get out today. It'll be the first order I draft. So, um, 10 days from today, in response to that, I'd
like to see Miss Suburick respond to not only the jurisdictional argument, the hearsay argument, but also um, the as applied argument in the motion to dismiss. >> Yes. >> Um, >> yes. And also what whatever I submit certainly share with my esteemed colleague the research that you've requested.
>> Perfect. Thank you. Um and so within 10 days you'll email me and circulate that to Miss Miss Dubick and then how how would 10 days be sufficient to respond? I know the motion dismisses a little bit. >> Could we go for 15 >> 15 days? >> Any objection to that, Mr. Luro?
>> No. No objection. >> That would still be that we would be able to continue this item. That would be our request uh to the next year. >> The April 13th area. Yes, it >> that should give you sufficient amount of time. Um 10 days from today puts us
at March 199th 19th 15 days after that puts us h see this I don't do math. >> 24th >> 19th one two and uh if I may I'm going to provide the
clerk with the the notebook exact same notebook I gave >> the notebook. >> Yes. Would you like to keep that one and I'll just give this one to the clerk? >> Yes, that would be great. >> There you go. >> So, that actually puts us at April 3rd. April 3rd is technically a holiday. So,
and then so maybe uh April 6th. >> Yes. Okay. Very good. >> So, April 6th and then the hearing will be continued until April 13th. >> Very good. >> And I will get an order that details all of that. Um
>> not trying to shorten the city's time to reply, but 15 is 24. >> No, 15th from the deadline for Mr. Laro to get me. >> Mr. Lo, >> Mr. Lo has 10 days from today's date. >> So from here >> and then Miss Subarick would have 15 days after that.
>> Thank you. >> So that she can respond to the arguments Mr. Lo has. >> All right. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I will get you both in order to effect. Thank you. >> All right, we've already dispensed with case 3E.
Moving on to new cases. Uh, case 5A 20250705, City of St. Pete Beach versus Mark Loya. >> Morning, Madam Mag. S Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. PowerPoint, please. Thank you. Case
number 20250705. Respondent is Mark Loya. Violation address is 2782 West Vina Delmare Boulevard. Violation description property is in violation of section 463313.
Give me one second here. I think I might have skipped one of the slides. Nope. I got um I apologize for that. Um, properties in violation of section 463313 enumeration 98.654 unsightly
condition 9866A B and 20 residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 1028 2025. Notice of violation dated and
mailed certified 11:28 2025. Notice of violation compliance date was 125205. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 127 2026. Following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This
is the affidavit of posting at 2782 West Vina Delmare Boulevard. So this is a picture. There's if you look on the side closest to the house, there's some overgrown weeds. Um there's some overgrown weeds throughout the yard. There's some palm frrons that are
scattered about. This is another angle. Uh this is from the driveway side looking north. You can see there's uh looks like it was a pile of branches at one point that may have been stacked there. And some more overgrown weed overgrown
weeds and some dead branches. It's a picture of the unregistered truck and boat trailer that's on the property. There's the uh registration sticker shows expired four of 25. Picture of the boat trailer. This one shows six of 16.
Corrective action. Property must cut the overgrown weeds vegetation, register or remove the unregistered truck and boat trailer, and clean up the branches and fronds. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 per day from the date of your order, plus $330
administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Mark Loya? Is Mr. Lawyer here? Or anyone here on behalf of Mr. Loya? Mr. River, have you had any contact with
the property owner? >> No, ma'am. Um, looking back on some of the history for some code cases on the property. Um, we can see that there's been violations before. Uh, he doesn't seem to be interested in correcting violations. We still have open code
cases. From what we can see, there has been no correction on other code cases for different uh issues. Um, I wasn't even sure if somebody was living in the house or not, but the mail was getting picked up. The trash cans were being brought back in. So, appears somebody's living there, but I have not heard from him.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. Then I am going to find that there is a violation of the stated code sections. I might allow for 14 days from the date of my order for the property owner to come into compliance both with the vehicle, boat, trailer, and the
uh vegetation and palm frrons on the property. Um, and then if he doesn't come into compliance, we will see him back on April 13th. >> Thank you, ma'am. All right, moving on to 5B. Case number 20250218, City of St. Pete Beach versus Robert
Putnham II. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Stephen Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. This is case number 20250218. Respondent is Robert N. Putnham.
