Magistrate Code Enforcement Meeting of the City of St. Pete Beach to order for Monday, May 11th, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Hello, my name is Erikica Aello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases. I am a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida Bar and board certified in city, county, and
local government law. I have been appointed to this position in accordance with the authority set forth in chapter 162 Florida statutes and the city of St. Pete Beach code of ordinances. I am not an employee of the city of St. Pete Beach and do not represent the city here today. I do not confer with the city's
code enforcement officers outside of the hearing process about your cases. It is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters presented. As such, I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings. Today's matters will be heard in the order on which they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed. Every effort will be
made to hear all persons having relevant evidence, arguments, or comments related to the specific case that is being heard. If you wish to speak today, it will be 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, and then the respondent will be given an opportunity to refute the city's allegations. Formal rules of evidence do not apply to this proceeding. However, I will make every effort to ensure that fundamental fairness and due process is afforded to all parties. After hearing all relevant evidence, I will issue an order. The
order will be reduced to writing and all parties will be provided with a copy. So, please ensure that 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 any special exception of any kind. My role is solely to determine whether a city code has been
violated and under some circumstances to provide a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever means are available to you. Please be advised that you may be subject to a fine and a lean may be recorded on your property if the violation is not corrected by the compliance deadline if one is provided. If you wish to present any evidence
today, please sign in at the podium before you speak. And it will be necessary that you swear or affirm to tell the truth. Therefore, at this time, I will swear in any witnesses. Anyone wishing to speak today, if you will 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, I do. >> Okay. Um, any changes to the agenda today? >> Yes. Good morning, Madame Special Man Street. Pete Dor, code enforcement
manager for the city of St. Pete Beach. Case number 20260112 which is under cases continued 3B will be continued to June >> rescheduled to June please.
>> Okay. >> Case number 20260046. We'd like that rescheduled to June as well. That's 3D on the agenda. Case number 20240563. That's 3E on the agenda. We'd like that
rescheduled to June as well. Case number 20260138 5B under new cases. We'd like that continued to June. And we would like to add to the agenda case
address 1401 pass away. >> What is that case? >> Madame um magistrate, the addition is simply to request a dismissal of the case. So it's administrative in nature. >> Okay. Do you uh have a case number for that case?
2025 0218. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. So for items 3B, D and E, those will be rescheduled for another C case status update on June 8th, 2026 and 5B
will be continued to June 20 June 8th, 2026 at the 10 a.m. hearing. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Then moving on to our first agenda item for today. Case cases continued 3A case number 20260150 city of St. Pete Beach versus JSC Group.
>> Good morning, Special Magistrate Ayaka Rexell representing the city of St. Pete Beach. This is a status check for the property at 510 79th Avenue, case 20260150. your order uh from the last magistrate
um asked them to uh apply for a permit within seven days and that deadline was uh 424 and secure a permit by June 1st. Um as of today and I checked this morning there has is no permit application on file.
>> Okay. Have you had any um communication with the property owner? not further. I believe that they were trying to put in an application, but they haven't completed the process of even applying yet. >> Okay. And so even though they have not
applied for the permit, so they would be in violation of my order at this time, um they do have another compliance issue in securing the permits by June 1st. >> Correct. Um, do you happen to know from timing
perspective if they would even be able to if they were to say apply today? Would they be able to secure permit by that date? >> I'd have to get the building official here to determine what's the status of it and what's what missing information they haven't provided yet and how long
that would take. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Is anyone here on behalf of the property owner JSC Group LLC? Okay. if you could please come up, state your name and affiliation with the uh corporation for the record. >> Yep. Thank you. Yep. Mr. Roberta, I'm
the uh owner of JC Group property. >> Okay. Can you tell me what's going on here and why a permit was not applied for by the deadline set forth in my order? >> Yes. Um yeah, you know, we do apologize that uh when we were initially in contact with the city, um we were told
to submit the application directly to the city over email and then after submitting the full documentation was the first we were notified of the permit portal, which is fine. You know, we do want to use the portal. So, we're working now to get the portal. We were just informed very late that there is a
portal. The first we heard of that was April 21st. That was after submitting all documents already. So all the documents required for the permit have been submitted just not through the portal. >> So they haven't been submitted then >> not through the portal but over email >> but that is the only legal means by which to submit a permit with the city
of St. Beach. So they have not for for my purposes they have not been submitted. >> That's fair. Um the only the the the we do request um you know um a bit of time to submit um I my contractor who is submitting the permit he has contacted
his insurance company. He has provided the city, he needs to be added as a new contractor through the portal in order to be to go through with this uh submission. So, he has provided his license information, his workers comp, his liability insurance. Um, his insurance company has not yet added the
city of St. Pete and that's the last step that's missing that that the city has requested. I followed up with him many times. He he seems to be struggling to to complete this task. So, I'm going to just try to help him. But, you know, I hope this can be completed uh today. That's the last document. It's the certificate of insurance. We have
submitted everything that we do have and that's the one request the city of St. Pete has. So on May 4th they request the city requested that uh the CUI general liability needs to have the title holder of the city of St. Pete and that's where we are. >> Okay. So I have a couple of questions based on what you've just told me. Uh
we were here in April and a representative was sent who my understanding was more like a handyman or a landscape contractor to represent your interests in this property. He had no information. He did not know why permits were not pulled. He did not know
why work was done without permitting or anything of that nature. Do you know why any of the work was done without permitting? >> Um so we have a general contractor who has been guiding us throughout this project and according to them um initially they do not realize that the
um scope of work uh should have been submitted through permits. Um so we've opted to go for after repair permits. >> Okay. Um, that being stated, you had a full permit submittal done through email, which again was not the appropriate way to do it. How come that
full bevy of documents was just not submitted through the portal >> as a permit? >> Yeah. So, if I could submit it independently, I would, but as the owner uh of an LLC, I cannot submit it. So, the contractor must submit the permit application. And he he seems to be
struggling to obtain the certificate of holder to have the name added of St. Pete Beach. So, he submitted everything else, just that one step. I've paid the contractor to help with this administrative task. I'm doing all I can, but I'm relying on him to come through. I can't force him, but I'm relying on him to come through. So, I'm
going to try calling the company myself, you know, be hands-on and support him. >> And while I can appreciate that, I you have I'm assuming you have other I don't want to assume anything, but you know, you have a property. You've purchased a property within the jurisdictional boundaries of St. P Beach. You've undergone construction on this property.
As a property owner, you are ultimately responsible for whatever happens to that property, regardless of who who you engage as your agents. So, while I understand your contractor is having some problems getting registered with the city, this is something that should have been done prior to any of the work
being done. So, I can understand the position you're currently in. However, plenty of time was given. You could have contacted the code enforcement department and said, "Hey, we're working towards this, but we're not able to do it." You didn't do that. Instead, we're here today. um and and my order is not
complied with and there's no really good faith reason why it wasn't complied with other than he just hasn't done the thing that he needs to do which frankly he needed to do way before it ever got here. Um so that being said um you know there is a second part to my order which
is that you have 45 days to actually secure the permit. Um, I'm going to let the city come up and and respond to anything that you've said here, but I am inclined to see if you can accomplish that. And if you can't accomplish that, that may um that may
work in your favor for any fines that are assessed with this. But as far as I'm concerned, you're you're not compliant with my order and and until you become compliant with my order, um you're going to have problems. So >> um so at this point, we will come back
at June 8th. we have a hearing set. Um, and if there are no permits that have been secured on this property, I would request that you just stay in contact with the code enforcement department. >> Um, because they might be able to help you at least along so you're not before
me again without understanding what's expected. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Of course. And we have your name on there so that we can on the shining sheet so we can send you. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Anything else from the city on this? I'd like to call a building official, Luke Curtis, to give you the latest
update. >> Thank you very much. >> Good morning. Luke Curtis, uh, building official for the city. >> Were you here when we did the swearing in? >> I was not. >> Could you please raise your right hand so I could swear you in? Do you swear or from the testimony you're about to give us, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Thank you for that. I would have forgotten, >> of course. >> Um, so just to chime in on this, the so for this address, no permits have been applied for posttorm. The
the property is Sorry, I'm waiting for my computer to refresh here. Um the property is flagged that there was storm damage and uh there are notes in here with an estimated water intrusion on the
of the house of 2.5 ft inside the home. So no permits have been applied for as of yet. Uh so I just wanted to throw that out there. The estimated evaluation estimate, that's all it is, just an estimate based upon the facts that we have as far as the water the estimated
water intrusion is roughly $90,000 for the property. >> So, are there implications for the 50% rule then based on I understand you don't have an estimate of what was done. Um, but obviously that's going to that's going to affect whether or not they can even get the after the fact permit if
there was implication of the 50% rule. So with with our estimates the percentage of damage to the structure is 67%. >> Okay. >> So hypothetically if the work that they've done has has exceeded the 50% threshold then this structure would need
to be made conforming >> right >> elevated abandon the ground floor and build up or demolish and uh build new. The again going back to our numbers that we have, our estimates, the there is the
the potential of having an exact quote from a contractor that reduces that number. If the actual numbers aren't quite up there where we estimate them to be, then that's perfectly fine. We just But we haven't seen the numbers. >> Okay. And hypothetically, if they were
to put in, their contractor apparently is still trying to get registered with the city, assuming he's able to do that sometime this week, and they were to put in a permit application, which they have said is complete by next week. Would they be able to, if everything looked good, get a permit by June 8th?
>> Absolutely. Yeah. >> Actually, it would be June 1st. June 1st. >> Our permitting, our review queue, let me let me rephrase my my question. our permitting queue is or review queue is has is totally cleared out. We're up to
100% up to speed with that. So if um if we get documents in a permit in to review, it will be reviewed within a week. Now if there's still more >> comments, >> data comments that need to be addressed, then it could kick it out further. But hypothetically, if they give us
everything that we need and we can approve it, it they could have a a permit next week. >> Okay. So, they could have a permit by June 1st if all of the things. Okay. Okay. Um, thank you so much, Mr. Curtis. I appreciate your testimony. >> No problem. >> Okay. Anything else from the city?
>> Okay. So, at this point, I am going to find that my order has still not been complied with. However, it was a two point two-part order. So, there is still the opportunity for at least partial compliance by June 1st to secure the after the fact permit. Um, so at this
time I'm going to reserve ruling on the imposition of fines. Um, and we will be back here on June 8th to make that determination at that time and I will get an updated order to that effect. Okay, moving on to agenda item 3C, case number 20260096,
City of St. Pete Beach versus Michelle Crook and Jamie Crook. >> Morning, Special Master. Uh, this property is now in compliance. Uh, just going to ask for administrative fees. I have the pictures.
They have fixed the fence down to like 4T now. It was 6 feet all the way to the seaw wall. This is everything is now correct. Officer Knight, your name for the record, please.
>> Lucy Knight. Sorry about that, SP. >> And these photographs were taken April 24th, 2026. Is that the date of compliance? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And what is the amount of administrative fines? >> 330. >> Thank you very much. Anyone here on
behalf of the property owner, Michelle Crook or Jamie Crook? Anyone here on behalf of the property owners, Michelle Crook or Jamie Crook? Okay, seeing no one. All right. I will find that the property um is in compliance.
