for the special magistrate code enforcement meeting of Monday, October 6th, 2025. Hello, my name is Erica Aello and 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 in 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. 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 re 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 comment 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. And 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 duced to writing and all parties will be provided with the copy. So, please ensure that we have your current address or 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 subjected 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 anyone else's. Anyone wishing to speak today, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. So, sworn. Do we have any changes today to today's agenda? Good morning uh madame special man street Pete Dor code enforcement manager for the city of St. Beach case number 2025
0504 which is the lean reduction case on page number four 7A is continued to December 6th. Okay. Would you I'm sorry. December 8th.
December 8th. Would you like an order of continuence on that? Yes, please ma'am. Okay, that one will be considered to the December 8th hearing. Any other changes to the agenda? No, ma'am. Okay, in that case, we'll move on to agenda item 3A. Case number 202500H
versus Annie Nwen and Jimmy Trong. Good morning, special magistrate. I shell representing the city of St. Pete Beach. This is a continued case number 2025006-9 uh at the property address of 2055th
Avenue. Your um order back on August 18th gave him a 30-day extension to come into compliance um to seek a permit for the disrepair of their structure and the overgrown property. Uh upon inspection on October
3rd, last Friday, there was the frontage of the property does look like it's tidied up. However, the rear is um still has a lot of debris and definitely the structure has no
repair done. There's no permit in the system either. Could I have the overhead, please? So this is some of the debris on the side of the property. The structure in the rear. I don't know if you can see that the
total the roof in the back is totally collapsed in. Sandbags in the window missing. There's the roof completely collapsed through. You said that's in the rear of the yard. Yes,
the rear of the home. Well, you can see it from the front as well, but this the windows view it better from the back. You were able to re to view this from the front of the property? Yes. Did you receive the property owner's consent to go into the rear of the property to take these? gate was open on
the side where you can see the debris. It's been damaged and collapsed and it's wide open. And my question to you still remains, did you receive the consent of the property owner into in to be able to go into the rear of the property? It was in California. So, um, so the answer to that question is no.
You did not have consent of the property owner to enter into the rear of the property. No, but your testimony is you can see the collapse of the roof from the front of the property. Absolutely. Okay. front there. Just for purposes of the record, I am not going to be considering any evidence
that was taken from the rear of the property as there was no consent given by the property owner in order to enter into the property. But I will accept the testimony that you could see that from the front of the property and then the uh condition of the property from the front of the property for those
photographs that were taken. Right. So, the like I said, the landscape in the front appears to be um tidied up. However, the structure is in still in disrepair and there's no permits in the system. Okay. And have you had any contact with the property owners?
Um as of last month when they asked for the 30-day extension, that was the only No, nothing. Okay. And you said that there has been no permit that's been applied for. Okay. There's been no permit. All right. Anything else? No. So, we'd be asking for fines from the date of your order to come to
compliance that was given of September 18th. So, fines beginning September 19th plus administrative costs. And what is the amount of the admin costs? $330. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
Anyone here on behalf of the property owner? Um, Miss Newin or Mr. Trong, anyone here on behalf of 2055th Avenue in St. Pete Beach? No one. Okay.
All right. Based on the um evidence from the front of the property and my order that was dated October or excuse me, August 25th, 2025, I am going to find that the property is still in violation of the stated code sections. I am going
to issue a fine in the amount of $250 a day from um September 19th uh until the property comes into compliance. It is the responsibility of the property owner to notify the city when the property comes into compliance. I will also award the
$330 in reasonable administrative costs and the costs to record uh the order if any are necessary. Okay. Moving on to agenda item 3B. Case number 20250426.
City of St. Pete Beach versus Marilyn Rhymar. I have correct shell representing uh code enforcement city of St. Pete Beach case 20250426 Rimar at 5404 Paliway um upon inspection
on October 3rd. They had um they have acquired in a permit for the repairs that they were seeking and erected a huge construction fence around the property. So, I was only able to see between the gaps that the
landscape has been trimmed back, I guess, in preparation for their construction. So, that's all been trimmed back. So, we'd only be seeking uh no fines because it is come into compliance and only administrative costs of $330.
Okay. Um, anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Miss Marilyn Rhyar? Anyone on behalf of Miss Rhymar? 5404 Paliway. Okay. Seeing no one. Um, I will find that the property is has come into compliance is and is in compliance with
my previous order. I am not going to assess any fines. I will assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. Moving on to agenda item 3C, case number 20250394, city of St. Pete Beach versus Martin
Mara. So, Ayaka Rockell representing the city of St. Pete Beach coast uh case 20250394 Mara at 682 Gulf Winds. Um, all that these uh people had to do was remove the
debris that was and you gave them until September 23rd to do so. And upon inspection on October 3rd, the debris was still visible from the front. There's the huge pile in the back.
Also, the debris right there. So, the city will be asking for $250 a day fines as of September 24th plus $330 in administrative costs.
Anyone here on behalf of um Mr. Mara Martin Mara? Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Mara? 6802 Golf Winds Drive. Have you had any discussions with the property owner at all? None with the property owner. Doesn't
mean there's nothing. No contact. Okay. Um I am going to find that the property still remains non-compliant with both the city code sections and my previous order. I will assess $250 a day starting on 924 2025 until the property comes into compliance. It is the
property owner's responsibility to notify the city when the property comes into compliance. I will assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city as well as any recording costs if a lean recording is necessary. Moving on to agenda item three, madam special master.
Yes. Sorry um for the interruption. Could you include in that order that they notify code enforcement specifically as well, please? Every single one of my orders says it's their responsibility to notify code enforcement for inspection. So, I will make sure that that's included. It says the city. Thanks.
This was the city. Okay. I can put specifically the code enforcement department. That's fine. Yes. And I will I can change all the orders to reflect code enforcement if that's what the city prefers. Okay. Um Okay. Moving on to agenda item 3D. Case number 20240193.
City of St. Pete Beach versus Brightwater Beach Condo Association. I rush representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. uh code case 20240193 Brightwater Beach condo. This is quite a simple one. All was needed was to obtain
a permit for the fence erected around the dumpster enclosure. They had originally erected a fence um during the previous hurricanes to the d to the two that we uh suffered from.
That fence got destroyed. They replaced the fence again. Then the two hurricanes struck and they've now replaced the fence for a third time. So that's with the vinyl fence, right? Yes. Vinyl fence right here. And there's no permit in the system as of
103. Okay. So they have they've failed to apply for a permit at all. Yes. And your orders had no date to comply with. So we could ask for fines from the date of from the special magistrate date whenever you can get the order out plus
administrative costs. I have I don't think I have that they were supposed to comply in the final administrative order by Monday, September 15th, 2025. September 15th.
Yeah. They had 60 days from the date of this order or by Monday, September 15th. Okay. Secure after the fact permits for the garbage enclosure and the fence. So September 16th then. Okay. Um Okay. Anyone here on behalf of Brightwater Beach Condo Association?
Anyone here on behalf of Brightwater Beach Condo Association located on 55th Avenue? Have you had any discussions with the property owner or the condo board? No, there's been no discussion, no reach out, no contact. Okay, great. And I recall speaking, the
property manager and the contractor, I believe, were here last time when I did my order. Okay. All right. Um, I am going to find that the property is not in compliance with the stated code sections, nor my previous administrative order. I am going to assess a fine of $250 a day
from September 16th, 2025 until the property comes into compliance. It is the property owner's responsibility to notify code enforcement uh when the property comes into compliance. I am going to assess the reasonable administrative cost to the city which I believe you said $330.
Yes. $330 as well as any cost to record any necessary orders to affect a lean on the property. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to case number 3E. Case number 20250220. City of St. Pete Beach versus uh Mr.
Starkis. Good morning, Madam Magistrate. Ste Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. Case number 20250220. This is a status hearing for permits for repairs of the structure. Uh there's no permit applications been made. It was a
60-day extension you gave the property owner. Um there's no permit application. No permits been issued. So we're asking for fines to begin on 916. Uh $250 a day plus the 330 administrative costs and recording fees.
Have you had any conversations with Mr. Starkus at all? No, ma'am. Okay. All right. Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Starkus or is Mr. Starkus here? So, uh uh yes. Uh so that my house it's it's really huge and it was damaged
completely. Roof, siding, uh water came through all walls and uh windows, doors. So uh uh there is no water uh AC is not working mold everywhere and uh last time uh when I was here so uh I explained that uh I'm working with insurance
trying to finalize with them but uh they not cooperating practically uh last time when I called them 10 days ago. Uh so they before they already had some kind of a jester who's going to look into the case. I called many times he said he's
going to look later later later. Now last conversation was that they removed that uh adjuster. Now they in two months they going to uh have another one they said like that. So it looks like they just hiding from responsibility and uh last time when I was here so how I
remember we extended time for me to have to deal with with insurance and uh uh we agreed that I will come after the time and we will see how insurance is doing. So situation is like that they are not cooperating and uh uh
so so I don't know if uh if it is possible somehow to I don't know give them notice or something or or you can't do that to so I will tell you that I don't have the power to to compel your insurance company to do anything. I wish that I
did because I would. Um, but I did, my order did say that I would give you 60 days to work towards trying to come into compliance and it sounds like you are trying to work with the insurance company. As you as you stand here today, you said the insurance company is assigning a new adjuster to this. Um, do
you have any idea how long it's going to be until they make some sort of determination? Because we obviously we're coming up on over about a year since the last two hurricanes. I know. And uh yeah, I I have no answer because last conversation 10 days ago, they said in
about 2 months they going to have another adjuster again. But it doesn't look serious because they had a gesture already. I asked why you why you removed him. They said, "Oh, every time we we changing something comes up, something comes out." And so
I do not understand how they are operating. And uh well and you kind of are in between a rock and a hard place because I understand that you're waiting on the insurance. However, the property remains in in a state of disrepair. I know you're not happy about it, but also it's not in compliance with the city's code.