Violation address is 1404 Pasigrow Way. Violation description properties in violation of section 46334A enumeration 9864A general maintenance 98651
A B 3 and 4 unsightly conditions 9866A B 7 8 and 14 residential commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Beach case summary. Initial inspection was 411
2025. Notice of violation dated mailed certified was 415 2025. Notice of violation compliance date was 429 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 211 2026.
The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 1401 pass away. This is a picture of the rear of the structure. Uh appears to be a porch that has collapsed from hurricane damage.
Another side of the porch that's collapsed. Uh for the record, the pictures that are taken here where it's seeing the back side of the house, there is a uh rightway in between. uh utility easement, if you will. Um, so that's where I was grabbing the the photos
from. Again, pictures of the rear porch that's collapsed. Can you tell me, Mr. Rivera, on that last picture, is that an an out outside door that would have gone to the elevated porch structure had that been >> It appears to be like a rear door that
would have gone to that the elevated porch. Um like a deck, if you will. Uh I can't confirm that. I have not been inside the home, >> but it does appear to be an exterior door to access the roof area there. >> And it's not otherwise blocked off from the outside angle that you can see.
>> No, ma'am. So, the property is substantially damaged. This is a copy of the substantial damage letter that was sent to the property owner. Um, the property is estimated to be 100% substantially damaged. There is some guidelines if you
look um where it's numbered down toward the bottom. Um, and this would be part of my corrective action is the guidelines that are stated in the letter here. This is the second half of the letter giving them all the other options that they have if they can't follow the
guidelines that were first listed. And this is from the building official. You can see he signed it at the bottom. Luke Curtis. So to corrective action, property must follow the guidelines as outlined in the substantial damage letter dated zero, I'm sorry, one two of 2025. The property
is not compliant. The recommended fine is $250 a day from the date of your order plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. >> Is there a ver is there a seventh guideline? The appeal process, please.
>> There is an appeal process as well. Um, and I believe that was in it's in that letter. Um, and there is options for the home homeowner. The property is designated as historic. So, they are able to there's some wiggle room as far as getting around some of the guidelines
that are on there. Um, I did speak with uh Mr. Putnham. Um, there was some other issues that were on the property. He did address those issues. There was an unregistered car. There was storm debris. Um, he was trying to figure out what he wanted to do with the the home itself. At some point, the house went up
for sale and there was no further communication with Mr. Putman at that time. Um, and we decided to move forward and bring bring it forward to the magistrate. >> Do you know if the house is currently for sale or >> there is a for sale sign in front of the house still? So, uh, there is an MS MLS
listing. I did see online. Um, but yeah, like I said, everything else like we were working toward compliance. I know he's an older gentleman. We were working toward compliance and then he said, "I'm just going to list the house." I said, "Okay." And then there was no further communication after that. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ever. >> Thank you. >> Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Robert
Putnham? Okay. Okay, if you could please come up, state your name and how your uh affiliation with Mr. Putnham. >> Thank you everyone. And um your honor, I Melinda Pletcher. I am actually the real estate agent u representing Mr. Putnham
>> and I've got a power of attorney. >> Okay, perfect. >> File for me to speak on his behalf today. So, um, this is one of those things where, you know, going through Helena and Melton, you know, if you were over
80, had medical issues, or, you know, were out of state, you know, you were just so disconnected. And I think that in this situation in particular, we're dealing with some elderly, and I really appreciate you taking the time because now you know what I'm talking about. Um
it was when I um stepped in, I didn't realize he was in code enforcement. However, my team, my pictures on the MLS are way better than those. But we went in and we personally and with my assistant and gentlemen, uh we cleaned
up the yard without disturbing the landscaping pattern and being disrespectful to their the property owner. We cleaned it up. We sacked everything. We got it really looking great and in fact um we rented the largest U-Haul you can get and stuffed