Well, here's my question. This case was continued until today and I don't have anything in here and I don't independently recall. There was no previous evidence submitted on behalf of this case. Correct. Uh we had it where the fence was high all the way to the
seaw wall, >> right? But I don't have a final administrative order in my packet and I don't specifically recall that. I might have that said that the property was in violation. >> Yes. Yes, ma'am. It was >> okay. Can you provide me that order so that I know? >> Yes, ma'am. >> When that was
>> I have to go print it out. >> Madam Special Mist, please allow us to continue this. >> It's a little bit later >> so we can get your >> Okay, that's fine. I just I honestly I just I wanted to make sure that I made a finding that there was a violation. If
if you can testify that I made a finding that there was a violation, I don't have a problem with I just don't we had a lot of cases. >> I know, right? >> I don't independently recall the fence case. Um so if I did make a finding a violation, then I will find that the uh property is now in compliance um as of
April 24th, 2026. I will not impose any fines, but I will assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of this. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay, moving on to agenda item 3F, case number 20260133, city of St. Pete Beach versus Mark
Griffy and the Shannon Griffy uh revocable trust with Mark Griffy as trustee. >> Morning, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. Uh this was a status hearing to determine fines and cost or an explanation for the 21-day short-term
rental. Um, I believe the property owner's here with their documents. Um, so we can review them. >> Okay. Certainly. All right. Is Mr. Griffy here? >> Yes. >> Okay. If you both could come up and just state your names for the record. >> Nancy.
>> Okay. >> Mark Griffy. >> Thank you. Okay. And you, Last time we spoke, it was odd that there was a short-term rental. So, I asked if you had any uh anything to show that it was um otherwise not short-term or explanation of what happened.
>> Yes, your honor. And I can supply these documents to you. It's um if you'd like to review them there, it's a print out from the management company and it shows on the first page who rented and on the second page the number of nights and
this person uh that was in question rented for 21 days. But what is of interest probably to this court is it was rented for 30 days prior to that and no second person rented during the 21 days. He had some sort of problem. He
had to come in nine days late and so he stayed the rest of the month and we have full-time renters 30 days or more on either side of him. So I can provide that to you. >> Okay. So he had a 30-day rental but he was nine days late to that rental. So he
was only charged for the 21 days. Is that >> correct? You know, and it's it's a, you know, guest. So if they have a hangup, you know, oftentimes even if they're blocked for 30 days and they have a problem or something, you know, either they're delayed or they have a personal emergency, we block them for 30 days,
which these records reflect. It shows number of nights that everyone has stayed since 2022 on the second page, which I've marked. Um, that's just what happened in that particular case. Okay. Oh, sure. Ma'am,
>> please put on any overhead. Mr. Michael >> and we were there. >> Sure. >> It's It's a split. She gave me a big old >> Yeah, I can understand that. >> Jamie, please zoom in. That's why
>> N to 12931 >> res that may just contact when he made the reservation >> that one did. Yeah. So, there was some hold in there. >> Um, >> and do you have any contracts with the
There's no specific lease contract with the guests. Correct. It's just when they go online, they click the terms and conditions, that kind of thing. >> Pretty much it. And we try to work with people obviously, you know, if they have problems, we will, but it reflects if you go down
>> the second page of the number 329. you know, it's very consistent. >> And then I see on the shorter ones, those are you guys. So, yeah. I'm like, wait. And I'm like, okay. No. >> Right. Right. To show that there's
they're blocked out. Okay. >> So, we do request blocks sometimes so we can come stay as well. >> Okay. Thank you so much. If you'll leave a copy of that for the clerk so they have it for the record. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Anything further of us? >> I don't have any questions for you. Anything else from the city?
with the manager. >> Well, can we see what the um second you were giving the special magistrate something else, please? Could you show us what that is? Could you go to the overhead with that as well? >> No, the other one that
>> Oh, it's just two pages. >> Oh, it's a copy. >> Two pages of one spreadsheet. >> Our concern is that it's still a short-term rental. If we can clarify, um, we're not doubting the veracity of of the documentation. However, the end effect
is the fact that the property was rented for 21 days and money was collected for 21 days. We just want to put that on the record. >> Okay, I can understand that. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, anything further from the city? >> Nothing. >> No, ma'am. >> Anything further from you guys? Okay. I
am going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code section. However, I'm not going to assess any fines or any administrative costs. Um, the credible testimony here today is that the property was in fact, legally speaking, rented for 21 days. He paid for 21 days. That is in violation of the
city's code. If he only stayed for 21 days, but he paid for 30. That would be different because he paid for 30 days and and I understand it, but it is the letter of the law and that's what my job here is to enforce the letter of the law. Um, I am not going to assess any
fines or fees because it does seem like there's consistency with this is not a short-term rental property like of the ilk that I usually see. Um, this was based on the credible testimony giving somebody a concession because he was not able to make it for the full 30 days. Um, but was not advertised otherwise as
a as a short-term rental and is not being used in the way that we concede short-term rentals being used. Um, I did find that there's a violation. So again, if we see this again in the future and it comes back as a repeat violation, then maybe I might have some more questions on that. But at this time, you will get an order from me saying that
there is a violation, but no fines or administrative costs will be assessed. >> Madam Special, Ministry, >> yes. >> Could we ask for reconsideration of the admin fines? Um, because you found it in violation withstanding the fact of everything you just said, could we at
least get those hard costs back? $330. >> I mean that >> for bringing the case forward. >> I I mean and I can understand that you're bringing the case forward on that. I do think that >> and it's a violation. >> I I I understand that it's a violation.
I am sitting in my position under Chapter 162. I am sitting in a position of equity and I don't think it's necessarily fair to punish them because they went out to try and find, you know, they're they're not operating it as a short-term rental. I understand the city's position that they're you are trying to recoup some of your costs for having to bring this before the
magistrate. I think it could have been settled beforehand, but I also understand the city's place. So, um, what I'll go ahead and do is I will I hate the term split the baby. Um, we'll call it $150 in administrative fees for
bringing the case. At least the city can recoup some of its administrative costs for bringing this forward. um in the future, I think the parties need to work together a little bit better to to make sure while this might have been a strict violation of the code, it certainly wasn't intentional. Um and and I don't
believe the respondent needs to be they they're in compliance now and I don't believe they need to be punished, but so I will amend my order then to say that there is a violation. No fines will be assessed but $150 in the administrative costs of the city. >> Thank you. >> And you will receive a copy of that. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you both very much. All right, moving on to 3G. Case number 20260170, City of St. Pete Beach versus Charisma Morasi. >> Okay. Can I have the PowerPoint presentation, please? Okay.
All right. This is a continuation um shell city of St. Pete Beach. However, it's never been presented. So, I'm going to be presenting it now. I have to use the arrow. Okay. Case number is 20260170.
The respondent is Charisma K. Morasi. The violation address is 42578th Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 32.5 prohibited uses and structures of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach.
The case summary. The initial inspection was on March 30th, 2026. The notice of violation dated and mailed certified on 33126. The notice of hearing dated and posted on the property same day 3312026.
This is the affidavit of posting at the property at 42578th Avenue. This is the Airbnb advertisement for the property. This is a screenshot of the ability to book for a short term, five nights in
this case. And in the example shown, these are just pictures from the advertisement. And its location. These are the two reviews as of March 30th, 2026. The first one is from Jean. They stayed three weeks ago from the
date shown at the bottom right hand corner of the screen which was March 30th. So that was three weeks ago. So it's clearly in um March there. And then uh Carlos also stayed in February or stayed for a few
nights again February and March 2026 reviews. This is a review of the Airbnb policy. So, the property can only be rented monthly and the property is not compliant. The recommended fine is $1,000 per violation. There are two
reviews plus 330 administrative costs in any recording fees that may be associated with this case. >> Thank you very much. Have you had any um contact with the property owner at all? >> No, I have not. >> Okay. Is anyone here on behalf of Charisma Morasi? >> Okay, if you could please come up and
state your name and affiliation for the record. >> I am Charisma Morasi. I live >> Well, that would make sense then. >> Hi, Miss Morasi. Okay. Can you tell me a little bit what's going on in this property? >> Yeah, I travel for work a lot and so I got that information from my friend that's a property manager. She said I
could rent three times a year for not three like rent three times a year short-term rental. Sorry. A little nervous. I've never >> No worries. uh three times a year and be in compliance. Um the property was rented three times. It was rented twice and in one time it cancelled. I received
a notice. I actually was home on 3:30. Received the notice. I emailed. So I have tried to be in communication. I emailed right away, called right away because I was leaving again the next week for work was the reason for continuence. I was traveling and I said, "Hey, I thought I could do three times a year." She said, "No." And I said,
"Okay, I'm I'm very sorry. Like I it was taken down immediately. It's not been rented since." and I had no intentions not to be in compliance. >> Okay. Um can you tell me um what is uh if if you know how much you made on each of those rentals?
>> Um I I don't have it with me. I think I had made a total of a thousand. Like one was three days and I think one was five days and there was 50% discount or something like I didn't need the money. I was it was just sitting in empty. >> Okay. Well, and I'm trying to figure it out because again, I so for your
benefit, I sit in a position of equity. So, I can even though the cities are requesting $1,000 per violation, I can amend that to whatever I think is fitting. Um, so I do try and balance um the fact that you obviously tried to reach out. You got bad information. I
would I would just suggest you reach out to the actual regulatory body next time. It might help more helpful >> in the area. So, I thought she totally understand. >> I understand. Very honest. You look you look to a trusted professional and you've received bad information. Um and I understand you've no you're no longer
doing that because you understand you can't >> and I live in the home so it's >> right. Okay. Um so can you you said you made $1,000 probably on both of them? >> Roughly a thousand. Yeah. >> Each one or for total >> total >> total on both like five something and the other one was like six or so maybe 1,200 like
>> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Anything else that you would like me to know? >> No. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time, Miss Maraski. Um, anything else from the city? Okay. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections and that
there were two short-term rentals in violation of the code. Uh, I am going to assess $150 for each of the rentals for a total of $300 plus the $300 in uh reasonable administrative costs of the city. Um, and just understand that if I
do see you back again, it's a repeat violation. They can ask for up to $5,000 per each of the violations. I also want to make sure for the record that I do find these are being are irreversible and irreparable as you can't unren the property. Um just make sure I have your contact information and I will get you an order to that effect.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Masky. Have a great day. >> Madam Special Mist Pete Der. Um did you just say 300? >> Yes. 300 total. >> 330. >> 330 >> for the administrative costs. >> Yes, ma'am. And I know you split the
baby at 150 and it should have been 165, but this >> on the last one I said split the baby, but it wasn't in half. >> You got it. >> I I I I can do basic math, so I got that. The last one was 330. This one is $300 total for the two violations. 150
each and then plus the $330 administrative cost. So for a total of 630. >> Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for asking for clarification. Okay, moving on to the next item 3H. Case number 20260047, City of St. Pete Beach versus Genevie
Curtis. >> Good morning, Mad Magistrate. See Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20260047. Respondent is Genevie W. Curtis. Violation address is 3307 East of Basin A. Violation description. The property
is in violations of sections 9866A, B, and 22A. Residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Okay. Summary. Initial inspection was 125.
I got to get you corrected data. See, there's a typo in there and I'm not sure the original inspection. Uh, notice of repeat violation was dated 324 2026 and mailed certified. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 324 2026.
The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 3307 East of Basin. A picture of the dead palm tree. You can see the top of it doesn't have any uh growth on it. Another picture of uh dead limbs on the
trees. See, there's some more dead branches there. So, corrective action. Property must remove the dead trees and tree limbs. The property is compliant. Uh, as this was a repeat violation, the recommended
fine is $500 uh per day. one day in violation and I can explain the one day there was a conflict issue of getting back out to reinspect. I can verify it was in violation for one day. I don't know the exact date he came into compliance. Uh but the three and
additionally $330 in administrative cost plus any recording fees that may be associated with this case. I do have pictures of the trees removed. >> Can you because this is a repeat violation. Is this a different tree than we were here on last time or is it the same tree?