So I my concern is if I give you another 60 days and that's just when they assign another adjuster, the property is going to continue to remain in the status it is. You're not happy about that. The city's not happy about that. Um I I the only solution I have I have two I have
two options at this point. I can continue it again to see about the adjuster being assigned and you can make greater efforts and and I I can't tell you what to do but you know reaching out to an attorney, reaching out to a public adjuster. These are some of the things I understand other citizens in different
communities are doing. I can't tell you to do those things. I'm my concern is if I p push it out another 60 days, we'll be back here in 60 days. you'll be telling me the same thing. Um, but I also don't want to necessarily tag you with the $250 a day additional cost
when you are trying to make efforts to get the property into compliance. Can you tell me is there anything that you can do without the insurance to bring the property into compliance? I can uh there is uh you know I have mortgage on it. It's it's huge mortgage
but uh uh now to rebuild that house to do all those uh remodelings probably it cost more than than build new one. Mhm. So is there any way uh just to demo that house for now? And uh that's something that would I will tell
you demoing it would certainly bring you into compliance with the code enforcement case. However, I I you know, you got to go through the building department to see what that what that plan looks like and if that's something that you want to do. So, if that is an option for you, then what
I might say is let's continue this for another 60 days. Um, when is the December 6 is the next it would be the madam December 8th. Okay. Can we do it till the next uh next
month and just see where we're at statuswise? Maybe we'll get something different and then instead of taking 60 days, the only reason I'm suggesting 60 days is because that will give Mr. Starkus enough time to either apply for a demo permit, talk to contractors or work it
out with his insurance company. I don't want him to go to the extreme. I just don't want to be here in 30 days and then we're having this conversation and we're pushing it out again. But I mean it's like from my side I uh like question is can I do that demo because uh having uh
mortgage on it I mean mortgage company will yeah you'll have to talk to your mortgage company about that too right because I don't have that information and I can't advise the city but I suggest that they probably don't want to tell you that information either because they may not have that. I mean it's it is legal if I will get
permit and do demo of the house. So like you have that like 2.5 million mortgage on it. So So then let's why don't we do this then? I I I can certainly accommodate both. What we'll do is we'll continue this until the November 10th code enforcement
hearing. That will give you time to reach out to your mortgage company to find out if you can with their permission demo the property. You can look at contractors to see if that's feasible and then get with the city on what the demo permit looks like. It'll also give you a little time to reach out to your insurance company to maybe light
a fire underneath them or, you know, find an attorney or somebody something to get them to get moving. Okay. Um, so we will continue this case until November 10th at 10:00 a.m. And then just I put the same thing in
this order as I did the last one, which is going to be just that you're continuing to work good faith efforts to bring the property into compliance. Okay. and then I will get that order to you. So, November 10th at 10 a.m. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Good luck to you.
All right. Moving on to agenda item 3F, case number 20250185, City of St. Pete Beach versus Robert Rolman. Good morning, Madam Magistrate. See Rivera again, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Uh this was a status hearing to bring the property into
compliance at 401 Golf Way. Um the property is compliant with the order. Do have some photos here. So, if you remember from the PowerPoint, these windows were all boarded up. It's got the hole in the wall covered
for the time being. Door has been repaired. The fence was removed. Sidewalk's been cleaned off. So, the property is in compliance. The city's not asking for any fines. We're just asking for the $330 administrative cost.
And uh that' be it. Okay. Is Mr. Rman here or anyone here on behalf of Mr. Rman? you'll please state your name for the record. No, it's fine. Uh once again, I appreciate the cooperation that I have
gotten from code enforcement have worked uh with us. I've had some medical issues and they've been very helpful. Uh so I would like to compliment them. I I don't know if they get many of them. I don't believe that they do. So I'm sure that they appreciate that. They they've been very very helpful.
Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Rman. And then um if there's nothing else from the city, I will find that the property is in compliance with the stated code sections in my order. I am not going to assess any fines. I will assess the $330 in administrative costs of the city.
Thank you. Okay, moving on to agenda item 3G. Case number 20250312, City of St. Pete Beach versus Sunold LLC. Are we taking 3GH and I together? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Um, so I also will be taking case
number 20250417 and 20250418. So this was a uh this is a status hearing uh to comply with the order to clean the property up. The property is compliant.
Some pictures here. Grass has been cut. the uh repair to the fence post that was falling over. See all the vegetation's been cut back from the sidewalk. And then this is another spot in the fence that was repaired. Uh the city's
not seeking any fines, just the $330 administrative costs. Are you seeking the $330 on each of the three cases or a single $330 for the uh deposit three cases? Go for all three cases. It's three separate case. Well, no, it
was presented as one case. It was presented. Yeah, let's let's do it as one. So 330 for the three cases total. Correct. Okay. Is anyone here on behalf of Sunold LLC? I don't see Mr. Lo in the audience. Spoke to him uh via email this morning. He was not going to be able to make it.
I told him what I was seeking. Uh, no fines, just the administrative cost and he was okay with that. Okay. As far I haven't checked email since, but yes. Okay, great. Um, then I will find that the properties the property is in compliance for all three code cases. I'm not going to assess any fines. I will
assess a single amount of $330 for administrative costs, which will be for all three cases as we've consolidated them. There will be a single order on that and I will send the copy of that to Mr. Laro. Okay, moving on to agenda item 3J 20250420
city of St. Pete Beach versus Kenneth Hutman. Morning, Madam Magistrator. Steer again on behalf of the city of St. P Beach code enforcement. This was a status hearing for 2893 West Delmare. The uh grass was cut.
You can see overhead, please. The grass was cut. There's still some damage to the uh fence wall. Another section picture showing a vegetation cut sections of fence wall falling over. I'm sorry, not fence wall, the retaining wall.
So the uh vegetation violations have all been addressed. Uh the only thing that wasn't addressed was the retaining wall. So the city is asking uh for 250 a day starting 9:17 day after the uh compliance safety order plus the 3:30
administrative calls. Okay. Um is Mr. Hutman here or anyone here on behalf of Mr. Hutman? Anyone here on behalf of 2893 West Vina Delmare Boulevard? Have you had any conversations with Mr.
Hutman? Uh, no. I spoke to his wife once. There was some confusion between this property and a couple other properties they had in the city. She said she'd get back to me with a game plan and I never heard back. Okay.
Okay. I am going to find that the property is still in violation of my state of the state of code sections and my order for failure to retain the retaining wall. I am going to issue $250 day fine beginning on September 17th, 2025. I'm sorry.
Uh 9 93. Your order was 92. I was looking at the wrong date. Okay. My apologies. Um then $250 a day beginning on 93 2025 and running until the property comes into compliance. The respondent is responsible for notifying city's code
enforcement uh when the property comes into compliance. I will assess the $330 in reasonable administrative fines as well as any recording costs associated with recording a lean on this property. Moving on to agenda item 3K. Case number 20250341.
City of St. Pete Beach versus Scott Shaming and Lisa Shaming. Shamming. Steve Rivera. City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This was a status hearing for a driveway permit. Uh they were given four weeks to apply for the driveway permit, secure a permit. Um
there is no permit application has been made. Uh I did speak to the property owner. I don't know the exact day, but it was last week. Um he called to see if the contractor had applied. I just told him that there was no application made. Said he was going to make effort to try to get it and I haven't heard from him
since. Okay. Okay. And I think the last time he was here, he was saying that they put mulch in. Yes. So they they pulled up the concrete. I don't know what the game plan was with it, and it wasn't a violation until they started to park on it, right? And then it became a violation.
Okay. And so as of today, you haven't heard back from the property owner with regard to last week contractor. Yeah. Last week was last conversation and as of this morning, there was no permit application or a permit in the system for a driveway. Okay. and he had said that he would have
that in the next two to three weeks that it would be installed. If I recall his testimony correctly, the order, I believe, said four weeks to uh obtain the permit, right? Um bringing us to 916. So, we're asking 917, $250 a day plus admin.
Okay. All right. Is Mr. Shaming Shamming here? Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Shamming? I don't see him here. Anyone here on behalf of 2817 pass the grillway? Okay. I am going to find that the property is in violation of state of
code sections in my previous order. I am going to issue a fine of $250 a day beginning on September 17th, 2025. Running until the property comes into compliance. The property owner is responsible for notifying code enforcement when the property comes into
compliance. I am also going to assess the 330 days and reasonable reasonable administrative costs of the city and any recording fees that are necessary to affect a lean on this property. Thank you. Moving on to agenda item 3L, case number 20250299,
city of St. Pete Beach versus Bevette Simon. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20250299. Respondent is Babette Simon. Address.
Violation address is 305 Golf Way. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 98123.1 permits required of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was
5152025. Notice of violation dated and mailed certified 523 2025. Notice of violation compliance date was 616 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property on 7:30 2025.