it to the brim and it was in really bad condition just so I could actually take pictures. This wasn't because I knew there was a code enforcement. Uh however then we were noticing on the garage, you know, some other things and we just like cleaned it up and took, you know, took
care of it. Uh, this home, we haven't had a lot of market activity because there's been so many homes on the market. And this one, I've gotten a bid to get a demo on it, but it's not in the best interest of the community to demo. It'd be number 31 of of all of our
historic homes. I mean, this home was built in 1937. It's over 2400 2,300 square feet under roof. that's creates a lot of opportunity for livability to um be able to fix it up and get the variance um for the historic board for
historic preservation. And this house is a great prime example of that being the best end use for the community as well as um well for the community. And so, you know, we can knock it down and we can sell it as a dirt, but then we lose. And right now, I've got three
folks that are interested in purchasing the property. two would be knocking it down, one would be going for the variance to FEMA to to the variance to FEMA through the certified local government status with um our historic board. So, he's owned the home for over
50 years now and he's so displaced. He and his wife and she's an ampute. I mean, he's soul caregiver for her. They struggle. They've been living in different Airbnbs like every 3 weeks moving during this entire process. And
so there hasn't been a lot of communication. There hasn't been a lot of engagement because he's still trying to figure it out and he was trusting me to be able to sell the house. And I'm not a that big of a a slacker on real estate. I I kind of do a good job. So, you know, if I can't sell this house,
you know, there's a problem. So, right now, we're in March Madness, you know, in real estate. I've got three really strong buyers. If we delay this until April, that's kind of tight as far as knowing the direction it's going to go. I'm hoping um the one buyer will step up
that's going to retain the structure. Um however, if we were bumped to since I know April's like really booked, I would like to maybe bump it to June just to give us that wiggle room based on the fact that, you know, our clients are elderly, you know, and they've gone
through a lot. I mean, they lost their home, all their possessions, they've living off of Airbnbs, and they've got disabilities, and we're trying hard. We're trying really hard. >> Okay.
I appreciate that very much. Thank you. Um, any response from the city on that? >> Um, so two things and and I I appreciate that she's trying to find somebody that wants to preserve the house. One of the concerns we have, I know one of the building, the deputy building official,
um, Mr. Green went out. Um, it is considered an unsafe structure. Um, not that I, you know, we want it torn down. My concern is that with that door that you were asking about, it's not blocked off. It's not marked off. If they're showing the house and someone doesn't know that that Porsche is damaged, my concern is a public safety thing where
somebody falls off of there. So, that's uh, one just to bring it, you know, concern that we have. Maybe they can rope it off. Um the other thing too is maybe send us something in good faith that they have potential buyers for the property so that we you know showing us
we are moving forward. The reason why we're here was lack of communication. Um and and again I they addressed I I spoke to Mr. Putnham. He did tell me my wife is an ampute I believe uh dialysis. They were doing dialysis or something also
over in Tampa. Um so he did what he could with the time frame and I had no issue working with him. He was showing me progress. he was meeting timelines that he said. Again, my concern now is the property is for sale. If we get another storm, I mean, we're we're rapidly approaching the next storm
season. The house has some some damage now if it doesn't sell. Uh or if there someone looking at the property and this thing was to completely come down, somebody getting hurt or even worse, dying is a concern. >> Understood. >> Answer those questions for you.
>> Yeah, if you could just so we can get it on the record. >> Points. No one is stepping foot inside the home. No, no one. Um, and so when they walk the property, I have, you know, I got the zoning verification letter from
Brandon from our planning department. They know what their elective redevelopment is. I showed them the process to go through the variance to FEMA through the um historic board. So, but not one person is stepping foot. I don't even have a key to the house. Okay? So, no one will be stepping foot.