>> I honest there's a couple trees in the back that were in question. Um >> because I know Mr. Curtis represented he was a botist and so he could bring some of those trees back. I just don't specifically recall if any of these trees are the trees we talked about last
>> and I'm I'm not 100% without going back and looking at the previous case. >> Okay. Um >> you over here please. Get the overhead, please. Thank you. So, you can see where the the dead limbs were removed. There's fresh cuts on this branch here. The trees that were in the
front from where I uh showed my presentation, they've been removed. Here's a view from the front. You can see where the trees been topped. They cut the dead portion of it off. There was still some life on it as it appeared. Um, but the dead portions have
been removed. Just a closer picture. The same tree there. Trees on the side here. You can see where it's been removed. The dead tree as well. See all the dead vegetation that was in the previous pictures were removed.
That concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, is anyone here on behalf of Genevie Curtis? You could please come up and state your name for the record. Hi, I'm Robert Curtis. >> We actually met last year. >> Yes, Mr. Curtis. Can you tell me a
little bit about what's going on with the property? I know it's in compliance, but Mr. River stating that there was a day where it was in violation. >> Yes. So, I have a bit more wholesome information than he has. Um, and if you'll pardon me, I organize my thoughts. I kind of like to pseudo read.
Um I essentially I think the case was improperly filed and the explanation for that is that the uh case the new case number as I read the the complaint is associated strictly with dead limbs and trees on the property which were exactly
the same. It was a subset of the exact same issues addressed last year. There was a trash and debris removal. Uh there was a a boat that wasn't currently licensed. Those were taken care of immediately. Um, but your specific orders last year were that consistent
with what I had testified with that best practices, I'll remind you I'm not a only boss botist, but I hold an now expired uh license for nursery in the state of Florida. Have some experience with this stuff. Um, hurricans freeze events, you never
remove trees until they've had a full growing season to present the evidence of whether they're going to heal or not. Uh, you had asked last year what that would constitute. I said, you know, it's Florida. We all know that it runs a long time, pretty much the end of the year. Um, so, um, glasses.
Um, so I have a preferred tree guy. I've been doing business with him for over 20 years. He's a rare case of somebody who is pretty efficient getting trees cut and whatnot, but he knows how trees grow. Uh, he also knows how to operate in tight environments. had a number of
trees out there, houses, and uh the complaining neighbor, one who filed a complaint, had her own concerns. So, I really wanted to go with him, but I did contact other uh tree guys. I started making contact in uh early December trying to reach out. Nobody was a able
to get something done quickly. The holidays were coming. One guy said he might be able to. I went out to the property. He didn't show up. Um I did make um Pardon me. boiling it down, I reached my guy. He said, "I'll be available first week of
January." So, um I called him on uh or we had a PL plan after I called him I think on the 2nd of the month to go out on the 5th. Uh I had to call and cancel that. I had a business call, conference call. I just couldn't I wasn't in control of it. I couldn't break away. Um
I was aware of the issues with the city and I'll be honest with you, I'm not stupid. But I was aware you could just be strategic and let a sleeping dog lie. But I felt out of a sense of good faith and that we were in compliance, I reached out to Mr. Rivera on the 7th just to call him and let him know, look,
this is you'll drive by there potentially as part of your to-do list. Nothing's been done yet, but it's exactly what we had talked about, and I wanted to make sure you knew that. He said, Rob, that's fine. There's no problem at that property. That case was closed. I said, great, but nonetheless, I wanted to keep you in the loop. Um
the uh I had to do a quick business trip. Got back and found out when I reached out to my tree guy, he had injured his hand on uh January 14th. Apparently pretty big injury. Um he said, "Call me back in a couple of weeks." Um I was concerned. So my
brother and I went out uh January 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th. Did whatever cutting we do could. Not a professional tree cutter, but I've done some. and we did whatever we could and I focused primarily on the limbs that were leaning or growing toward the uh neighbor's house. Actually met with her. We've had
a really good relationship all along, I thought. And uh frankly, it was overtly friendly. I just let her know what was going on. She said, "Great. Please keep up with it." Um it was unbeknownst to me at the time, but on the 28th, 8 days later, she filed a complaint. Um and I of course don't
find out very quickly. it's goes through process but um per plan with the tree guy on February 6th I circled back with him and he said yeah let's do it he made an arrangement to meet me four days later on the 10th I was sitting around
there I ended up texting finding out what's going on he said Rob I'm so sorry my wound has opened up I've got to get to urgent care let's keep in touch quickly of course I said Steve excuse me Adam is this Steve uh take care of yourself. I, as I said, I've known him.
I trying to be official here, tree guy, whatever. But he's Adam to me. Um, in any event, I told him, take care of yourself. I had work I was doing in the car while I was waiting on him. I finished him and while I was sitting there, the city arborist drove up and then Steve, sorry, Mr. Rivera drove up
and so I stayed around, got out, we chatted. We ended up having an hour chat more. Uh, really nice chat actually. Um, I was aware that there were rules for city enforcement. They can't actually walk on property. Said, "Well, heck no. Let's just walk around." That was my
attempt to make sure that the arborist thinking was consistent with mine and we were all good to go. Uh, we had a good meeting in the mines. Um, we all agreed on what needed to be done. Parenthetically, I mentioned to Steve, "Steve, I don't understand why this happened this way because we talked on the seventh and you said it all was good
and this doesn't seem fair or right to me." and he said, "Well, yes, but the problem is I have to consider the concerns of the neighbor. I'm not a lawyer, but um just casually, my perception is I'm obliged to the authorities and the
codes." And um it's my requirement, my obligations, and my relationship is to the city, not to the neighbor. Nonetheless, I'm not stupid. I I realize she need to be kept informed, and I did. Um the followup to that how I mean I can do nothing about what the city's
perspective is. I'm expressing my opinion that may not be quite right legally. Um but nonetheless the timeline continued. Uh as I said um trying to find where I left off where he we had scheduled to meet on um the 10th of se February. He
had to go to urgent care. Um, I decided to keep trying to do some more cutting that was a little more dangerous for me on a ladder, but I I wanted to get more stuff done. Ended up couldn't do all of that because there were winds that were too high. And he had advised me, I know this guy, he said, "Well, the winds are above such and such, don't do it." I was looking at
my weather app, blah blah blah. Um, I had to cut off that. But on the um 18th again, so it was eight days later after he'd injured himself, wound reopened, he did come out. We met. He
sent me a bid two days later. There was a snafu back and forth, but by three days later on the 23rd, I had a signed contract. The cutting was done on the 26th, 27th, 28th that went into a weekend, and then the following Monday on uh March 3rd, he finished the job. I
will tell you, I was there when he finished it. We went and chatted with a neighbor. She was ecstatic. Um, so we were in compliance at that point. I'm trying to make the point that my understanding was I was fully in
compliant the entire time because I was following your orders from last year. I um kept the neighbor fully aware. I kept the city fully aware all out of good faith. I don't understand how the state of non-compliance can exist when I was pursuing on the fastest possible
timeline completing that compliance. Um, and ultimately I was actually here March 9th. If this comes down to a question of how long and what kind of enforcement there will be, I was here on the March
9th to address it, but Steve caught me. I went to sit down. He was right next to me. He said, "Hey, Rob, you're not due here today. I extended it for you." I appreciate his generosity, but I hadn't asked for it. I was ready to fix it because we were in full compliance, as I said, on on March 2nd. Um, I guess what
I'm saying here is I'm asking that, again, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know whether there's a undoing or a finding that's not valid, but I'm asking not only no fines, but no administrative costs. And for whatever it's worth, this is the property of my mother. She's 97y old
woman living on social security, and I just don't think this is reasonable affair. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. >> Thank you. >> Um, can I add >> I'm sorry, one final thought. For whatever reason, my information is dubious. I actually was able to harvest
text threads and call log on my phone. If you need it submitted, I can give it. It's I couldn't subtract out private stuff in there. I would rather not put it up of record, but if you need it, >> if you don't want to submit private, I will take your uh testimony as credible. So, you don't need to submit that. If you would like to, you are welcome to.
It's yours to submit. So, thank you. >> Okay. Um, I did have a question and my order did say because you had testified that the growing season which is the end of fall. Um, so that would have been what November of last year. Is that kind
of >> Well, that was a misunderstanding what I was saying because what I also added was that this is Florida, not Georgia or Virginia and >> our growing seasons are longer. >> Growing season extends pretty much to about the end of the year which is why first week of December I got on it.
>> Okay. Did you have intentions of monitoring them and making sure that if they weren't sprouting and coming back at the end of a reasonable time, which is the growing season, that you would remove them? >> I did several times. And in fact, we
fully removed two trees, counting in my head quickly as I I speak here, one, two, three were in good solid respout. Though I decided on my own, one was structurally disadvantageous. was grown, not leaning that way. So, I chopped it
off at the top of growth. Um, I cut other trees down. One that Mel asked, the neighbor asked me to because she was concerned about it. Um, another because the neighbor on the other side, I just trying to be a good neighbor. I asked, "Hey, Tom, what do you think? What needs to be happening here?" He
said, "Yeah, if you could trim it up." We trimmed every branch that he had wanted and some extra that I thought should be done. >> Okay. And that was independent of any communications from the city. >> Yes, ma'am. I didn't have any communications subsequent to last hearing until I called Mr. Rivera on the
7th of January. >> Okay. >> And then the day we met out at the house. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. I appreciate your time today. U Mr. Rivera, anything further from you? >> Uh no, ma'am. Um I do remember having conversations with him about the property at the time. I was trying to
let him work on it on his own. We had a windstorm that came through and he was stating that the neighbor had called to complain. She did call and complain the tree that fell was not dead. However, it sparked me to open up a case and I had to acknowledge the dead vegetation that was on property.
>> Okay. So, was the case the repeat violation case as a consequence of a complaint with the prop the neighboring property owner? >> Yes, ma'am. Um, yeah, like I said, I know he was was trying to let him work, you know, work it out on his own. Unfortunately though, as I explained to him, um I had to take into consideration
that you know the neighbors concerned and there is a clear present violation and that was what opened the case and the date for that was 125 2026. I think I was missing the uh one digit there. Um but I I did allow him the city arborist
and I did go out there. We did uh he did take us in the back. He was cooperative. Took us through the backyard. Uh, we did a full inspection of the trees that were there. The tree that the neighbor had complained about, although invasive, was not dead. So, there was nothing I could
do about the tree that had fallen. Um, I I could just acknowledge what was the dead vegetation that was on the property. >> Okay. >> Could I clarify some of that information? >> Sure. >> So, to be clear, the tree hadn't fallen. One limb had I don't know 10% of the
canopy. Um, it was a fully healthy tree. And Steve had told me when we were chatting out there, I told her that was a fully healthy tree was not subject to the original issue. Uh, and so on the one hand, the triggering tree was
irrelevant. Uh, that night, what had happened is she called me. I like Mel. She's a neighbor. I hope we maintain good relationship. But I could hear the stress in her voice. It was frigid cold that night. Super high winds. I actually left my mom's 97 in my
care. The only one I can care for is me. It was a dinner hour and she called. I gave my mom a protein drink. I shot out the door as fast as I could. Had a chainsaw in my hand. Unfortunately, what Mel had done was by the time I had gotten there, she said she had called the um fire department.