The following is a true and accurate representation of what I've witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 305 Golf Way. It's a Google image of what the previous garage doors look like. If you see the arrows I've pointed up there, previous
garage doors had door handles on them. This picture shows the doors are different color. The door handles aren't there. Pattern on the door is actually different. So, a little bit closer of a shot. There was a permit that was uh opened
for AC repair. uh it was abandoned at some point. So, we sent them notice for them requesting that they reinstate the uh permit. Corrective action. Property must obtain an after the fact permit for the garage doors and reinstate the AC permit.
Property is compliant. They did obtain their permit for the garage doors and AC repair. Recommended fine is $330 administrative cost only and any recording fees that may be associated with this property. And that concludes my presentation.
Okay. So, they initially had um received so they didn't comply by the time the initial of the notice of violation, which would have been June 16th for that. And then we we continued it last time because I believe Mr. Simmons usually comes with missing.
They were sick. Uh as far as I know, they were they weren't well, couldn't make it. So, we continue. So, this is a continued case just being presented for the first time today. Right. Okay. And so they com they didn't comply with the initial notice of violation, but they did comply prior to the case being presented to them. Yes, ma'am. Okay.
Okay. Is there anyone here on behalf of Miss Simon? Did you talk to Miss Simon or Mr. Simmons at all? I Mr. Simmons, I believe, had sent in an email, you know, stating that they had gotten the permit and didn't feel like he should was questioning why he had to come in. Okay.
By this point, though, it was already on the agenda, so we couldn't take it off, right? Um, but they they did obtain a permit. And as far as the AC permit goes, the initial one that should have automatically been extended with the executive order after the storms, right? I didn't catch that until after it was presented as evidence uh for the
hearing. Okay. But they do have an AC permit and they do have the um garage door permits. Okay. Perfect. All right. Well, then I am going to find that the property is in compliance with the state of code sections. I am not going to associate any type of fines. I will assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs
of the city. Okay, moving on to our new cases. 4 A case number 202500002, City of St. Pete Beach versus Marilyn Nolan Revokable Living Trust and Marilyn Mol Nolan as the trustee. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach
code enforcement. This is case number 2025002. Respondents, Marilyn L. Nolan, revocable trust. Marilyn L. Nolan trustee. Violation address is 103 1st Avenue. Violation description. The property is
in violation of 46331 enumeration 9866AB 22A B 1 and 3 residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 718
2025. Notice of violation dated 718 2025. Notice of violation compliance date was 892025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 8/19 2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed.
This is the affidavit of posting at 103 first a. This is pictures of the overgrown vegetation on the first stab and pass grow corner. Picture of the overgrown vegetation in the alleyway.
See overgrown grass and weeds on the property. It's a follow-up photo showing the uh sea grapes and palm frrons or the palms taken over. Another follow-up photo. It's hard to see it, but that's actually
a uh chair sitting in the grass there. It's kind of how tall it got. If you look to the uh just to the top right, corrective action, property must cut and maintain the grass and weeds and trim back the trees. This change, I didn't get a chance to update this. The
property is compliant. Um so the city is not seeking any fines, just the $330 administrative cost. I do have photos to show that they are in compliance. These pictures were taken yesterday. So, this is a picture of the back of the property.
This is over in that general section here is where that chair was at. Another angle from the alleyway side there. And then there's a picture of the uh palms in the alleyway that's been cut back.
So the property is compliant and again we're not seeking any fines, just the administrative costs. Okay. Thank you. Is anyone here on behalf of the Marilyn Mullen Nolan revocable trust with Marilyn Nolan as trustee?
I spoke to her this morning. She was here. She had uh something that she had to take care of. I I did tell her that we weren't because she she's been working to try to get property back into compliance. Okay. So, I did speak with her um and told her that we were not going to be seeking any fines, just the administrative costs,
and she understood. Okay, perfect. All right. Um then I am going to find that the property is in is in compliance with the stated code sections. I'm not going to assess any fines. I will assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. Thank you. Right, moving on to agenda
item 4B. Case number 2025038, City of St. Pete Beach versus Passag Girl Beach Condo Phase 1 Association, Inc. Steven Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. This is case number 2025038.
Respondent is Pasigil Beach Condo Phase 1 Association Incorporated. Violation address is 709 Golf Way. The property is in viol violation of section 44.5
A 1 2 B 1 2 3 four five and six oh six and seven standards for existing beachfront lighting of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was
83205. Notice of violation dated and mailed certified 852025. Notice of violation compliance date 812 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property. 8:25 2025.
Following is a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 709 Golfway. Picture's a little blurry, but you can see the lights, uh, the TVs that are on and the lights on the building.
Kind of circled it here, exactly what I'm looking at. So, there's some, uh, wall lighting and the TVs and some interior lighting there that's showing through. This is on August 17th. This is a follow-up inspection. The TVs are still
lit. There's still some uh light bleeding through from the inside. Corrective action. Property must turn off, shield, or replace the light bulbs to be turtle light compliant and turn off or shield the televisions between the dates of May 1st through October
31st. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day starting 1011 2025 until compliant plus $330 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And this concludes my
presentation. I do have it. I know I added in there. So, uh they have addressed some of the lighting um but there's still lights from the interior that are bleeding through. Uh, but the TVs were my last inspection which was on Monday. I believe it was
last I'm sorry, last Tuesday. I'm trying to find a photo here. It's stuck on something else. Um, but it does show that they were uh the outside lighting had been addressed. It was just interior lighting that was bleeding through the u the windows there. I apologize. I don't
don't have that photo with me. Okay. And then my question is the interior lighting that's still the issue. Since the turtle lighting requirements only exist until October 31st, November 1st, can they have the the internal lights bleeding through until May of
next year? So from October 31st till May 1st, yes, the TVs can be back on season. Yeah, we're no longer in turtle season at that point. I know it's uh kind of late in the season, but we still have a couple of nests on on the beach currently. Um I think I saw two, maybe three when I
was working yesterday. So Okay. Um it's there's still that that uh I'm trying to figure out dates for purposes of my order because So, and I and I we did the compliance date by this Saturday. Um I don't know if that makes a difference. You'll try
to give them time to comply between now and then. They did show some progress. So hopefully maybe we can get five days for them to like tint their windows or Yeah. Or or even put some kind of covering over it. I mean if if they put some kind of, you know, paper or banner or something just to block it. There's
two windows that the light was. Now that all the out the outside violations have been addressed, it's it's showing through that much stronger. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Rivera. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner? Pas Beach Condo Phase One Association, Inc.
Anyone here on behalf of Pasig Girl Beach Condo Association or Phase 1 Association, Inc. 709 Gulf Way? Mr. V, did you have an opportunity to speak to the property owner at all or any representative of the property owner? I know our admin had spoken to someone.
They said they were going to address the lights. Um, I know they were aware. I did speak to No, it wasn't that property. No. So, I didn't personally speak to anyone. Uh, I know there was correspondence, text messages, emails. Um, and clearly they addressed the TVs and they addressed the light bulbs look
like they were changed with turtle friendly lighting. Okay. Um, so as far as the outside seating area that I don't see a vi my last inspection does not show a violation. Okay. Um, I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code section specific to the interior
light bleeding out. Um, I am going to allow 14 days from the date of my order, which will still be before October 31st, um, for the property to come into compliance. Um, and then we will be back here at the November code hearing, which
I believe is scheduled for November 10th. November 10th, um, for a status check to determine if they are in compliance by the 14th of 14 days. And if not, then we'll look at assessing any codes or fines at that
time. Okay. Okay. Moving on to agenda item 4 Case number 20250489, City of St. Pete Beach versus Mark Cobburn and Deborah Coburn. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Stephen
Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20250489. Respondents are Mark Cobburn and Deborah Coburn. Violation address is 1803 Passigil Way. Violation description, the
property is in violation of section 9866 A, B, 5, and E, residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 721
2025. Notice of violation dated and milled certified on 7:22 2025. Notice of violation compliance date was 812025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 828 2025.
The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 1803 Pasigrow Way. This is a picture of the boarded up garage door. This a picture of the outdoor storage. Another photo here. Follow photo of the
out of the uh ported up garage door. Same with the outdoor storage. This was on the day of posting. It looks like the uh cover had blown off of the uh wood that's there. Corrective action. Property must remove the boards over the garage and remove
the material stored in public view. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day beginning 1011 2025 plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated. Uh I do have some follow-up photos. Um
the outdoor storage has been addressed so it's no longer a violation. The overhead please. So this is where those boards were stored at. However, the garage door is still boarded up
and this was as of yesterday and that concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Is uh anyone here on behalf of Mark Coburn or Deborah Coburn or Okay, if you could please come up and state your name um for the record.