And I agree that that porch is bad. Um, however, it's part of the structure of the historic structure. It wasn't an add-on back in the 70s. It was part of the original historic structure. So therefore, for me, you can't see it from
the street. You can only see it from those angles from where it says no parking and no one's allowed on that easement uh to the south of it. So, it's not like impacted. This wasn't a neighbor complaint. This wasn't a
opportunistic buyer complaint, you know. It was strictly, you know, everybody trying to do the best they can, not understanding the circumstances of not getting their mail, not being on property. I mean, even for them to come over on property has been a hardship, you know, and their mail is not it's not
coming there. I mean, they're not staying in the home. >> So, let me ask you this. If if I would say let's continue this until June to see what happens and flushes out with the the three potential buyers because my understanding is there's no contract. There's no intent to purchase contract or anything like that at this time.
>> Well, and again, it's one of those situations where we could have it under contract before today, but we were hoping that we would have a little bit of time so we weren't having to take advantage of some opportunistic buyers given the fact that they all know it's under code enforcement right now. >> Okay. Um, and so that's hurting my
client as far as financial aid to what he can purchase after we get the clip. >> Well, and that was going to be my next question. If nobody decides that they're going to actually go under contract or somehow the purchase contract falls through or they're doing a notice of intent and their due diligence, they find that they're not going to do it,
etc., etc. What happens in June if we come back and are you are you going to ask for more time? Are we just going to say we're gonna my property owner is prepared to contend with the property to fix it to abate it to do what needs to be done?
>> I personally will and so I've you know I've thought of that as the option as well. I just thought if we bump it to April, it looks like you got to be April, busy April. Yes. >> But it also doesn't allow us to take advantage of this seasonal buying, you know, uh so if I have a twoe contingency
or 30-day content, uh close that puts us pretty close to the April um 13th date. And so if I had a little bit more wiggle room after that, then I think that we can be a little bit more, you know, genuine when we're negotiating the the perfect buyer for the house as far as
the terms. >> Okay. All right. Anything else from the city? >> Um conferring with code. Um I it doesn't sound as um I mean code really would like to bring this house back whether
it's um you know renovated or unfortunately if it ends up being demolished. What I've understood from um our code team is that they're really just looking for movement. Um I don't think that they are opposed to the June
date, but if there were some interim benchmarks um perhaps with a status hearing just to show that things are going along. The other concern that um I believe code has is the condition of the building and the uh if someone were to
go into the property. I know what your testimony was, but would it be possible for you to post a sign just basically saying no unauthorized entry? Um, >> absolutely. I'll do whatever you guys feel comfortable with me doing. I just
know that I don't even have a key and the house is locked up and you know, no one's going in. I have asked to go in. I said no. you have those curiosity people out there that sometimes will venture into um homes like this,
especially since it's historic, wanting to see if there's, you know, molding and, you know, the historic architecture. Um so, your honor, I think that we would we would ask that if you could order um just the posting
voluntarily. Okay. Um, no. Unauthorized, meaning you and your team um or the property owners would be authorized to go in >> 100%. And where would you like me posting that? >> Um, I think as visible as possible to
avoid any type of liability to the property owner as well as we don't want any of our residents >> No, that sounds very reasonable. Thank you. >> So, I can't order that if you're asking for it to be voluntary. So, I I I think there's Yeah, I think there's an agreement. I actually don't think I have
the authority to do so, but you do. I mean, you it sounds like you have an agreement that that is going to happen. Um, I would suggest maybe just getting with code enforcement to see if there's an appropriate place to have it something figure something out. Like I said, there's more of a safety concern, right?