Uh they came out and said they couldn't do anything about it. They urged her to call the uh Duke Energy. She called Duke Energy and told them there were sparks coming off the tree, off the lines. It it it was a low limb this high uh across
my supply line to my house and hers. Um I saw no sparks. I was trying to support her. We chatted about it. I happy to do whatever I can here. Uh we decided it might be good if I also called Duke. I did. I couldn't testify that there were sparks. I said the neighbor saw sparks.
But the long and the short of it is to be kind. I think it was an overreaction to an ordinary situation. Validating that was the police had cut shut off the street right across from the property because a power line had fallen there. I
chatted with them. They said there are power lines down all over the place. Duke had told me they couldn't say when they could get to it. It was an act of God and consistent with the kind of weather we got here generically. Um but if I can that actually happened on
January 31st. So, it was three days apparently after she had filed a complaint. >> Um, >> and it was a different tree altogether >> than the ones that were at >> tree by the way, which by the way is one of the ones I elected to go ahead and remove. I don't It doesn't belong in St. Pete Beach or anywhere else in Florida.
It's invasive. >> Invasive species. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Um, I because of the way that my last order was structured and because of the um testimony here today, I I understand
the city's position there was a complaint from a neighboring property owner. You are tasked with investigating complaints and finding violations. Ordinarily, I might find that this is a repeat violation because it's the same situation, potentially a different tree.
However, because my last order did say that um that the determination on whether or not those trees could be saved, and we can't determine if they were the same trees or not, that if they could be saved would happen at the end of the growing season. The credible testimony, Mr. Curtis is
that he was planning on taking care of them anyways, that he had already looked at them, that some of these were elective removals, things were being done on the property even in advance of the of the notice of violation. I'm going to find that because I put that in my last order, good, bad, or indifferently. Um there's no repeat
violation here. No fines will be assessed. No costs will be no administrative costs will be assessed for the city. Um and again, that is because of the qualifying language in my last order. Um, however, if there is another issue, I'm not having I will make an order to that
effect, but if there is any issues in the future with dead or dying trees on the property, that language no longer is implicated. That season is over, even if it's an extended growing season. So, any other dead or dying trees, if there is another violation that comes up in the future, it would likely be considered a
repeat violation if it's within the next five years. Um, and that will be analyzed and assessed in in the same manner as all the rest of these have. understand for what it's worth because this is public record. Steve is the most conscious guy I've met. So I don't want anything to be
construed bad process, bad professionalism. There was none of that >> and I can appreciate that. I I didn't think there was. So um it's just the nature of the beast and how how the law works. Um which is what propels my order here today. So thank you Mr. Curtis.
>> Madam Special Minister, before you call the next case, please. >> Sure. Case number 202600096 3C under cases continued. >> Uhhuh. >> You'd like to continue that case to June, please? >> Wait, did you just say 3C?
>> 3C under cases continued. >> The crook case. >> Yes, please. >> I already heard that case. You did, your honor. However, um we believe it was a violation case and we would like to have in the record um the
uh facts and the testimony from the prior hearing. So, we would like to basically do a little doover. Okay, I will open that case back up because now I have some additional questions. So, it was represented to me that I had heard this case before. Evidence was presented in the record and
that I found that there was a violation on the property. Correct. >> Yes. And I had given a certain amount of time in order to come into compliance. Is that correct? >> Lucy, could you please put what you have in your hands on the overhead so some of the answers can be provided to the special magistrate in real time?
We presented the following. Keep keep scrolling, Lucy. Keep going until you get to the order. Could we zoom in on the order, please? >> I have that order here that we continued the case. >> Right.
>> What we were unable to find in our records was your order finding the violation. >> Right. Which is I I don't ever specifically recall this case being presented. So that's why I had that same question. Yes. I know it was on the agenda. I don't remember it being
presented. >> You are correct. >> It was not presented initially. >> It may have been. I don't know if the agenda materials were there, but regardless, it is >> the agenda materials were certainly there. I do believe if my memory serves, which it's faulty, so be very careful
with that, um, that Ms. Knight was going to present it and then continued it. I believe before presenting any information, I don't remember seeing anything about offense. Um, >> right. >> Do we know? I guess we could check the video
>> and that's what we would like to have an opportunity to go back and check. That's why we're asking for it to be continued to >> So then for purposes of the record on case 20260096, I will retract my order um
in its in totality. Um and instead of taking into account any evidence or issuing any uh affirmative administrative order or order imposing fines or cost, I instead again going to issue an order to continue this case till June 9th. >> Thank you. 8.
>> Thank you. Or June 8th to 2026 at 10 a.m. Okay. Okay. And then if it turns out I did hear the evidence and everything, then great. We'll deal with it at that time. But I don't I don't even think I have an order a final administrative order on it at
all. So, >> and and we will make sure that the agenda materials has the prior evidence in there that you can uh refresh your memory on it as well. >> I appreciate that. Sure. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So then we are moving on to
>> there are no repeat. >> Could we hear the um case 1401 20250218 please that we added to the agenda >> before you move into new cases if you don't mind. >> This is the administrative matter >> was on changes to the agenda this
morning >> 1401 pass way. Yes ma'am. >> 20250218. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay, I will go ahead and hear that out of order. There's no agenda item for this, so we are going to >> wing it. >> Wing it.
>> Well, I am not, but okay. >> So, this was a status hearing. Uh, Miss Pletcher, the real estate agent, was selling the home. >> Yes. >> And that was the back and forth. >> Yes. Okay. >> Okay. I do recall this. This was actually I had an order to set it for today for a
status hearing but then there was some confusion with my order because on the record I had stated till June 8th and so that was amended that we were come backing on June 8th. >> Not quite >> for status hearing. Not quite. >> Uh I >> see again my memory this is why you guys are here. >> Uh I had asked for April. She had asked
for May. >> Okay. >> And the order we got had April. She got the May one. It missed the loop. Got it. And then I got a phone call that said, "What are you doing to me?" >> Okay. >> I thought we had till May. >> So, >> and then I issued another order that gave her >> So, we we nixed the last order.
>> Okay. So, the next Okay. >> And it would have been scheduled for today. >> It and you and it's not on the agenda for today. >> Not on the agenda. >> Oh. Oh, happy times. Okay. >> We're just all over. >> All right. So, understood. Now, I know what case it is. Thank you very much. Okay. So, Miss Pletcher contacted you.
>> So, uh the property has been sold. Um, so at this point we're looking for an order to dismiss. However, uh, in the email she did state that they would be responsible for the administrative costs. So the city's looking to just have that put in the order. >> Please present that. >> Do you have the email? >> So that I find I found that the property
was in violation of the stated order though, did I not? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, is the city looking for dismissal or just it's I guess we wouldn't want to say it's complied by change of ownership and then issue the cost because if we're dismissing it, there's nothing to issue costs against. You're dismissing a case. I can't issue
costs. >> I have an email here. >> All right. Well, I'm >> going to grab it straws here. I do have an email where they agreed to pay the $330. >> I don't have a problem with that from a purely procedural perspective. We have an open case to which there is a final
order of violation, a final administrative order saying they are in violation and they can comply by either fixing the property, demoing the property or by virtue of sale. They would kind of
comply by transfer of ownership that particular property owner. So, I think dismissal I'm not going to be able to issue any costs on an order of dismissal. >> And essentially,
>> let me let me ask the city attorney on this. My I have two two ways of thinking on this. I can order um an order finding the property is in compliance by virtue of sale of the property and qualify it that the property is still not in compliance, but the property owner is in
compliance. I don't really know what that does for the city. I think that's but that'll allow me to issue costs or I can dismiss with >> agreed costs, but I don't know how you
enfor I don't know how the city enforces that and I don't that's not really my problem. >> I would be my problem. >> How would the city like me to issue the order because it I think those are the only two viable routes. So, I think that the um this is a very responsible
property owner um that has worked with officer Rivera um has indicated that they would be willing to go ahead and pay the um administrative costs. Um so, in good faith, it seems like they are
paying it willingly without your order. So perhaps simply just a dismissal and if they would like to continue to make payment, we would accept it. Uh it just wouldn't have the force of law if they changed their mind and didn't want to uh
make that payment. There were um city resources expended in bringing the uh the case forward to you. Um so it is justifiable that we would incur uh or recover the administrative fees. However, you know, how many hoops are we
going to jump through to get this one? >> $130. >> Yeah, right. >> Okay. In that case, I will go ahead and dismiss the case. And >> if the property owner chooses to collect the $330, >> can I submit my email?
>> Absolutely. You can submit the email. >> Can I please >> send it? >> Kind of hard to see with the glare. >> Yes. On the record, it says we are in agreement to pay the administrative fee of $330, but not the fine, which is fair. Okay.
So, I will dismiss based on this email and the status of the case, I will dismiss this case and get you in order of dismissal. >> Thank you, Matthew. >> Okay. Anything else before we move on to agenda item 5A?
>> No, ma'am. Okay. Agenda item 5A, case number 20260187, City of St. Pete Beach versus Carol Porchasa. Lucid Knight uh case 2026 0187 C of St. Pete Beach
for I mean versus uh Prochur responded uh violation address 3849 Bel Vista Drive East violation. The property is in violation of section 8.2 permitted principal uses and structures of land
development code. The initial initial inspection was 416206 irreparable and irreversible notice of violation dated and mailed certified. 41626 notice of hearing dated and posted on
property 416. This is the affidate posting which is true and accurate on the date of posting. This is the advertisement for the Airbnb. They had one review by Karen, the host.
This is the minimum number of stays. The Airbnb policy. The property can only be rented monthly. property is not compliant. Recommended fine is a th000 per violation totaling
1,000 plus 330 administrative cost and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Knight. Is anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Carol Prochasa? >> Yes. >> Okay. If you could proono on behalf of
Carl Prohaskca. >> Carl, thank you. Great. And Mr. Smith, you may proceed. >> So, just by the name itself, you can tell that there's a little difficulty in English. He's from the Czech Republic. He's here in a very limited period of
time. Uh he's a neighbor of mine and uh after April 16th when he received this notice, he came to me very quickly, very concerned, and I let him know what the rules were. He was very unaware. Uh he's only here a few months out of the year. Uh, and this host at Airbnb is a friend
from Sarasota who said, "I will put the property up for rent for you on Airbnb with no consideration of the rules and restrictions." Uh, Carl Prahaska came to me around April 20. Uh, he got the notice around the 16th. I saw him
shortly thereafter. The remedial action was actually taken. So, I believe the property is in compliance and I went and verified that myself at Airbnb, which is the only website on which the property is listed. I went to Airbnb and when you go to rent now, and actually this was
around May 1st when I checked online to make sure it was compliant. Uh, when you go to rent, there's a 30-day minimum. And so, he'd let the host know as soon as I let him know, he told the host. The host remedied the matter within 24 hours. I went and confirmed online. And
so we believe the property is now in compliance. Uh as soon as uh Carl Pasco became aware, he took remedial action. The city made no efforts to notify him via letter or call or any other avenue that he was not in complian with any rules. And of course lack of knowledge
is not an excuse, but certainly a mitigating factor. And so we would ask that there would be no fine or penalty for uh g given the quick remedial action the minimal number of rental um I don't know what the rental was for um but we
would ask for very reduced costs. We understand that there is some cost with the court uh and no fine. >> Okay. And a couple of questions. I know you're not here to testify so um but as an officer of the court I will take your word as uh credible. Um, and so this is
not um Mr. Proas I'm going to I'm so sorry I'm going to mispronounce Prohaska. Mr. Prohaskca is not his primary residence. >> Correct. It is not. >> Okay. Um, and does he live locally or does he live in the Czech Republic? >> Czech Republic. >> Okay. Um, I mean, I wish he was here so that I
could inquire of him. Um, but he is not. So, I only have the testimony of the city and your representations here today. And you said you do not know what his average rental is on that one rental. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I appreciate your time here today.