Mark Coburn. Deborah Coburn. Okay. Okay. Um basically, uh we received mail through a PO box in St. Pete Beach and you know that was closed
for a long time because of the hurricane. So then they had the temporary PE my temporary PO box was across the way um in St. Pete and that closed at 5. So I could never get there before 5 to get my
mail. So I didn't get I didn't even get the notice till after it was already almost expired, you know, as far as the time that he had allowed me. And um so the minute I got the notice
there was a one of the things was no no um street numbers which I went ahead and I did that almost the next day after I got the notice. I put the the street numbers on even though we haven't had street numbers for 28 years. You know I guess
it was emergency so I I put them on that you know the next day. Um, and then as far as the wood storage, um, that wood came out of the garage and the garage was totally flooded, you know,
with like 2 ft of water. So, um, we some people from the church came and helped me get that out and we put it there because it was a hard surface and it was good lumber. I didn't want to um have the lumber get ruined. So, I put it in
the most logical place, which was on the corner of my driveway and, you know, covered up with some tarps. And I had every intention of moving it, but um my garage was still in disrepair, and I I
wanted to clean out the garage real well before I put it back in there. Um, the only other alternative would have been to place it on the grass in in the backyard, which would kill the grass and probably ruin the lumber. So,
I I put it there. It was way over on the corner and it was covered up. Um, but anyway, um, and it's heavy. So, I mean, I I did I did start to move it. In fact, when he
posted his violation on the, you know, when he stapled that on the door, I'd already put the numbers on and I'd already started moving that wood, but um you know this some of that wood
is very heavy and I but my wife and I finally we did move it to the back. But um as far as Okay, now that so you know, as far as the garage door goes, um
that was totally caved in by the by the hurricane and the flood water and um we didn't Okay, so I so I did board that up and it's I I thought it was very tastefully
done. I mean, obviously, it's not what we would want there, but um for the time being, I boarded it up just to scare the property. And um we had since then, we had applied for the elevate the home program.
And we were waiting to see if we were going to be accepted for that. And if we would have put a new garage door on, they just would have had to demolish the garage the new garage door if if we were going to elevate the home. So So we
and that took months to find out. I mean, we just But anyway, um, so that was the reason we didn't put a new garage door on. And also if if we if we weren't going to be accepted for the elevate the home program, we were
thinking about remodeling the house and and doing waiting on the garage door till we painted and and done certain things so the garage door wouldn't be ruined by the remodeling process. So, um, we had
every intention of putting a new garage door on one way or another, but it just didn't fit into the schedule as far as when we could do it. account. Um I did come in here
um after I got the the notification. Okay. When you have a PO box, they just leave a slip that you have to then go to the post office um counter and get your certified letter. So when I when I was
able to get that after 5, um, of course the post office was closed, so I didn't get a chance to get in there and get the certified letter in a timely fashion. So um,
so anyway, we've we've since we found out recently that we haven't been accepted on the Elevate the Home program. That was kind of ambiguous at first and we didn't realize but we weren't. So,
so we were faced with either going ahead with the remodeling plans or we were even thinking about tearing down the house and building new. In either case, it would have been foolish to put a new garage door on. So, I offered to paint
it to put some trim on it to make it look nice. Um but anyway, um we we did we did since get a a permit to put a garage door on
and we were going to do that next week. Uh what's that? Um, your honor, here's the application or a screenshot of the application for the Elevate Florida.
And here is the application page one and page two. email with code enforcement that was sent on the 18th and a response from Mr. Rivera on the 19th. We're kind of outlined uh what my husband just said
about the the problems with um the Elevate Florida and and trying to figure out what we were going to do and asking to delay cancel the this hearing until we had a little clarity on what was going on with the elevator floor program and which way we were going to proceed.
Um and he said unfortunately we would have to um attend the hearing. So without any leeway being given for this hearing, uh we've contracted for a new garage door and the permits
applied for on the 26th, I believe, and was issued on the first. Okay. And if you want, I mean, I did I did write an email to Jennifer um kind of explaining all this and I I
can read that for you if you want me. If if you want to submit that into the record, you're welcome to do so. It's it's your evidence to submit. Okay. Um Okay. This is what I sent to Jennifer. I said, um, thank you for meeting with me today.
But what's that? Rather than reading through the whole thing, you want us to just put it into evidence? You can put it under Yeah, you can put it into evidence instead of reading it. And then we would just need copies of those to go to the clerk. I just wanted to sure to say that
I was not taking this lightly and I did try in every way possible to to get it rectified but um and your honor the other the other problem that we had that was on which was I think the day before this all
started um with the inspections was on the the 20th of July my husband was traveling at 60 mph on I4 and was actually rearended while he was going 60 m an hour by another truck. So with you know the
doctors and tests and and therapies and all that um that's kind of put a little see I had I had all this written out in a letter and I came I I was going to hand deliver it to code enforcement but that happened to be during a time
when the city hall was closed because of the roof I guess right okay they told me that code enforcement was over in the library so I went over to the library and there was a little room set up for city business, but but they said code enforcement was not here. So then they
said they think it was over in the fire station. So I went over to the fire station. You got a nice little tour of the city, huh? I mean, this is all the effort I went through to try to not avoid this. And then I went to the fire station and I walked upstairs and
it was locked, of course. And I rang the bell and nobody came. So I so so then um then I I made an appointment Jenn or I stopped in and talked to Jennifer and I wrote this letter and it basically explains
everything that we've said. Okay. And this was done way way before I mean this was all done within a few days after I got the notification. So let me ask you on the timeline. So the hurricanes happened last year
September October. Um, and then you I understand the confusion afterwards with the Elevate Florida program being whatever it was. You guys applied for Elevate Florida in April and then you just recently heard back within the last week or so. Was that I think
well we I we haven't gotten any kind of a notification but if you go on the website it says application withdrawal which I assuming whether that meant that we weren't accepted because we didn't withdraw the application or anything.
It was kind of ambiguous but we did you clear that up with FDM that it was in fact was not accepted. Okay. And when did that occur? That was within couple a week or two. A week or so weeks. Yeah. Okay. And so your plans for remodeling or
demolishing, you are still entertaining those plans, I'm assuming, as of right now. Yes, we're I'm talking to an architect. Okay. And I I'm I have an emotional attachment to the house. I'd like to fix it, but like the other gentleman earlier said
sometimes at some point fix it and just Yeah. But um we went ahead and bit the bullet and we're getting a new garage. just the new. Okay. Satisfied. Okay. I I was trying to see how far you were into those plans because if you
were pretty far into them, then maybe I could, you know, help you. I mean, yeah. Well, I've already try and figure out that on the garage door. So, okay. Okay. Next week, okay. Um, anything else that you would like me to know before I make my ruling?
All right. Well, I am going to find that you are in violation of the stated code section just as it applies to the uh sound working condition and good repair of the exterior garage door. However, I am going to How long do your will it take your contractor? He's got the permit. How long will it take him to
install the garage door? Probably probably tomorrow or Wednesday. Yeah, we it depends on what their scheduling is, but since we have the permit in hand, it's just whenever they can get out, you know, when when we're able to be there. So it should be this week, next week at the latest. I would
say it'll be okay. So I will then allow in my order 14 days. That'll give you a little bit of a cushion in case something comes up in order to have the garage door installed and come into compliance with the city's code. Um I am going to set a status hearing for the November code hearing. If it's everything is well and
good, you guys won't need to come back. if for some reason the contractor couldn't make it out there, something happens, you can come back and just let me know that and we can talk about if we need to continue it to another date or or what's going to happen. Um, but you will get a copy of my order. Just make sure I've got your maybe an email
address might be easier to send it to if you guys are having if you have the PO box that way I make sure you get a copy of the order for your records. Okay. Okay. Get the garage door installed and inspected. Do we need to come back for the status hearing or what? I mean, that would be up to you. I
usually when it's a status hearing, the respondents don't usually need to show up as long as you've communicated with Mr. Rivera and understand, you know, if they're asking for administrative costs. If you have a problem with the administrative cost and you want to come argue that in front of me, you can. Um, otherwise, if you accept whatever the
city is, you know, saying just the cost, then you don't have to come. Well, in my pardon me, yarn, but in my letter, I did I did ask that we be excused from this proceeding because we basically had everything all taken care of like a month ago.
So, I mean, I I I mean, I would move that the administrative cost be forgiven in this case, but it's certainly and unfortunately the way that the statute works, I can't make that call at this hearing. This is just to figure out if there is a code violation and then
the imposition. But I will note that for the future that you have an objection to the administrative costs and then if we have to come back next week or next month. Okay. Next week. Uh then we can I I will take that in consideration if you if you're not otherwise in attendance. Okay. Thank you.
All right. Well, thank you both very much, your honor. We just need to update um code enforcement. So let let Mr. Rivera know when the garage door is installed and inspected and then that way he'll know that you guys have come into compliance. Okay. My suggestion would be let him know
before the 14 days run out on my order. That way you can comply with the order. Is it okay to notify just the code office? Okay. Okay. And like I said, it'll be 14 days from my order. I'm hoping to get those out today. Might not be until tomorrow, but I will email it to you if you have your
email address. Otherwise, I'll send it however the the mailing is. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And then we can leave this for Yes, you can leave that with uh Jenny here and she will take it for the record. Thank you very much. Okay, moving on to the next agenda item
for D. That would be case number 20250. City of St. Pete Beach versus Brandon Owens and Alexander Owens. Thank you, Madam Magistrator. Steve Rivera again, City of St. AP beach code enforcement. This is case number 20250530.
The respondent is Brandon Owens. Owens and Exali Oh, excuse me. Ex Alexandra. Yeah, I'm just all tongue tied. Alexandra Owens. Violation address is 3972 poinsetta drive. Violation description. The property is in
violation of section 9866A, B and 20, residential and commercial property maintenance and 46331A and three enumeration of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach.
Case summary. Initial inspection was 842025. Notice violation dated 827 2025. Notice violation compliance date was 94 2025. Notice of hearing date posted to the property 918 2025.