>> I appreciate the historic value of the house. Um, I'm more concerned about public safety and people you don't let anybody in. Doesn't mean another real estate agent doesn't come by and say, "Hey, let's walk around the back and see the water view." and that thing comes crashing down. So, that's the concerns that I have with the porch and that's my
main concern is the porch. >> So, um I am going to um kind of compromise a little bit. I know you wanted until June. I think the city is right in saying that because of the lack of communication, I don't think that will be an issue now with you, but how about we set a status hearing for the
May hearing, which I believe is on May 3rd. >> April's looking a little heavy. May 4th. Okay, that's perfect. >> And and if I may, um I think what code is is looking for is some type of movement towards coming into compliance, whether that be renovation with a new
purchaser or unfortunately possibly the demolition. Um going to the historic board, making sure that you know, I don't know when their hearings are. You have to get on their agenda and that can take time, but we would like to see some type of movement,
>> right? And and I think that that was what we were trying to do, registering the car, cleaning up the property, that kind of thing. If we go, you know, fortunately, I think I was chairman of the historic preservation board for six years, so I kind of understand the processes and I am a little bit sympathetic to wanting to work with the
buyer who's going to go through that process as well. Um, unfortunately, uh, and I think May seems very reasonable that would get us >> and at least. So, what I'll go ahead and do is I am going to find that the property is in violation because it's very clear from the evidence it is in violation of the
>> MLS pictures are so much more. >> I'm sure they also show that the porch is in violation of the city's >> We didn't take that angle. We took the pretty angle. >> I'm sure. Um, so I am going to find it's in violation, but I'm not going to assess any fees, any fines. I'm not going to impose any strict deadlines. I
am just going to set a status hearing for May 4th. I will put in my order that there's an open line of communication if there's any movement on any purchasers, etc. Um, and I am also going to put in my order that there needs to be a good faith effort made in order to advance the property coming into compliance by
whatever means are necessary. And I'm not that clever on this stuff, you guys, but um does that put a U restriction on the property that would inhibit somebody from being able to feel comfortable
moving forward with every any direction? So, are they going to be in a time limit? So, I'm adding >> No, I'm not application. >> No, there's no time limits being imposed as of this order. So, there will be no deadlines imposed, no time frames imposed. That's why we're going to come back in May. If there's progress being
made, a contract or at least negotiations, something of that nature, there's a good faith basis to move it forward, then we'll I'll consider it at that time. Right now, there's no fines being run, there's no leans, there's nothing on the property. Um, that doesn't mean in May or if we have to
come back again that there's not going to be other uh restrictions placed on the property. Right now, I believe the city is just trying to get compliance like with Miss Sup, what she said is with by whatever means are necessary. Hopefully it is. We come back in May, you've got a buyer who wants to restore
the property, and then there will likely be an active code case, but it will take into account who the owner is, what they're looking to do, and the city will work with you, and I of course will accept any credible testimony that it's coming into compliance. Okay, sounds good. If it's stagnant and nothing is
happening on it happening on it, then there will be strict deadlines being imposed. >> No, because I'll have to disclose that to potential buyers that we have an active code enforcement violation in place, >> right? >> That we need I I mean I'm just technically right. There's technically a
violation, right? There's technically a violation, but there's no deadlines being imposed as of right now for compliance. Okay. Okay. Um because the city wants to work with the property owner and any future owners to bring the property into compliance. >> Okay. >> And the important thing is there's no
lean as you just heard. >> No lean, no fines, nothing of that nature. >> No, I'm just wondering how it's going to be interpreted and you know as far as the opportunistic buyers and you know, but it's that'll be I you guys I appreciate it. I know you've been kind.
Thank you. >> Yeah. I can't say there's no violation because it's very obvious that there is a violation and in the event that there's a need for the city to move forward, it's my job to just take in the evidence and I >> I have to find what I have to find. >> Madam Special, >> so and make sure I have your email
address so I can send you a copy of the order so you have the details on what's in there and that way you can share with the property owner. >> Perfect. >> Special man, um there could be a correction. Miss Mrs. Botkin, please tell us the May special magistrate date. Is it 11th or the 4th?