Anything else, Miss Knight? >> Okay. Um, I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code section. I am going to find that it is irreparable, irreversible based on the credible evidence that has been submitted here today. I do not have any evidence as to how much the average
night of the rental was. Um, I do have uh credible representations by the respondent's attorney that the property is now no longer being advertised for a uh short-term rental, which would have uh been remedial had this been uh for
the advertising and not necessarily for the actual rental. Um, so efforts have been made um, in cases like this in the past. I've been able to use that amount to reduce the fine since I have no idea what that amount was and Mr. Prohaska is not here for me to inquire. Um, I am
going to uh, assess a $500 fine for the rental um, and the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. If I had had other information, I might have been able to assess something different, but I do not. Um, and then Mr. Smith, do
I have your contact information and can I send the order to you? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. I will get a written order to that effect and I will email it to you so that you can provide that to your client. Thank you so much. Uh, moving on to
um 5C, case number 20260069, city of St. Pete Beach versus Grand Plaza Hotel Owner LLC. Lucy Knight, case 202260069. Respondent, Grand Plaza Hotel owner LLC.
Violation address is the parcel number 063216 0817200 0210. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 4.1 review of
conditional use permit C. section 6-11 temporary uses D12 34 E1234 section 22.3
general requirements B C D E F G section 22.8 8 buffer requirements A3 B12 3 section 2210 maintenance
standards A section 26.3 exempt signs H section 33.6 Six general requirements a section 98-65
unsightly conditions one AB and three four section 98-66 residential and commercial property maintenance 24 of the code of ordinance
of the city of St. Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection 25 2026. Notice of violation dated and mailed certified 416 2026. Notice of hearing dated and posted on
property 416 2026. Affidate posting on the day that the picture was taken is true and accurate. This is where the wall was broke down, broken bricks and stuff. And then they had an old fence on the property that
needs to be removed. The signs on the property is too large. They need to be at least uh 2 in. This is the condition, no use permit parking. I scanned the code and it was charging people to park.
Oh, I'm sorry. I went the wrong way. This is part of the fence that's in disrepair. This is where the buffer along the fence line on G Boulevard. Property must repair the fence. Remove the debris. Remove old fence and construction material. Repair broken
brick wall. Have the right size signage and a conditional use permit or temporary use permit. Property is not in compliant. Recommended fine is $250 per day from the date of your order plus 330 administrator cost and any recording
fees that may be associated with this case. Okay, I have a few questions before I speak with the respondent if they're here. Some of these code sections, one of them, um, 22.3 subsection C is installation of landscaping for, um, in
compliance with an approved landscape plan. Does the property owner have an approved landscape plan? >> No. >> Okay. So, >> there's no plans that was given to us written plans or anything. >> No plan. Okay. So, can't be out of compliance with a plan that doesn't
exist. And is there any issue with the irrigation system? Again, this all has to do it's 22.10 landscaped areas maintenance standards in ground automatic irrigation system. Is there an issue with the irrigation system that you know of? >> Not that I know of.
>> Okay. >> Seen anything being watered as a ride by and stuff. So, what was the purpose of sighting underneath that particular section? >> Uh, because of the the brush, the the buffers, the trees that go along G Boulevard, it would have to be watered
or they just going to die. Okay. Okay. So, I do see the buffer requirements here in 22.8 These talks about landscape buffers between transient accommodations and non-residential uses from residential or institutional uses.
This is just a vacant lot that's being used as a parking lot. Is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Um is it next to any what you showed me was abudding the road? >> Yes. Um any other buffer locations that are abuing any transient accommodations?
>> Um like right when they turn between right on 50th Avenue between the the parcel and the French pastry place. Okay. Okay. And you said something about the signs being needed to be two inches.
This says that they need to have not they cannot exceed one square foot of sign face per sign. Is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. So, you're saying they exceed the one square foot? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And this has to do with on-site parking place signs?
>> Yes, ma'am. One sign shall be allowed for each parking space. And that they are using this as a parking lot without having a permitted conditional use. Is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. So, is it a conditional use or temporary
use? Have they been granted a temporary use? I don't They're two separate. >> I've not been granted one yet. >> Okay. And then unsightly questions and property maintenance. Okay. All right. Thank you very much, Miss Knight. Um,
anyone here on behalf of the property owner? If you could please state your name and affiliation for the record. >> Sure. Uh, Kevin Reali, 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa. Um, council for the it's actually in receiverhip. So, we're representing the receiver here. Um, so
there's there's three buckets here. Uh, this is this property is owned by the the same owners at Bell. It's associated with the Bellweather Hotel. So it was background um the Bellweather Hotel after the hurricanes like many properties on or in the city had to have restoration work. During that
restoration work there was some structural damage discovered and the hotel has not been able to open since then. It's still being assessed. Structural engineers and and etc um have to sort of identify what the solution is and that is it is a surprisingly lengthy process um and then if the repairs can
be made you know what that cost will be. So long-term um there's likely to be uh a larger set of land use permitting that will take place for the property because it'll include whatever happens with Bell Weather. But we we might not know that for several months. Um so that's just
the background. Let's talk about this property in particular. There's three three buckets here. The way I see it, there's maintenance and I'm lumping in the trees, the shrubbery, the irrigation, and the the debris all together with that. Um the debris is removed, the the wall has been removed. Those repairs have been made. The only
thing outstanding for that general bucket of items is uh there's some palms that have to be removed and cut down and then some new uh uh bushes that need to be replaced. Your question about landscaping plan is going to blur into the second bucket, but what I'll say is uh the we already have the actions in
place to to replace uh what was there, which mimics what the code requirement would be if this was parking. Um and so we would ask for um 30 days to finish that work. The the the unsightly work is done. It's now the rebutification work so to speak. Um and we have the estimate
for the trees already in hand and then the shrubs have to be um procured and installed. Uh the it does have land uh irrigation. It just once the landscaping is installed, it'll get retested and it'll need, you know, probably some uh leak not leaks but broken pipes and and
new uh sprinkler heads. So, uh the the next item is uh the temporary use permit. Um this was uh this property had a temporary use almost a decade ago. They don't last for that long though. We we reapplied that went
in on on uh Friday and I had uh several conversations with Brandon who is the uh planner who we've been working with on this and uh it's kind of we didn't really come up with a great solution talking with Brandon and I because the there does not seem to be uh
any other permitting history of the site other than the one temporary use permit but it's been used as a parking lot and been improved with the required buffer. and it's been treated like it's been approved for almost 20 years. Uh it it's
on G Boulevard. It started to get used as parking in the mid mid bots and then there was a notice in the teens and then a temporary use permit was obtained and again it's in receiverhip. So I don't
know what happened in that time. Uh neither did Brandon. So the temporary use permit is what we're seeking. Um there's been a lot of discussion in the city for parking in general. They they want more parking. So we think this is a use that the city actually wants while we figure out what is ultimately going
to happen with the hotel. Um none of that has an excuse. I just don't know the history of that. But it but this is not a new use. This is something that's been historic for a for a long time. Um and so the temporary use permit has been uh submitted. I would ask for 90 days to
finish that process. That that permit is only going to last for so long anyway. And then we have to figure out what to do for a proper zoning approval for, you know, ever. Um, and so we have a meeting scheduled with the city manager to to discuss that as well to discuss if we bring a a permit separate from from the
hotel or or not. Um, and then the the last one is signage. It's relatively easy to comply with this because of uh the signs just need to be made smaller and then you need um it's essentially a one foot sign per parking spot and then a 4 foot sign for information that I
have worked through with Brandon as well. The challenge here is we're not going to put signage up if we're not going to get the temporary use permit and then we don't know what's going to happen with that. So, so um I will tell you that the unsightly issues are are near done. We just need some contractors
to come on site. So asking for a short time for that, asking for a little bit more time for the temporary use permit. For signage, I would like to ask for a a a significant amount of time because I need to know what's going to happen to the property first and then we have to comply which will also require permits because the signs I think the one foot
signs might not require a permit, but the rest of the signs will require a permit. >> So here's my question then. If you if your client can't cannot get the temporary use permit, that's not granted, then the signs would be irrelevant.
Wouldn't >> Right. We would remove them at that point >> and you're going to have to replace them anyways. So, is there any issues with removing them now to come into compliance? >> Compliance by removing and then just um >> and getting new ones if the use is granted. >> That's probably fine, right? Yeah, that's fine. We can agree that. >> And that way that would put you in
compliance with the at least the sign code. Yeah. at that point. Um, >> so can we lump that in then with the whatever the time period you're g for the unsight the the shrubs and the >> I'm going to put it all under one I I'm inclined depending upon the response from the city to put it all under one
time frame. Okay. Because I I don't particularly like coming back multiple times. I think that's kind of you have you have a unique situation here where this parcel is tied to another use. It could potentially be an accessory use, etc., etc. the receiverhip thing is is another complication within this. But
based on your credible representations here today, obviously there's work that's being done um and the Yeah. So based on that, anything else that you would like me to know on this before I ask the city for final uh information and then make my ruling?
>> No, I mean the the your your point that you know effort is being made that's that's certainly true. Um the uh I I just would say that whatever time period it takes to review the temporary use permit. Um that's why I was asking for different time periods, the signs aside. Yeah.
>> Because I think we can comply with the other items faster than temporary use permit. But if you uh but if you want to put them all together, that that's fine. I just don't want to have a deadline that's in advance of that that permit. >> Right. Well, and so my you're representing 90 days. Is that based on your communications with Mr. Barry Brandon with the city or or meeting
schedule? >> Yeah. Yes. And pri and and prior work. I mean, if the city has a recommendation for a different time period, I'm I'm open to it, but that in in prior prior work with the city. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, anything else from the city? >> Yes, madam special man. Pete Darker,
code enforcement. Um, we also would like to request based on on where your mind is. We'd like to request that the property continue to be maintained and to cease using uh cease using the property as a commercial parking lot
until approval is granted >> or a temporary use permit granted. >> Yeah. Okay. Is it being currently used as a parking lot in violation of the code potentially? Um, it it has been used and with the property being in receiverhip
um and with the city's request for more parking and with the fact that it's been used for nearly two decades, I mean, we we would like to continue using the site for parking. >> Well, why I appreciate that you would like to use it for parking. um you know
if if it's not a permitted use within the zoning district and it's not otherwise permitted by conditional or temporary use permit um without that regulatory authority. I don't know, unless you're trying to make an argument that there's some sort of grandfathering that you're not required
to have that, but as far as your representations here today, there used to be a temporary use permit and somehow that got lapsed. Um, and continuing use of the property does not necessarily get you rights within the code.
Um, okay. Thank you. Additionally, ma'am, um, as you're thinking, the we heard that the business is currently closed, correct? >> Yes. >> So, there is no primary use um for this
temporary use on this adjacent lot. >> That's not before me today. So, whether or not that that if they can secure the per the temporary use permit, great. If they can't, great. But that's >> I not wearing that hat today. So, >> you got it. >> All right. Anything else from the city?