Following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 3972 Poinsetta Drive. It's a picture of the overgrown lot. It's another picture here. different angle. This is on the 26. Follow-up photo,
just a general height with the measuring tape there. Corrective action. Property must cut and maintain the grass and weeds regularly. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day beginning 1011 2025
plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. Okay. Anyone here for um Mr. Brandon Owens or Miss Alexander Owens? Or are Mr. Brandon Owens and Miss Alexander
Owens here? Anyone here on behalf of the Owens's 3972 Pointia Drive? Mr. Rivera, any contact with the property owners? Uh, no ma'am. Um, we did courtesy notice. Uh, I've received several
complaints for this property. Um, there was three properties in violation. We sent courtesy notices. Uh, two of the properties went to notice of violation and even with the posting, uh, there's been no compliance. Uh, if I may, Mr. Rivera, can I just have you confirm to you that you mailed it via certified mail to the owner's
address? Yes, ma'am. We mailed, matter of fact, the courtesy notice and notice of violation were both mailed certified. Yeah, I see that here. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. I will give uh I will find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. I am going to give seven
days from the date of my order for the property owner to come into compliance with the stated code section. If not, we will come back at the November hearing and I will look at adjudicating fines and fees at that time. Thank you.
Moving on to for E, case number 20250356, City of St. Pete Beach versus Julia Baron. Baronota Veronota. Veronica. Veronica.
I'll get it eventually if I keep repeating it. Um Ayaka Rock Shell representing the city of St. Pete Beach. This is case number 20250356. Respondent is Juliet Baron Cotado. I'm
pronouncing it that way. I don't know. Violation address 580th Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violation sections 46-331 A through C and three. Enumeration 9864A.
General maintenance 98-651 A through C three and four of unsightly conditions 98-66 A B 2 AM B 2022 AMB2
and 24 residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial inspection was June 5th, 2025. The notice of violation
was uh dated 611 2022. Also sent by certified mail. Notice of violation compliance date 6225 and the notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 9222025. This is a true and accurate description
of what I've witnessed. The affidavit of posting at 580th Avenue on September 22nd. So these are the pictures way back from June 5th showing the initial uh dead trees and overgrowth
from a distance. the debris, dead vegetation and overgrowth, a broken fence, the tree debris, the overgrowth and debris. June 5th, the home in disrepair with additional debris. Debris towards the back of the uh
property. Uh the tree debris still remain there as of September 15th. The structure is still in disrepair. September 15th with the overgrowth, broken fence September 15th
and the debris pile towards the rear of the property on September 15th again. So, the corrective action uh the property must maintain overgrown uh landscape, remove vegetative debris, and apply for either a demo or hurricane
repair permit for the structure and fence. The property is not compliant, and the recommended fine is $250 a day beginning October 9th over the date of your order, plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be
associated with this case. I have been in um discussions with the property owner several times. Um she was lost in a sense of which direction to pursue to maintain her property. I have tried to give her a little bit of
guidance and I think she's reached to the point now where she has decided that she wishes to demolish the property and she did provide me with one estimate on September 30th and I believe that is the direction that she wants to pursue.
and she is here today um to just plead her case as well. All right. Thank you so much. All right. Is Miss I'm going to say it, Baron Cotto.
Barcado. Okay. Would you like to come up and tell me what's going on? What your intentions are for the property? And I am so sorry I butchered your last name four different times. Yeah, just very confused on which way to go on the property. It's uh been a
nightmare as it has for everybody. I'm sorry. I still get emotional. Take your time. My life has been here for over 50 years on the beach. So, um I had looked into real quick um my home and I when I say Florida and I've gotten information back
from them, but the final answer only 10,000 grant and I'll probably have to raise it. Didn't realize it's substantial damage. So, the demo does look like the only way I can go. I've gotten several estimates. The most reasonable and realistic is the one I
just sent her. So, I'm going to demo. Um, I'll be getting that information together this week on a final answer and try and get the permit started. I know that's going to take time, but the house will be coming down. Okay. And so since you're gathering that information this week and I know it
takes time to you have an estimate. So, have you engaged with the contractor already? Yes. I just haven't given the final Yes. And what my kids are looking at all the information to help me with this. So, okay. Um, so how about do you believe that 30 days would be sufficient to
apply for the permit? Yes. Okay. To apply to apply. I am not going to require you to get the permit within the 30 days. At this point, I am going might be longer than ask you to get to apply for the permit in 30 days. Okay. Um, the remainder of the property, I
understand that you've cleaned up as much as you can. Definitely the yard is clean. Um, a lot of that stuff is gone. The fencing was actually my neighbors, but that's another story. I'm okay to get into that. And then the debris that was close to the house, have that has that been
remedied as well, or is that going to be part and parcel? That's going to be part of it of the demo project. That's okay. I'd like to make that part of it. Everything, the whole property is to be demolished. Everything, trees, I think everything. Everything. Resided. I think that's has to be done also. That's something that you need to
check with the city on to make sure that that is a requirement. Okay. Thank you. Um Okay. So then I will do this. I will allow third Well, does the city have anything in response? No, she's she's pursuing, you know,
a remedy, right? Okay. So, I will do 30 days from the date of my order to secure a permit. And then we will come back in on the November hearing to make sure that that's been done. If for some reason there's extenduating circumstances that hasn't happened, whatever, you can talk to me at that
time and we can figure out a course forward. Um, but if you comply and you secure a permit for demolition within the 30 days, then I will likely not need to see you back here at the November hearing. if I've applied. Okay, if you've applied, please make sure I have your email address or contact
information on the sign-in sheet so I can send you my order and then you will have a copy of that and then work with the city um just to make sure that you you know I I can't help you on that, but the city can in in the steps that you need to do to take forward to to make sure. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. And I will get that order out um like I said within the next couple of days. You've been here a long time, haven't you? I have. Yeah. Okay. All right. And we are moving to um
agenda item 4F which is case number 20250438 Presidention Fonda. Yes. Ayaka Raktoell representing city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is case number 20250438.
Respondent is presentation feronda. Violation address 536 80th Avenue. Violation description. The property is a violation of sections 22.12g. Tree removal permit required 46-332
enumeration 9864A general maintenance 98651 A through C and 4 unsightly conditions 98-66A B 22 AM B2 C 2 and 3 and 24 of
residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial inspection was July 15, 2025. Notice of violation was dated and sent by certified mail on uh
July 7th, 2025. Notice of violation compliance date was 720, 2025. And the notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 9:22 2025. This is a true and accurate description
of what I've witnessed. the affidavit of posting on September 22nd at the property address 5368th Avenue. So, the property has a large uh dead tree in the front of the property
and um substantial construction debris. Looks like a bit of a fencing on the driveway there. And a little bit closer up, you'll see more debris. This is from July 5th. There's some of the wood from the fence, I presume.
On July 5th, the vehicles appeared to be registered, so that wasn't an issue. Just a different angle of the overgrowth. These are pictures from September 15th, the updated pictures. So, the debris still remains
and the large tree still there. September 15th. Debris outside the house. September 15th. yard debris
536th Avenue 15th. The property must remove the dead tree and debris and apply for either a demo or hurricane repair permit for the structure and fence. The property is not compliant. The recommended fine is $250
per day from the from your date of this order plus $330 in administrative costs in any recording fees that may be associated with this case. I did have some updated pictures from
October 3rd. Overhead, please. So that's the exterior of the property. some other debris on their driveway. Now, the tree actually has actually been removed.
Oops. Still debris in the front yard and on the side of the house. So, the city would be asking for them to also uh apply for a tree remove post tree removal permit
which was not obtained. Okay. And the city's code requires a tree permit to remove on private property. Yes. Okay. Somewhere in my brain, a statute
came up a couple years ago that says that cities cannot require tree permits in specific situations. Chloe, do you happen to know if the city's ordinance is in compliance with the state statute with regard to tree removal permits? Not off
the top of my head. I'd have to look into that further. Um I can provide an answer for you in the form of a memo if you'd like. Okay. Um let's let's do that. Um do you would 3 days be sufficient to get me that?
Absolutely. Okay. So um I'm going to ask that the city provide me a memo whether or not their ordinance is compliant with the tree removal permitting statute, which has changed a couple of times over the last couple of years. Um and then I will issue my order based on that. But first
I would like to hear if the property owners here is um President Feronda here or anyone on behalf of Miss Feronda. Have you spoken with the property owners at all? No, there's been no correspondence.
Okay. Okay. In that case then I am going to reserve ruling on this until I receive the memo from the city. Um, as soon as I do receive that, I will go ahead and issue my order and make sure all parties receive a copy of said order.
All right. And moving on to agenda item 4G, case number 20250439, city of St. Pete Beach versus Raymond Canara and Esther Canara. Yeah, I correct shell representing the city of St. Pete Beach. This is case
number 20250439. The respondent is Raymond and Esther Canara. Violation address 9145 Golf Boulevard. Violation description. The property is in violation of sections 46-33 1 A through C.
Three, enumeration 98-651 A through C 3 and 4 of unsightly conditions. 98-66A B20 and 222 AMB2 residential and commercial property maintenance of the
code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial inspection July 1st, 2025. Notice of violation was dated and also sent by certified mail on July 7th, 2025. Notice of violation
compliance date 720, 2025. and notice of hearing dated and posted on the property September 22nd, 2025. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. The affidavit of posting on September 22nd at 9145 Golf
Boulevard. So, these were the pictures back from July 1st. Um, there is an outdoor table there stored. It's looks like a a discarded table, wooden table on the
side of the property there. Overgrowth on the side and the front yard as well. This is towards the side of the property. July 1st. Overgrown vegetation in general. July 1st, overgrown again.