Please. >> The one day I didn't bring the folder. >> I think I think it's 11 >> and my parallegal took it out of my notebook, so I don't have the dates on there either. >> So if it is the second Monday, it would be the >> the 11th, right? I don't see any
holidays. 11th. It is the 11th. Okay. So it will be May 11th then. Okay, I'm good on that. All right. All right. So, the status hearing will be set for May 11th. >> Thank you. >> All right. And moving on to the next
case, 5C. Case number 20260093, City of St. Pete Beach versus Reynold Schro Levitus. Yeah. Mhm. >> Reynold Levcitus and Suzanne Shroba.
>> Good morning. Special master night. >> This is case number 20260093. Respondent Renault Leveus and Suzanne Strober. Violation address 102 Leo Drive. Violation description. The property is in violation of section
4633. Section two and three immumeration 9865 number four unsightly conditions 9866 346 and E residential and commercial
property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection 212 2026. Notice of violation dated and mailed certified. 21326.
Notice of violation compliance 220 26. Notice of hearing dated and posted on property. 22326. This is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidate of posting on that date.
This is the outdoor storage area where it's a lot of lawn equipment and metal. Now, the outdoor storage of the front outdoor storage still more stuff once he moved the truck so you can see it clear.
Uh the machinery corrective action property needs to remove machinery, outdoor storage and metal and yard. Property is not in compliance. Recommended fine is 250 per
day from the date of your order plus 330 administrative cost and any recording fees that may be associated with it. uh this property is now in compliance and the city would like a finding of fact because of previous violations issued and just asked for administrative
costs. >> Okay. What date did the property come into compliance if you know? uh February 26. And I have pictures. That's one.
They are now in compliance. Perfect. Okay. Um anyone here on behalf of Mr. Levectus or Ms. Shroba. Anyone here on behalf of the property owners? Okay. I am going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code section but came into
compliance on February 26, 2026. I am not going to assess any admin any fines, but I will assess the $330 in administrative costs of the city and I will get an order out to that effect. Moving on to case 5D. Case
number 202501, City of St. P Beach versus Beach House 78 LLC. >> Good morning, Special M Street. Aayaka Ruckshell representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is case 2025 0591. The respondent
is Beach House 78th LLC. The violation address is 310 78th Avenue. Violation description, the property is in violation of sections 4633 1 A, B, C, and 3.
enumeration and 9866 AM 20 and 22 A B2 of the residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. The case summary, initial inspection was
on 8:25 of 2025. Notice of violation was dated and male certified on uh September 2nd, 2025. The notice of violation was returned on 9:26 2025 and the notice of hearing
dated and posted on the property 22 of 2026. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. Um, this is the affidavit of posting on February 2nd at the property address 31078th Avenue.
Um, this is on August 25th. The initial overgrown vegetation, as you can see on the property, different angles of the overgrown vegetation on August 25th. Then on December 17th, there it appeared to be like an attempt to clean up the
property. As you can see, little trimmer However, there was debris still that was on the property and this area in particular is completely still overgrown around the trees.
So, I went back again in January 28th and the overgrowth is continues. It has returned. See the grass on the side there and the tree which is the issue is even gotten worse.
So the corrective action is the property needs to be maintained. The trees trimmed and kept tidy. The property is not compliance. A recommended fine is $250 per day from the date of your order plus $330 in administrative costs and any recording fees that may be
associated with this case. That concludes my presentation. >> Okay. And you said that the notice was returned. >> An issue was returned. However, this notice of hearing has not been returned. >> Okay. That was my next question. Thank you. >> All right. Is there anyone here on
behalf of Beach House 78 LLC? Seeing no one, have you had any communication with any representative of the property owner? >> No. None whatsoever. >> Okay. Um, I will find that the property is in
violation of the state of code sections. The property owner shall have 14 days from the date of my order in order to come into compliance and we will be back here on April 13th to determine if there are any fines or fees to be assessed. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. There are no other
cases to be heard as the lean reduction cases continue to April 13th and our next meeting is scheduled for April 13th. Anything else we need to discuss? >> No ma'am. >> Great. I will see you all then. >> Thank you ma'am.