I do see a hand up. There's no public comment in these types of hearings. It's either you either called as a witness by one of the two parties, in this case, the city or the respondent. So, I appreciate your attendance here today. Unfortunately, um there's no public comment here today. Um
um okay, I am going to find and I'm going to go through the code sections because I not 100% sure that there is evidence to support all of these. So, I'm going to find that there's been a violation of
um section 22.8 buffer requirements and and installation standards. section 26.13 on-site parking signs. Um to the extent that that exemption talks
about the perhaps they're not properly permitted but they do exceed the allowable sign dimensions requirement. Uh section 4.1 conditional use. Well, no, I'm going to retract that. Not 4.1 because it's not a
conditional use. uh 6.11 temporary use permit as there's operating a parking lot without the required temporary use permit and 98-66 residential and commercial property maintenance. Um
actually and I I will retract that I'll take out the 98.66 66 because that's specific the subsection is fences and walls and my understanding from the representative for the property owner is that the
that has been removed. Um that being said I am going to allow for well we'll do this in in two parts but we'll we won't come back. So based on the representations by the respondent,
I'll allow 30 days for the um buffer requirements to be met. Um I believe that there were the the palms needing to be replaced and the landscape buffering replaced. So 30 days from the date of my order for the landscaping requirements to be met. Um and then 90 days from the
date of my order for the temporary use permit to be contended with. In the meantime, the use needs to cease on the property as there's not a permitted use that is applied. That being said, that puts us at
>> July 13th. >> Well, 90 days is 3 months. >> Oh, 3 months. >> August. >> Yeah, I was going to say August, but I don't know if that's specifically 90 days. I would say September just to give us
time, but I don't want to do that if it's not necessary. And just for the benefit of the public, I'm just using a date calculator to figure out when 90 days. >> Well, the the special answer hearing is going to be August 10th. So,
>> right. But it's it's 90 days from the date of my order. So if we're May, let's call this May 10th, right? May, June, July, August. >> So September. >> So September. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So September 14th
at 10:00 a.m. we will come back just to be safe. And please, if you don't mind, madam special magistrate, adding admin costs to >> I will not be making any determination on fines and costs at this time. >> This is clearly just an administrative order and allows for time for
compliance. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> Okay. Um and then um All right. So, 30 days for the landscape buffering at all, 90 days for a temporary use permit. We will be back here on September 14th for a case status conference to
determination determine compliance. um and if there will be any fines or refuse assess with it. And as long as I have your contact information, I will get you a copy of that order. >> Thank you. >> All right, moving on to case 5D. Case number 20260207,
St. Pete Beach versus Sammy Gates. >> Lucy Knight, case 2026207. Respondent Sammy Gate. Violation address 3041st Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 8.2A
permitted principal uses and structures of land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach. A summary initial inspection 424 2026 irreparable and irreversible notice of
violation dated and male certified. 42426 Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property. 42426. This is the affidate of posting is true and accurate. On the day that I posted
it, the advertisement on Airbnb, it had uh one person that stayed like a few nights. This is the host info. minimum night stays where it says at
least four days. Airbnb policy. The property can only be rented monthly. The property is not in compliant. Recommended fine is a,000 per violation. They had one review totaling 1,000 plus
330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. Thank you, Miss Knight. Anyone here on behalf of Sammy Gates for the >> Okay. If you'll come up and state your state your name for the record.
>> Hello, my name is Sammy Gates. >> All right. And Mr. Gates, anything that you would like me to know before I make my ruling here today? >> Yeah, I just want to kind of make a statement. Um, just for the record is, Hi, your honor, my name is Sammy. I appreciate the opportunity to address
the court today. I want to say that from the outset that I respect the city's concerns and take the matter seriously. My understanding was that the rental listing had already been set to 30-day minimum, but at some point I did subscribe to a third party software that
was called hospitalitable and um this synchronized with my Airbnb platform. Um I later discovered that the software was over has had overridden the certain settings without me realizing it. As soon as I was contacted by the city, I
became aware. Um, I immediately reviewed the listing settings, corrected them to ensure the property complies with the 30-day minimum. So, if you were to go check it now, it's in full compliance. Um, I just respectfully ask that the code enforcement verify that the the
listing is no longer being offered. I don't know if they offer some sort of followup to that. Um, I understand the importance of the complying with the city's rules and I want the court to know that there was no intention uh to disregard the ordinance, but once the
matter was brought, I made efforts to address it promptly and cooperate fully. Um, I also respectfully submit that the evidence presented consisting of like one single review may not itself establish all of the details relating to
the alleged violation such that the exact duration or terms that um that was alleged. However, my primary focus today is to demonstrate that I took corrective action and that I intend to remain compliant moving forward. Um, I
sincerely ask the court for for leniency and consideration in light of the my prompt corre cor corrective efforts and good faith attempt to comply. I respectfully asked to dismiss the fines um and um court costs today.
>> Okay. I have a couple questions for you, Mr. Gave. How long have you owned the property? >> I've owned this property to the best of my knowledge for about five four or five years. >> Okay. And in that four or five year period, has it always been a rental property? >> Never. I've always lived there. I've
never rented it out. >> Okay. And so when did you start renting out the property? >> Just about a little bit over a month ago, I believe. >> Okay. Are you still living in the property or >> Yes. Okay. I live I live there.
>> Okay. Um, and then you um said that you use thirdparty software, which you had originally had the listing as a 30 30-day rental, but third party software overrode your prior settings. >> Exactly. So once I set it up initially on Airbnb, I had a minimum set and then
when I subscribed probably like a few days or a week after I heard, you know, someone told me to use hospitalitable and then at that time it uh overrode my settings and I didn't know about it until the city contacted me for that letting >> Okay.
Do you own other rentals? >> Uh no. >> Okay. The only reason I ask is if you're using a thirdparty software and you are receiving you're I'm assuming you're receiving communications from the third party software that is saying your property is booked for x amount of time. Are you living in the property while
it's being rented? >> Uh part-time. >> Okay. So you're renting it while you're not there. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Okay. >> And so are you receiving communications from the third party software saying we booked your property for this date and time period? >> Correct. So a as you can see there was
one review on the screen. The problem is once on these platforms once it's booked um if you were to cancel you would have to be fully like in charge of covering the full costs and I think from a financial perspective I was not in
position to cover those >> okay >> those costs. So you'd have to cover the full booking price. >> Okay. >> As a host >> and now here we are. >> Yeah. And I was unaware. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so it sounds to me like you knew the rules and then you had this third party software, but you must have
been made aware prior to the city contacting you that it would have that you had a short-term >> I was led to believe and on top of that I want to add I was led to believe there was a three like threeday u sorry three time booking policy. Um I
don't have a realtor that I speak to about that. Um, so also I did research. I found out that certain zoning areas only after the city contact me that certain areas don't even have that threetime booking policy. So I think I'm
in a zone where if you were till my understanding even till today I think you still need a permit even for the three time booking. Is that and if if I'm wrong >> based on what the city's presented to me in your zoning district you can't have a short-term rental at all >> at all. Okay. So then this is
confirmation that till today like now >> I'm aware of it. >> Um and did you ever try to contact the city prior to renting it to confirm what you had? >> I I tried to look up at the the the rules, but I did not call or email the city about it. No, but I I have a hard
time navigating the website, but that's my problem. That's not their problem. >> Understood. Okay. And the listing that was pulled up, it looked like it was what was your average nightly or what did you make off of that one short term? >> To the best of my recollections, it's about a hundred bucks a night.
>> Okay. And it was a couple nights. So total, how much did you make? Like >> couple hundred probably. >> Okay. >> I'm looking at that listing. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Gay. I appreciate your time. Anything else from the city? >> All right. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated
code section. I am going to issue a fine of $150 for the stay based on the credible testimony of Mr. Gate here and the fact that it's no longer being rented. Um, and the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. And Mr. Gates, just make sure I have your information. That way I can send you a
copy of that order. >> Thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> All right. Moving on to 5E. Case number 20260156 of St. Pete Beach versus Brian Fields. Aquarell representing the city of St.
Pete Beach code enforcement. This is case 20260156. The respondent respondent is Brian Fields. Violation address 5018th Avenue. Violation description. The properties in violations of sections 46-33
12 and 13 enumeration. Section 6.13E 4A residential accessory structures. section 9867 CD FNG junk vehicle vessels and abandoned property and section 98-68
B and C junk and disabled vehicles on private property of the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was on April 19th of 2026. The courtesy notice was dated and mailed certified March
19th, 2026. Notice of violation dated and mail certified April 22nd, 2026. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property May 1st, 2026. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. This is the
affidavit of posting at the property address, 5018th Avenue. This is a picture of the portable storage unit um back from June 5th of 2025. This is the abandoned vehicle
that is in the actual um public rightway outside of the the property address. March 5th, 2025. On July 5th, the uh the storage unit is still there. March 19th, 2026, the storage unit is
still on site. Another angled with the vehicle on site on April 15, 2026. This is a picture of the registration of the vehicle. It expired on June of 2025.
This is the vehicle in the public right ofway. The vehicle was red tagged and on April 27th and was removed three days later. So the issue of the vehicle being there is no longer current. It's been removed.
So the corrective action is the property is not compliant. The vehicle that was in the public rightway was towed on uh April 30th. The property must remove the portable storage unit or register the vehicle and make it operable if it if it's wishing to park it on its driveway.
The recommended fine is $250 per day from the date of your order plus $330 in administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. >> Okay. So, at this time, the vehicle has been removed and they're compliant as
far as that's concerned. I'm It was towed, impounded, whatever. Okay. And then at this point, it's just the portable storage unit. That's correct. Okay. >> All right. Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Fields or Brian Fields here? Okay. If you could please come state your name for the record.
>> I uh met a magistrate. I'm Brian Fields. I'm the property owner. This is my primary residence. Um and I was just reviewing what I had on this. I have um the mailing for this because St. Pete Beach is not getting mail delivery here.