Just a little closeup. On September 15th, the wood table still remains outside. Um, there was some yard improvements on September 15th. Little bit of a tidy up. The corrective action, the property must
maintain the landscape and remove the exterior table debris. The property was not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 per day beginning from the date of your order plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. I have been
in um communication and actually visited the property on October 3rd and we saw Mr. Canara doing working on his property. So there he is trying to tidy things up the debris that he was cutting back.
quite a significant project and he had removed the table at that point in time. As of this morning, he did send me further pictures of he had completed his work in progress.
So, overhead, please. The table still gone. He's cleaned up the all the debris that he caught. And there it is there. So, I would say that the property is
compliant and that we would only be seeking administrative costs at this point. $330. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, are is Raymond Canar or Esther Canara here? I believe they are.
Mr. Canar, if you could come up, please just state your name for the record and if you have anything further to add, please let me know. Yeah, this morning I got an email that said that the property was compliant. It is compliant. Okay, because I just
the PowerPoint presentation is submitted before the hearing and so that wasn't updated. But yes, Miss Retoelle did say that your property is now in compliance. Now compliance. They're not seeking any fines, but they are looking for the $330 in administrative costs for for the code enforcement prosecution. Is
there any way that I could get some kind of relief from that $330? you can just let me know what the basis of of your requesting relief is and I can certainly look at I I really thought that I any of the things that I didn't
do in time to be summoned to this event uh were because I did not understand the the the tree that was apparently a big concern. I was hoping it is still living and I was hoping that it was going to
come back and I was trying to find out what I had to cut away and what I didn't have to cut away. So I I really I I thought I was doing a better job of uh of complying, but
that's I have nothing in my defense. Okay. $330 to find out. Thank you. I I can understand. Um Okay. I am going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code sections. I am going to
Well, I am going to find that the property was in a state. It was in violation of 4633 subsections 1 and three and 9865 subsection 4. um in 9866
uh the entirety of those subsections. I'm not going to find that there were um the structure was partially destroyed or or anything under 9865 that was cited. Um I am going to find the property is in compliance. Um and I'm not going to assess the full $330. I will assess $150
of administrative costs of the city based on your testimony here today. Thank you very much. Where do I pay? Um you I believe you can go see Miss Jennifer over here. she can help you. Um, and just understand I will be submitting
a written order to that effect. So, you'll likely receive that in the mail unless you've otherwise provided your email address. So, you will get an an um an order that says that in it. It's not going to compel you to do anything, but it's just going to let you know what the resolution was. Okay? So,
you'll get something in the mail, but you won't need to do anything with it. It'll come from my office, but you will receive it. I just want to make sure that you understand you're going to get an order that's going to say everything I just told you and then you don't have to do anything with that, but I just wanted to let you know it's coming to you so when you receive it, you remember
I told you you would get an order and you don't have to worry about it. Okay, you're welcome. Okay, moving on to 4 case number 2025044. City of St. Pete Beach versus James Mori and Aaron Mori.
Hi Aqua Ruck Shield representing City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is case number 2025044. The respondents are James and Aaron Mori. Violation address 60177th Avenue. Violation description. The
property is in violations of 98-64A general maintenance 98-66 A B 20 and 22 A and B2 of residential and commercial property maintenance 98-72
C1 and two vacant buildings vacant structures and vacant or unimproved lots of the code of ordinance of city St. Beach. The case summary. The initial inspection was July 7th, 2025. Notice of violation
was dated 7th July 8th of 2025. Also sent by certified mail on that date. Notice of violation compliance date 718 2025 and the notice of hearing dated posted on the property 9:15 2025.
This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting on September 15th on the property at 60177th Avenue. It is a vacant lot. So, these initial pictures were taken on July
of 2025 showing the overgrowth. The overgrowth even um covering the fire hydrant. or you're growing up against it, different angles of the property. This is from September 13th,
growing even more. in the back September 13th overgrown vegetation. So the corrective action is the property must maintain uh the overgrown landscape. The property is not compliant.
The recommended fine is $250 per day beginning from the date of your order plus $330 administrative cost and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. I do have updated pictures if you want to even see from October 3rd.
There's been no change to the status. It is overgrown. And any contact with the property owners? All right. Is there anyone here on behalf of James or Aaron Mori or are James and Aaron Moroli in attendance
today? Anyone here on behalf of 6077th Avenue? Okay. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. I am going to allow for 7 days for the property to come into compliance and if the property does not
to compliance, we will meet again in the November code hearing to impose any fines or fees as required. All right, moving on to four I. Case number 20250486, city of St. P Beach versus Richard.
My eyes are not working. Uh, Schnackenburgg and Barbara Schnackenberg. Yes. Ayaka Rockell representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement case 20250486. Richard and Barbara Schnackenberg are
the respondents. Violation address 8040 Golf Boulevard. Violation description uh sections 46-331A and 2 of enumeration 98-66A, B 20, and 22 B2 of residential and
commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. The case summary, initial inspection, July 17th, 2025. Notice of violation was dated and sent by certified mail on July 21st, 2025.
Notice of violation compliance date 7:31 2025. The notice of hearing was dated and posted on the property 9:22 2025. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. The affidavit of posting on September 22nd at the
property 8040 Golf Boulevard. So, these are uh initial inspections from July 17th, the overgrowth. Um, and you can see the the trailer being parked there with the debris on top of it as well.
Overgrowth of the trailer. These were actually July 20th over Earth in the trailer. September 15th, the property does appear to be temp. I think they removed the trailer
as you can see, but then the overgrowth is still taken over there. The trailer is gone. Um, they did trim the very front circle, but on the sides it's still overgrown on September 15th. Still overgrown on the sides. So, the
corrective action, the property must maintain the overgrown landscape. The property is not compliant. The recommended fine is $250 per day beginning uh from the date of your order plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this
case. Um they did recently send me I took went out there on October 2nd and overhead please. So, it looks like they have trimmed everything on the side with our debris
here on the street ready for collection. So, I'm going to say the property is now compliant and uh would only be seeking admin administrative costs $330. Okay. Thank you. All right. Is Richard Schnackenburgg or
Barbara Schnackenburgg here or anyone here on behalf of the Schnackenbergs 8040 Gulf Boulevard? Okay. All right. I am going to find that the um property was in violation of the state of code sections but is now compliant. I am not going to issue any
fines. I will assess the $330 in re reasonable administrative costs of the city and we will move on. Right. Moving on to 4J. Case number 20250497, City of St. Pete Beach versus Trisha
Figgins. Hihawk Ruckchell representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is case number 20250497. The respondent is Trisha Figgins. Violation address 43479th Avenue.
Violation description. The property is in violation of sections 46-331A and B 2 3 and 12 of enumeration. 98-654 unsightly conditions 98-66A
B 20 and 22 A and B2 of residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Beach case summary. The initial inspection is July 20th, 2025. Notice of violation
dated and also sent by certified mail. July 23rd, 2025. Notice of violation compliance date August 3rd, 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property, September 22nd, 2025.
This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. the affidavit of posting on September 22nd at 43479th Avenue. So, these were the initial pictures of the overgrowth on July 20th.
Um, if you can see on the left hand side, there is actually a toilet in the front yard with a white with a white lid. Uh better picture of the toilet in the yard and a dumpster there in the driveway.
The overgrowth and debris overgrowth side. These were from September 15th. pictures. Still overgrown. Does appear like the toilet has been removed. Still overgrown.
15. So, the corrective action, the property must maintain overgrown landscape. The property is not compliant. The recommended fine is $250 per day from the date of your order, plus $330 for any administrative costs and recording fees that may be associated
with this case. I do have updated pictures from October 3rd showing that it is still overgrown. So, I haven't personally spoken with the owner, but she has corresponded with our office and um she does have a permit for repair and she wanted to focus on the
interior before focusing on the landscape. So that's her def argument for not doing anything other than removing the the toilet that was in her front yard. Okay. And the trailer that was there.
It didn't appear to be there anymore. Okay. That's what I saw from the pictures. All right. Okay. Is Miss Figgins here or anyone here on behalf of Miss Trisha Figgins? Anyone here on behalf of 43479th Avenue?
Okay. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections except for 4633 subsection 12 because it does appear that the toilet was removed and the trailer is no longer there. But
otherwise for the remainder of the subsections um I am going to allow for that that's quite overgrown. So, I'm going to allow for 14 days for the property owner to come into compliance uh with the stated code sections and then
we will have a status check in November to see if that happened and if not we will assess any fines and fees at that time. Okay, 1110. Moving on to 4K. Case number 20250495,
City of St. Pete Beach versus James Strabler. I am correct. Shell representing city of St. Pete Beach. This is case number 20250495. The respondent is James E. Strebler. Violation address 41073rd Avenue.
Violation description. Property is in violation of sections 46-331A and B 2 3 and 12 of enumeration. 98-64A general maintenance 98-654
unsightly conditions 98-66A B2022 AM B2 and C 2 and 3 of residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinances of the city of St.
Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection July 8th, 2025. Notice of violation is dated and is also sent by certified by mail on July 22nd, 2025. Notice of violation
compliance date August 1st, 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property September 22nd, 2025. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. The affidavit of posting on September
22nd at the property 41073rd Avenue. So this property is uh it's called the Kiki Motel. Um I cited the property on the east building which is the the building
on your left over here. Um the see that there's four actually four dead trees in front of the property, but it's the two to the left that I'm actually citing at this point point in time and the overgrowth uh on August 7th. Um we did have the um arborist provide
me with a letter for the that property. and I'll read it to you first. Uh the trees in front of 410 73rd Avenue are completely dead and should be removed. There are two trees on the south end of the property between the buildings. So in the rear there uh facing south, the
one on the left is completely dead and the one on the right is still alive. The one on the left should be removed as well. So that's here overhead if you want to see the email from the city arborist. Um, pictures of the dead trees from a
different angle, from a distance. July 17th, that was debris. We had that removed and taken care of. This is from July 22nd. The trees are still there.
Like I said, the debris has been removed from this date. September 15th, the debris is gone and it's still slightly overgrown. Dead trees are visible. The dead trees from September 15th. The corrective action property must
remove all dead trees in the front and the left tree on the south side to back of the property. The property is not compliant. The recommended fine is $250 per day beginning from the date of your order plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be
associated with this case. I did take updated pictures on October 3rd, but the status is pretty much the same. There's been no change. So, you want to see them dead trees. So, the overgrowth has been cleaned up, but the dead trees are still there.
Yes. That's particularly the one on the left hand side of the building, east. So, so it's the two trees in the front and then the one in the rear. Correct? Yes. Okay. And any communication with the property owner? None.
Okay. Great. Um, is James Strabler here or anyone here on behalf of Mr. Strabler? James Strabler, 41073rd Avenue, St. Pete Beach. You said this is a motel, correct?
It is Kiki Condo or something called Kiki. Okay. And there was a It looked like there was a for sale. Was that like a for sale or for a lease sign that was out front? There is. Okay. Do you know if the property is actively for sale there? The sign's posted. Okay. Yes.
So, not okay. Okay. Um I am going to find that the property is in violation of section 9866 as it pertains to number 22, the trees. It looks like the remainder of the
property has been cleaned up um and is not subjected to the other violations, but the two the three dead trees on the property are in violation of that stated code section. Um with that being said, I am going to allow for
I mean they've been given quite some time uh 14 days from the date of my order to have the trees removed and bring the property into compliance. If not, we will be back here at the November hearing in order to determine fines, fees, costs, compliance.
Okay. Okay. Moving on to agenda item case number or 4L, case number 202505, city of St. Pete Beach versus Nancy Howard and William Howard as trustees.
So, Ayaka Ruck Shell representing City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is case number 202505. Respondent is William and Nancy Howard, trustees. Violation address 44584th Avenue. Violation description properties
in violation of sections 46-33 1 A and B and 3. Enumeration 98-66A B 20 and 22 AM B2 residential and commercial property maintenance of the
code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary initial inspection on July 20th, 2025. Notice of violation was dated and also sent by certified mail on July 23rd, 2025. Notice of violation
compliance date August 3rd, 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property on September 22nd, 2025. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. The affidavit of posting on September 22nd at 44584th
Avenue. So the initial inspection on July 20th with showing the uh dead hedge, the dead hedge trees and bush out front. The dead tree overgrowth
onto the driveway. These are from July 20th and update pictures still slightly overgrown with the hedge still there. And then from September 15th, they had made some improvements. They have removed the
the dead hedge at the front, but the one on the side still remained. Um, there still have a little bit of a dead overgrowth there and the overgrowth on the side. The corrective action, the property must
maintain the landscape and remove all dead vegetation. the property is not compliant at that point. Recommended fine is $250 per day beginning uh from the date of your order plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees
that may be associated with this case. Um I have been in touch with the owner. They have actually been out in Oregon. Um it's it's a a senior lady who's living with her children out in Oregon and um they have attempted to clean up
the property at one situation but they had trouble with their landscaper and then hence it got overgrown again and ultimately I had to take it to special magistrate here. Um they do have sent some updated pictures.
They worked on it this weekend to get it done. So that is overhead, please. The final picture of it is cleaned up now. Yeah.
So, I'm going to say the property is in compliance and will not be seeking any fines, just administrative costs of 250 uh $330, sorry. Okay.
Um, is anyone here on behalf of Nancy or William Howard as trustees? If you could please come up here and state your name for the record. Okay. I don't know what you want me to say. And what's your name? Nancy Howard. Hi, Nancy. So, as you understand, uh,
Miss Rectell has let me know that your property is now in compliance. So, I'm obviously going to find that the property is in compliance. They are asking for $330 in order to, um, cover the administrative costs of the city for bringing this to code enforcement hearing. Um, if you don't have any
problems with that, then we are good here and I will get you an order that will say that. Otherwise, this is your chance to give your side of the story. And no, as far as I know, is there was one hedge on the east side belongs to our neighbor. It's not ours, but we did take out the other ones,
the ones that were yours. And now you have a landscaping company that's pretty regularly going to be maintaining it as far as you know. The landscaper we had, his house was destroyed and he's left the area. Oh. So, I know my daughter, she's in Oregon and she's having a hard time finding
somebody yard up. Okay. But you guys are doing your best to try and Okay. Well, I will let you know. It's it's important to do so obviously because if I see if this comes back before me again, then it might likely be a repeat violation and that could entail higher fines and fees. At
this point, there's not going to be any fines. There's a $330 in administrative costs and that's it. Um, but I will get you that order. Um, when whenever I make it orally, I will get you a copy of it so that you'll have it for your records. Okay. So, you're like sending me a bill
or do I pay her or you will you can talk to Jennifer and she can assist you with that today. Unfortunately, I don't I don't have any connection with that. I just I just dictate the things and then whatever happens on the outside, it's kind of a fun gig, but
um but yes, so just so you know, you will be getting something though in the mail from my office that will say that when you get it, just understand that that's what that is. Okay. Okay. All right. That's it. That's it. All right. Thank you so much. Um so I will find that the property was in violation of the state of code sections
but is now in compliance. I'm not going to issue any fines. Um, but I will issue the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. Okay. And moving on to agenda item 4 m, case number 202509,
city of St. Pete Beach versus Natalyia Rutherford. Hi, Aquaring City of St. Pete Beach. This is case number 202509. The respondent is Natalia J. Rutherford. Violation address 50279th Avenue.
Violation description. The property is in violation of sections 46-33 2 and 12 of enumeration 98-654 unsightly conditions 98-66A B and C residential commercial property
maintenance of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary, initial inspection, July 20th, 2025. Notice of violation dated and also sent by certified mail on July
23rd, 2025. Notice of violation compliance date, August 3rd, 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property, September 22nd, 2025. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. The affidavit of
posting on September 22nd at 50279th Avenue. This is the initial inspection on July 20th showing the debris in the front yard. Um there's a dumpster there. I don't know why the debris wasn't put in the
dumpster, but it was laid out in the front lawn. Uh, more construction debris here up against the house on September 15th. The pile still remained there in the
front yard of debris as well as some additional I don't know what that is. That looks like crates and to towards the left there against you know on the side of the house just construction debris the door etc up against the house on September 15th.
The corrective action the property must rem maintain or remove all debris. uh property is not compliant at this stage and recommended fine was $250 per day beginning the date of your order plus $330 administrative cost and any recording fees that may be associated
with this case. I have um updated pictures from October 3rd. So they have uh maintained the property, removed the door in the front. As you can see here by the pictures,
the debris is also been removed and left a big patch in the grass, empty space there. So, at this point in time, I am not seeking any fines, just only administrative costs
of $330. Okay. So, the property is in compliance as of today. Okay. All right. Is Miss Rutherford here or anyone here on behalf of Miss Natalyia Rutherford, 50279th Avenue? Had you had a chance to speak with Miss Rutherford at all? I not
me personally, but she has corresponded with the office and and I think she may have come in here and actually Okay. Um then I am going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code sections. However, it is now found to be in compliance. I am not
going to assess any fines on the property, but I will assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. Moving on to 4N, case number 20250484, city of St. Pete Beach versus John Scott Olsen, Jr.
Ayaka Ruckshell, representing City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is case number 20250484. The respondent is John Scott Olsen Jr. Violation address 7921 Bokea Drive. Violation description the properties and
violations in sections 46-33 1 A through C 3 3 and 13 of enumeration 98-66 A B 2022 B2 of residential and commercial property maintenance of the code or
ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary initial inspection July 20th, 2025. Notice of violation is dated and also sent by certified mail on July 21st, 2025. Notice of violation
compliance date July 31st, 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property September 22nd, 2025. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. The affidavit of posting on September 22nd at the
property 7921 Bokea Drive. initial inspection on July 20th of the overgrown vegetation. And there's a boat trailer parked there with um overgrowth underneath it that hadn't been trimmed.
These are unregistered vehicles. Um, the car on the right, the black vehicle, the scooter. This is the overgrowth on September 15th. In the September 15th, still um, heavily
overgrown underneath the boat trailer, which you can still see there almost devouring the boat trailer. Then on September 22nd, um they had actually cut the grass and you could see the boat trailer parked on
the side there. The debris was put out to the side of this road for collection. This is the boat trailer. It is a trailer. I understand I'm speaking with the property owner that belongs to his brother. It has Texas plates on it and
it is expired from 2022. This is the unregistered scooter that's on the property. The Florida tag there. It was so uh faded you couldn't even see what date
that was from. The vehicle on the right also the black car just expired this year on September uh July 25 and the trash cans in the driveway.
There was the other vehicle on the right was under tarp. I was not able to see the registration on it tag. So, the property must maintain landscape and provide proof of registration for all vehicles and trailers. The property is not compliant.