Uh I have a post office box uh gets checked typically uh first the month and then weekly thereafter. I received uh the notice for this notice of violation. Um on the 9th and that was a uh it was a
Thursday. Received it about 1 in the afternoon. Um I attempted to call the city of St. Pete Beach. Got through uh got hung up on a few times. It was very very hard to get a hold of somebody. Got me very frustrated. Um I then emailed uh Scott
Tate, the new mayor. I said, "Hey, you know what's what's going on? We're recovering from a hurricane here." Basically, um had personal effects uh in that storage unit. Um and I got a text
message from uh Mr. Dwire Der um uh that next day I attempted to call him back a couple times, could not get a hold of him. Uh according to what I had um from the notice violation, they said they wanted it corrected by the 30th of uh
April. Uh it was uh the vehicle uh is no longer in the rightway. It's it's gone. uh the storage unit um which had personal effects had to be unloaded, loaded into another unit that those could then be moved from the property. Um and that storage unit is no longer
there. Uh the storage unit that was there that was the issue of the violation apparently. Again, this is after a hurricane. You know, there's several of these in my neighborhood. um that was moved and then um the cuz you know we had to unload like storage units
like that like some of them are uh you you can move with stuff in them. Some of them are just portable on-site storage. The one that was there was portable on-site storage. Moved it into another one that could be moved and stored. That was removed. The one that's
there was removed and that was um I don't know exactly when that was picked up because I'm not residing right now at the property. Um, but that was scheduled to have been picked up um by the 30th. I don't know exactly when they removed it though, but it's like
it's gone. And you know, I would make a point that there's like three of these um things here, the the violation of junk and disabled vehicles. Um, and the only reason the vehicle was there was
because insurance companies were fighting over uh is this vehicle insurance, is this flood insurance, is this everything. And you know, to date, um, my insurance companies have been nothing but an absolute pain to work
with. And, uh, furthermore, it's the position of the insurance companies now that you have to pay out of pocket and then claim back after the fact. And I don't know people that have, you know, $100,000 to to fix their house and then claim back after the fact. This is not the only property I have that was
damaged as well. Um, and not from a storm, mind you. Uh, I have another property in the city of St. Pete that, uh, somebody ran heavy equipment into, and I've been dealing with that as well. So, um, from the actual legal standpoint
here, um, the notice I had said they gave this, you know, correct this, um, before the 30th. It was corrected then. And, you know, I think I've done everything to comply with it. I just haven't had conversation with the city
on it. Um, you know, previously there's been the I had a mango tree that was in the property that died after the inundation of the flooding, the salt water and whatnot. That was resolved um with, you know, a phone call from the city. Um, of course, I had to quote all
that out and get it done, but you know, it was I'm making a good effort to apply and I feel like, you know, the communication from the city on this has been fairly poor. So, that's why I'm here today and to say everything's, as
far as I can tell, been cured by the date on the notice. And that's my testimony. >> Okay. Uh, thank you, Mr. Fields. And so, I just want to clarify, you were saying there were two different personal storage units. The first one that you had on there couldn't be moved with all the items in it, but then you had it
replaced. You took everything out, they hauled that one away, and then the second one, you were able to load your things into it, and then they removed that with your personal items in it. >> Yeah, we we removed all this stuff. Yeah. >> Okay. And that was all done by um by November or excuse me by um April 30th. >> Yes.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Fields. I appreciate your time. >> Um anything anything else, Miss Ratka? >> Yes. I mean, it's been a year and a half since the storms and um that personal storage unit on that driveway has been
there for over nine months and um the right the vehicle is not an issue. However, the personal um the only correspondence that we've had was a voicemail that Mr. Fields had left and we would have certainly returned any calls and we did in fact try to return a
call and weren't able to get through to him. Not even able to leave a voice message with him. >> Okay. And have you been out to the property since then to see if the storage unit has been removed? >> Um I was out there on April 30th and the storage unit was still there at that
date. Um just trying to recall whether I passed it this weekend or not. because the vehicle is no longer there. I seem to recall that the storage was unit was still there, but I haven't confirmed that it's gone. No. >> Okay. Um Mr. Fields, do you have any
response to that? I mean, do you have any pictures of it not being on the property or any receipts that or verification that it's been removed? It could be that the city was out there in the morning and it was removed in the afternoon. >> Yeah. I mean, um excuse me. >> Of course.
So, I don't know if I have something as of that date, uh, per se because again, I wasn't out at the property when it was picked up. Uh, but I can Whoops.
Um, I I maybe I can certain I have a picture right now of the there's a video camera on the property. >> So, you can show that right now. It's not there. My concern is >> Yeah, I don't I don't have anything showing as of that date. I I have >> Yeah, I have your testimony stating April 30th it was removed. I have Miss
Rectel Rectell's testimony stating that on April 30th she saw it. It could be that it was removed when after she saw it was later removed. I just now that I have competing testimony, I'm just wondering if there's anything additional that you have like a confirmation receipt of them picking it up or
>> No, I I don't have anything like that. I didn't I I assume that hey, it's removed on the 30th. >> It's going to >> I should be good. Um, and uh, you know, I've there was no notice before any of this. I know she says it was nine
months. Um, >> well, I know you mentioned a >> recovering from a hurricane. I >> and I understand that, but so is everybody else in the city of St. Pete Beach. So, while I appreciate that and I know everybody's circumstances are different, can I verify that the the address that's listed on the property
appraiser and tax collector's website is 5018th Avenue. You said you have a PO box. Is that where your mail is being directed to? >> Uh, no. The property appraiser uh has my PO box listed as the mailing address. >> I know for a fact because I have received uh tax uh documents.
>> So, how how did you get your how did you get the notice of the violation? Then you >> I got the notice uh from my post office box. I had to go to the um you know the counter to pick it up. >> Okay. >> And again, the date I got it, I emailed Miss Rockell, I only have a certified
mailing for the property address, not for any delivery either by US mail or otherwise to PO box. Do you know what happened as far as the I know that Mr. Fields is here today, but as far as the violation notice, >> I don't have any records of the PO box
address on the property site. It's just the property address. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm not going to look that up because that was me getting evidence that I do don't need to be doing. Okay. All right. Anything else from the city?
>> Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Fields. I appreciate your time here today. Um um >> yes, >> I could show my phone. I just pulled it up on the property's website. Uh there is a mailing address listed on there of uh PO Box 547 uh St. Petersburg, Florida.
>> And when was that changed? >> That's been like that for I want to say since last year. I don't know exactly when it was changed, but >> same with the tax I think it's the tax collector or the property app. Are both of them updated? Do you >> Yeah, there there you have to um I could
look it up. I didn't know I would have to testify that to that to >> No, I I understand. >> Uh but you have to like fill out something and then email them. Um it's a very manual process. >> Okay. >> And uh I did have uh additionally uh I do have mail forwarding set up as well. Um I don't know if that's still current.
Um but you know I have had mail forwarding set up to that PO box. >> Okay. >> And it is checked at least weekly if not a little more often than that. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Fields. I appreciate your testimony here today. Um This one's a fun one. Um, I have
testimony that says that the portable storage device was removed on April 30th and I have testimony that says it was not removed on April 30th and both things can be true. Um, I don't have any testimony that says
it's not there today, although I any conflicting testimony. I do have the testimony of Mr. Fields who says it was removed. Um, and it is not there as of today. Um, the point of the city, Huh. >> I I I'm fine with that. The the the
city's points are well taken that it's been there for quite some time. I do see that the courtesy notice had gone out, but I also understand that Mr. Fields has been displaced from his home. Um, I understand it's also not the same storage unit that was there the first time. So, it is a different storage unit. I also understand that that's kind
of gets into the weeds of whether or not it was um if it was still in violation at the time of the date of compliance. I am going to find on your honor, may I offer an an alternative just for your consideration?
Um there's it seems like both parties may have additional evidence um regarding the status of compliance. Would it would an option be to perhaps continue this and allow additional testimony or evidence to come before you
regarding the status of compliance? Um I understand that Mr. Fields has something on his phone. I haven't seen it. I haven't seen it displayed on the screen. I don't think you've seen that. Um, and staff can also go and verify whether or not it's it's there or not.
>> Well, I don't think the issue of whether it's there today or not. My issue is if it was there on the 30th. The the notice of violation specifically says these violations must be corrected no later than April 30th, 2026. And then if they are viol if the vi violations are
corrected, then recurs or whatnot by the time the specified time blah blah blah, it may be presented to the special magistrate. Um, I have code enforcement saying they went out to the property on that date of a violation, but it says no later than April 30th. So, to me, you would want to go inspect on May 1st or
the 31st of April. I don't know which one that fell on. Uh, May 1st to see if it had been removed because my understanding is days are 24 hours. Um, and it doesn't give a particular time. Um, but we don't know if it was there on May 1st, but I do have testimony saying it was removed on April 30th. So my
thinking is if the respondent is willing to continue until the next month to provide proof that it was removed on April 30th, a confirmation from the portable storage unit, people saying thank you it was
removed, a video from your cameras from that time period, whatever you have or if the city can provide proof that it wasn't removed. Um, ultimately it's the city's burden to prove there was a violation, which they would have to
prove it existed past the time in the notice. So, it's the city's burden to show that it was there um on May 1st. Um, so if the city has that evidence, then of course I would find that there is a violation, but if the city doesn't have that evidence, then I have
testimony stating it wasn't there. I need a little bit of clarification. I I think um officer Buckl um testified that she thought but she wasn't sure and so to maintain cander with the court um that would give us additional time to go
back and perhaps check her notes and >> yes Mr. Fields, you certainly have the opportunity to chime in here. >> Can you please just for purposes of the record, >> Madam Magistrate, this is a
quite frankly, in my opinion, a very minor thing and I would like to get it resolved today. I was here uh in good faith to show that hey, this was done by, you know, the 30th. Uh I reached out. I tried to communicate with the city here. Um, and at the end of the
day, it was corrected in compliance with the, you know, what I was given. So, I just want to get it resolved. Uh, I don't need to come back here. Uh, again, I'm not looking to run a foul of city codes or anything like that, but again, >> uh, you know, this is two hours out of
my day and I don't think it's a good use of city time either to come back at this. So, I just ask that, you know, the violation was corrected. There's nothing nefarious here and I don't think I should have any sort of fine or you know costs or anything as a taxpayer in the
city of St. Pete Beach. I tried to comply with this and I did. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I mean the city usually does a very good job of bringing evidence to me. This one
is a tricky one. I have to abide by chapter 162 and it is uh quadial proceedings. So it's by competent substant competence substantial evidence. The city has to prove that there was a
violation. I have evidence to state that there it was removed. I think it could be credible that it was removed after you went by. Unless officer recttoell, can you testify when you went by on the 30th? >> It would have been early in the morning. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, thank you for for your
cand. I am going to find that there is no violation of the state of code sections. I'm not going to assess any fines or administrative costs >> and make sure I have your contact information. I will get you an order to that effect. >> Thank you, Mr. Fields. Uh, moving on to
case 5F. Case number 20260128. City of St. Pete Beach versus Highland Properties of West Florida LC. AO rectell representing City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is case 20250612.
The respondent is H&J Capital LLC. Violation address 61078th Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 46-33 1 and3. Enumeration section 98-64A
general maintenance section 98-651A and B 3 and 4 and section 98-66 AB 7 20 22 B2 and 24 residential and commercial property maintenance of the land development code of the city of St.
Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection 913 2025. Notice of violation dated and male certified. 9:15 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property
422 2026. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. Affidavit of posting at the property 61078th Avenue. This is a picture of the broken fence.
The overgrown yard overgrowth and the broken fence. More images of the overgrowth. Overgrowth and debris. The overgrown entrance. Weeds. The overgrowth again.
Dead bushes. And this is the last one of the last picture, April 15th, that it was still overgrown and still had a broken fence on April 15th vegetation.
So, the property is not compliant. The property must clean up the landscape and fix the fence. Recommended fine is $250 a day per day from the date of your order plus 330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. Thank you. Anyone here on behalf of
Highland Properties of W Florida LC West Florida? Highland Properties of West Florida LC. Seeing no one, uh, Miss Reachell, have you had any contact with anyone on behalf of the property owner? >> No, no, no contact at all.
>> Okay. Can you um on one of the code sections 98-64A nuisances and hazards, what are the issues that are nuisances and hazards that are affecting the safety for the occupants or persons utilizing the
>> the overgrowth of vegetation, the debris, >> the debris that's on on the side side of the building. >> Okay. All right. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. I am going to allow uh for 14 days from the date of my
order for the property to come into compliance. Um and then we will be back here on June 8th to determine whether or not the property has come into compliance and whether or not a fines or fees should be assessed.
All right. Case number agenda item 5G. Case number 2025 0612, city of St. Beach versus H&J Capital LLC. >> H&J Capital think we just talked about H&J Capital.
>> No, I have that one as Highland Properties of West Florida. >> Oh, but she presented H&J was dismissed. Yes. Okay, that actually makes more sense with the hazardous nuisance. So,
reopening case 20260128, City of St. Pete Beach versus Highland Properties of West Florida LLC. Um >> so >> and I am going to yeah if you could present that case
please and then I will go ahead and >> so for that case um I was um the property actually sold back in February on February 26 of 26 and so I'd like to dis have that um an order dismissing that case against the pre previous
owners and I have had to reopen it now against the new owners. Which case are you on? >> That case was that case was um >> considered when we did changes to the agenda. We requested that that case be
>> No, I don't have anything for 5F case 2026128. I don't have any notes on any. I have uh 5B 2026 0138.