The recommended fine is $250 per day beginning uh from the date of your order plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. So, I would say that the landscape has is compliant in that respect. However, the vehicles, the boat
trailer, the scooter, and the one car. Okay. So it would just be 4633 subsection 13 with regard to the storage of the unregistered vehicles on the property. Okay. Okay. Is anyone here on behalf of John Scott Olsen Jr.
or is John Scott Olsen Jr. in attendance? Anyone here for 7921 Bokeh Diego Drive and no further correspondence with the property owner? No. Okay. Okay. I am going to find that the property owner is in violation of
section 46-33 subsection 13 with regard to the storage of an unregistered boat trailer uh scooter and vehicle on the property. I am going to allow for 14 days for the property to come into compliance from the date of my order and then we will be
back here at the November hearing to determine compliance fines and fees if necessary. Okay. And we have continued the lean reduction case. So we are moving on to agenda item eight, repeat
violations. A case number 202507, city of St. Pete Beach versus Kouche Baki. I'm so sorry. Bakitarian Bakitarian. Backetarian. Okay.
Okay. It's good. All right. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, city of St. Pete Beach, code enforcement. This is case number 202507. Respondent is Kish Bakrion.
I apologize. Violation address is 2606 Passway. Violation description. Property is in violation of section 20.03. 03 permitted principal uses and structures of the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach.
Case summary. Initial inspection was 722 2025. Irearable irreparable and irreversible notice of violation dated 728 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 8/19 2025.
Following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting 2606 Passro Way. This is a screenshot of the ad for the uh the VBO ad for the property. Uh shows the uh property manager on
there. Another screenshot pertaining to the property. So these are the VBO reviews. Uh the ones marked in green are the ones that are allowable permitted uh reviews. So you see we have the first one here uh
says stayed six nights January 2025. And it shows stayed eight nights May 2025. Another review for April. Uh, three nights 2025. So, one, two, and three outlined in green are permitted.
Uh, review number four, state four nights in June of 2025, and another one state seven nights in June of 2025, uh, outlined in red, showing the two violations for the shortterm over the short-term rental agreement.
And another one here, six, and this one is staked four nights in July of 2025. Corrective action. Property is permitted to only have three short-term rentals within a 12-month period. All rentals after must be monthly. Property is not
eligible again for short-term rental until July of 2026. Recommended fine is $1,500 per repeat violation. three reviews totaling $4,500 plus the $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this
case. That concludes my presentation. Okay, I'm going to try again. It's not going to be good. Mr. Bakitarian. Yeah, my parents cursed me with your last name like that. H Well, mine is easy to say and people still can't get it right. area. Back here. Okay.
Your honor, I just want to show some paperwork here. The statue of 2030. If you can read that, the statue of 2030, this is February 11, 2022. If you read that, what is important to
know that the statue enacted in 2016 20 2016 and it stated that all the structure with the same use before enactment will be allowed. That means I've been renting this place for two 1994. I have all the travel lock because
they asked me for the travel lock. So I have all the travel lines of rental lock before that. This statue will be in 2016. I should be grandfathered in the commonly known as a grandfather. I should be granted grandfathered in. Now
after that we apply for the grandfather. Where is that? On where is that? October 26 prior was of Mr. Rivera which has become a code enforcer. It was a lady was a Jordan Huff. We sent all the paperwork to her and we never heard anything from her
and she said we're going to review that. It says that the city of receive a grant for the application we review that and please provide evidence of either formal rental which I have it right here before 2016.
I have all here for you. I'm sorry. This one I started. This is all my travel. Where is it? All my rental. You can see that these are all my What is that people? Where is it?
Basically affidavit. They renting my place. So nobody came in and told me where is that you can rent it. What is that? Three times. This is before 2016. You guys changed the law after 2016. I
shouldn't be worried that part of it because I've been renting this place. This is all after 2014 VRBO and Airbnb. These are all my document just for it right here.
The rule has changed after 2016 but shouldn't be applied to me. I should be granted grandfathering. We applied for the grandfathering but I miss Jordan Huff never worked there I guess but she never informed me hey what is it your your process is is in the system or not
we were looking for some kind of answer from the city nobody answer us so as a result basically I was in the limbo what is it then there was a previous where is a previous fine which is became a settlement Mr. Rivera called me and we
came and settled that and I told him what about grandfather he said he's in the process but that moment after that moment I never heard from the city and we don't really don't try to order order short term we don't we already try to write short but you guys allow me you're
telling me three times a year in 12 months period okay and then we did exactly based on what that short term was beside that I should be grandfathered in as I city never come to me they say you cannot have a grandfather thing they asked for all the
document and we sent it to them so while I can appreciate that in 2021 in front of me we had a code enforcement hearing and I didn't hear any argument about being grandfathered in that wasn't raised at that time
you mentioned actually I said my lawyer actually mentioned to you we are applying and you said listen my job is to give you a fine my job is not to find out you guys go apply after that moment we start the processing but they never come back to me we didn't know that Jordan Hoff never work here and nobody
take over and say hey listen I'm at the next person and then you got to give me more Jordan Hoff ask me for the where is that all the where is that rental law and we send it to them we submit all the paperwork to the city okay
um does the city have any response to that so and I remember speaking with with I call it Cy. Cory, I think he's easier. Sure. Sure. And I told him that, you know, I understand he did submit the paperwork, but it doesn't mean he can do it until he got final answer back. Uh I I did
explain that to him. It's like applying for a permit doesn't mean you can just start working on your house. Correct. And that's kind of how I explained it to him. I said, you know, if you have a question about it, probably should have reached out. Um we kind of had an understanding with that, but there was nothing. We don't have anything in our system saying that he's going to file.
Do you have an application for an application for grandfathering? I don't know where that application would be at. We have there isn't. I just don't know where that information would be. I just know based on what I can see in my system on my end, I don't see it in there.
So then let me also ask when you received the notice of violation for this violation, did you go back to the city and say we have a grandfathering application? Did you follow up with the city at all when you didn't Mr. Rivera and and I'm I'm talking about when you submitted with Jordan in 2022 what you
showed me quickly through which I did not have a chance to digest. It looks like there were letters from your lawyer. Yes, exactly. Let me one by one. This is my letter from my lawyer. Okay. Which is emailed to W. Wright. So who is
that's Wesley Wright the planning manager. What's that? It says this is to Wesley Wright, the planning manager at the time. This is from February 2022. Um, I see a single is there are there multiple pages to this email
or is it just the the cover copy of the email? Are it's a two cover copy. I have Here's the receipt of the grandfathered application. By the way, dated for October the 26th of 2022.
Can I Can you put that on the overhead, please? I mean, it was obviously a blank copy because it's already been submitted. But this is when that the city is in receipt of your grandfather's. Okay. And that would have been Michelle Gonzalez. Okay. So, the city's going to receive your grandfather application.
And then it says you're requesting additional information if you can provide evidence either in the form of rental logs or panelis county tourist development tax or Florida bed tax for the years prior to 2014. I have it right here. But did you provide that to Michelle
Gonzalez at the time? Everything. Everything is in the city. City have all these record and Okay. So then what I am going to do as of right now is I am going to continue this case for 30 days until the November hearing.
What I need you to do is get with the city and figure out where in the application process you are for your grandfathering application. Okay. If it is still under consideration, it looks like it's been a few years. If it's still under consideration and if you still even qualify for the grandfathering. Keep in mind in most in
most cases if you are under grandfathering status and you abandon that grandfathering you are no longer grandfathered in. So if you didn't continuously do it for a period of time and you abandon that a lot of times you don't get to keep doing it. So I say that to say this. You need to get with
the city. You guys need to figure out where the application is because it looks like it was submitted to Miss Gonzalez. Understand she's no longer with the city. Well, well, well. That being said, the city is is an entity in and of itself made of people. There's public records.
So, there's got to be a record somewhere that says that it was received that she sent you that you needed additional information. And if you submitted it, they should have a copy of that. What do I have to talk to? I I am telling you right now, I cannot do anything for you. I do not work for the city. I I don't know what the
processes are. What I can tell you is I'm going to continue this case until the November hearing. Um, we are and I'm giving you that time to work with the city to figure out where your application fell through, what happened, and if it can be picked back up and if you can submit the required
documentation in order to confirm or deny that you are grandfathered in prior to the change in the in the rental code. If in November you can come back to me and say, I've got my application has been confirmed, then the city will likely not bring this back before me. If
the city denies your application for grandfathering, then I need to I you'll come back before me and then I will look at the case. But much to like what Mr. Rivera said, even if you apply for grandfathering status, if you continue to violate the law until you get that
solidified, you're still violating the law. But again, if I if you get approved for grandfathering status, then that means at least this current code violation will not be considered because you will have been grandfathered in. But if they come back and they deny that application, I'm going to consider this
and I'm going to evaluate it based on on the law as it stands. So I need you to make sure that you understand in the next 30 days or until the next hearing, you need to work with the the city and figure out where you are in that application and if you've been denied prior or if you are accepted into the
into the the grandfathering program, the non-conforming use program. Okay. So I will get you an order that says that it will be an order to continue. We'll have some extra verbiage in it. make sure I have your information to send that to you. God bless you. We filled up the Okay, perfect. All right. Thank you.
Thank you so much. So then we will continue that until the November hearing. All right, with that, is there anything else we need to discuss while we're here? No, ma'am. Okay, great. Then I will see you all. It is ajourned and I will see you all in
November. Thank you.