>> So, we're requesting that case 5F be dismissed as uh officer just stated. >> Okay. >> That property has been sold. >> Okay. I will go ahead and dismiss that case due to selling the property. Then my question is should we have moved on from 2026
0138 Timothy Wheeler? >> Uh Officer Rock the Shell presented case number 20250612 5G. >> No I I think you're misunderstanding. So at the beginning when we did changes to the agenda the only changes I had under
five were B. That was the only one that we were continuing to June 8th, 2026. The case number is similar but different to F. Are we continuing 5B?
>> Yes. >> Okay. And then we are and now we are dismissing 5F. >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Perfect. All right. So, this one is dismissed. And so the one that we that was just presented um I'll call the case 20250612
which is St. Pete Beach versus H&J Capital LLC. I will accept into evidence the record that was presented previously by officer Retoell. Um you had no communications with the property owner on this one. Okay. And then this is for
um the same code sections. Okay. And so, all right. So, I will find that the property and there's nobody here on behalf of H&J Capital LLC. Just for the record, there's nobody in the audience at all. Just I need to call it just in
case. Um, okay. I will find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. I will allow for 14 days from the date of my order to come into compliance. and then we will meet back here on June 8th to determine whether or not the property is in compliance and to assess any fines and fees if necessary.
>> Thank you. >> Okay, then moving on to 5H case number 20260129, City of St. Pete Beach versus Tammy Care and Tracy Sadler Ruckell representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is
case 20260129. The respondent is Tammy Kate and Tracy Sadler. Violation address 61878th Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violations of sections 46-33
2 3 9 and 12 enumeration. Section 98-64A general maintenance. Section 98-651A and B 4 and section 98-66 AM 1824 and E residential and commercial
property maintenance of the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary initial inspection was on January 28th, 2026. The notice of violation dated and mailed certified March 3rd, 2026. Notice of hearing dated
and posted on the property, April 22nd, 2026. This is a true and accurate description of what I witness. The affidavit of posting at the property address 61878th Avenue. This property here has um fence damage.
Clearly, it's le it's leaving open access to the pool which has been um left. It's got um foul water in it and it's a it's a basically a safety hazard. There is a trailer parked. There was a
trailer parked in front of there blocking it. A little closer picture, you can see that there's also uh an abandoned toilet. I was gonna ask that pool deck. >> This is a little bit closer property picture of the pool
from a different angle. >> And these pictures are all taken from public right away. >> Yes, they are right there. Again, no change to the pool condition as of April 14th, 15, 2026.
So, the corrective action here is that the property is not compliant. The pool is stagnant and requires a safety fence. The toilet should also be removed from visibility. The recommended fine is $250 per day from the date of your order, plus $330 in administring
fees that may be associated with this case. I did however go out to this property this morning because I noticed over the weekend overhead please that the trailer had been removed and that had a um a tag on it which
actually expired as April 26. So as of May they must have removed the trailer otherwise it would have been in violation. But it still leaves open access to the pool. And our concern is that it's a safety hazard. And the city would actually like to request now that
we have the ability to abate and probably cover the pool or secure the pool. Put a the minimum fence requirement to >> Was there a fence there before? >> I've never seen it up. It's been like that since the hurricanes. So >> Okay. So you don't know if they had
previously had a fence there before. Okay. I mean, statute requires a fence up, but >> yeah. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of Tammy Care or Tracy Sadler? And by the way, my my notices have been
returned from going to them, so there's been no contact at all. >> Okay. But the property has been posted. >> Yeah. And they did remove the trailer. >> Yeah. And have you had any communication with
the property owner at all? >> No. >> All right. I am going to defer to the city attorney on this one before I make my ruling. I know under chapter 162 I have the ability to determine whether or not
there's a violation of the city's code of ordinances. Um I'm happy to do so. Um I understand that I can issue rulings to allow for the recruitment of costs
which I'm happy to do. Um as far as abatement, is there a provision of the city's code that would allow me to direct abatement by the city? to allow me. I'm not saying that the city doesn't have the ability to abate either under the state statute perhaps
>> Florida building code. I defer to your >> I I believe that there is >> on that one. >> I believe there is language it's either in 162 or um in the St. Pete Beach code um and I apologize but that should be verified that says um gives you the
authority to um order any other relief needed or necessary. Um it's general. Yeah. >> Um however, there is a life safety concern here. >> Understood. And underneath the unsafe building code, which I don't know if St. the city of St. Pete Beach has adopted
or any other type of abatement code, I wouldn't even be involved in this. Um the city could do it on its own given notice and opportunity to be heard. Or maybe not even that basis that it's offense. I mean, same as condition with boarding up windows, etc. I'm wondering
what my extent of my authority under the city's code is to allow for that. Again, like I'm I'm not saying the city doesn't have the ability to do that. I don't know that I can um I am the one to do that. So, give me one moment
because I want my order to >> What about providing us cost to or allowing us those costs? I can do so at a second hearing on the matter if they don't allow time to comply. This is I believe chapter 162 gives the the
ability if it is a life safety issue the ability not to have to give a cure period where you can just bring it >> um directly to me without giving a time to cure. I don't know if I can do that
without giving you a time to cure. So, give me a second and let me find out. >> Again, I'm happy to if I have the authority to do so. >> Um um your honor, are you saying then that
you would give them x number of days for them for the property? >> Not that I need to. >> Um and that's that's where I'm trying to find out. one, if I don't need to, um, I can order it that it is in violation of the stated code sections
and automatically issue a fine because I don't need to put a cure period on there. That being said, I don't know that without additional authority, I can allow for abatement. I
know I can allow for the cost of repairs. I just need to look at that particular code section, the statute. And when I do, >> again, I I apologize. I don't have that at my fingertips, but I think it's right now.
>> I think it's general language. >> I think it's under 162.09. >> I don't know why I don't have this memorized by now. Feel like I should. Did you find it? >> I have the language >> just died.
>> It's in your city code or is it in 16 >> in 16209? >> My computer died 209. Thought it was. Uh, can you read the language for me, Mr. Derer? Or I can actually I've got it right here.
Cost of repair of leans which may make all reasonable repairs which required to bring the property in compliance and charge the violator with reasonable cost of repairs. I'm okay with that. Okay. All right. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code section. I
am going to also make a finding that um the property is in such a state that um no cure period would be sufficient and that it is a threat to the life, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city
of St. Pete Beach and the general public. And based on those findings, I um am going to allow the city to make all reasonable repairs which are required to bring the property into
compliance and charge the violator with the reasonable cost of repairs. That being said, that's not abatement. That's bringing the property into compliance, meaning taking care of the pool. I don't think that's what the city wants. I think the city wants the
ability to put up a fence. Is that correct? Would that bring the property into compliance >> to secure the pool? Whether it's a pool a pool fence just around the perimeter of the pool, not necessarily erect the property line fence. >> Well, now you're going to somebody's
private property to install pool fence. True. which would need to be properly permitted >> or a cover >> plywood deck >> that would have to be affixed into the pool deck.
>> It'll be a fixed top of it. >> I am concerned because this is in somebody's backyard. the property is vacant from I >> I understand that. My issue is I am allowing a government actor to potentially in violation of the fourth
amendment to go into somebody's backyard and put a pool cover on when the least restrictive thing would be able to put up a fence to prevent the public from coming onto the property. So I am going to direct my order to the city to say you can make all reasonable
repairs which are required to bring the property into compliance pursuant to 162.09 in the least >> to eliminate the hazard >> to eliminate to eliminate the hazard from the public. >> Right. in the least restrictive means
necessary and avoiding encroachment onto private property in the least restrictive means necessary. It will be worded much better in my order. Um and not and and yes, that will be what my order says.
Okay. Um and then also the in addition to the reasonable administrative cost of the city which will be $330 I'm assuming. >> Yes. >> And um the cost of recording any type of order. Um, Miss Duperich,
I do we have um, your honor, as you're working on that, I I just for the record, the city will look into any other um, opportunities that it has to address the um, the hazardous condition um because
that is of of concern to it. >> Yeah. My only other issue is I have been challenged on issuing administrative costs without having the dollar amount of administrative costs. I don't >> I believe >> we have an estimate, do we not? >> Do we have an estimate?
>> We don't have an estimate. >> No. >> Wait, what? Administrative costs? >> No. An estimate for the reasonable cost to repair? >> Well, no, we don't know that. >> Okay. Then I would ask that I retain jurisdiction um for a future date when
the property has been abaded and the city has incurred the reasonable costs. I will then issue an order imposing those reasonable costs in an exact amount onto the property owner. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And I will get you my order on
that. >> You got it. Thank you. >> All right. Moving on to uh 7A. Case number 20260080. City of St. Pete Beach versus 5411 Paliway Land Trust and it's trustee Christopher McMillan as trustee
>> Lucy Knight case 20260080 uh respondent land trust McMillan and Christopher trust trustee uh violation address 5411 Paliway violation description the property is in violation
of section 46-142 A4 and B4 pattern of nuisance activity of chronic nuisance property code for the city of St. Pete Beach. Final order imposing fines and cost.
Case number 20250056 on 714 2025 violation sections 46-33 enumerations 9864
general maintenance 98-65 unsightly conditions and 98-66 residential commercial property maintenance Case summary. Initial inspection 115 2025.
Notice of nuisance dated and male certified 42826. Notice of hearing dated and posted on property 42826. This is the affidate posting
that was posted on the day in its true accurate form. the recorded lean on December 9th, 2025. This is the second page of it. This is the uh unsafe structure that was
posted 210 2026. The nuisance inspection when we went round and the pool was green. It's not covered. the pool enclosure. Some of the metal have fall down, fallen down. This is the bay window where it's
cracked at the bottom. And this is the initial inspection. Just more pictures of the backyard. This is the broken fence that was all on the front yard and on the side of the house. More debris.
Broken windows. Bunch of trash outside. Another broken window with uh chairs on the patio. Fence in disrepair. A pattern of nuisance exists. Sections 46-143A.
And the property is declared a chronic nuisance. No written action plan has been received. Section 46-143B. The city would like a chronic nuisance service order section 46-146
to board up the property for safety reasons and environmental conditions in the house may be a hazard to health. Recommended billing cost of cost of service to abate at nuisance in the
amount of approximately 20,000 plus 330 administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. The city wishes to abate the property by boarding up the windows uh putting a wooden cover over
the pool because it's it's a safety hazard because it's wide open. Anybody could just go in there uh remove the debris off the property that could fly away in case of another storm or hard gust of wind. Remove the broken
pool enclosure that's falling down and that will be my case. Okay. So you have cited them under 46142A4 for junk wrecked abandoned property as defined in chapter 46 of the code.
>> Yes ma'am. >> How did we establish a pattern of nuisance please in addition to that code section >> or we went >> right but did you site them for any additional code sections is my question. They
>> I I don't disagree that you can establish a pattern of nuisance activity, but the way you've cited them, they are on only on notice. No, I don't have from the presentation though. I don't have the notice. I can't read the posting affidavit. I
can't read the notice. From what the presentation says, the notice only notifies them of 461 142 A4 and B4-143. >> So that establishes the pattern that you just mentioned. Um the pattern has been established. So
>> 146142 A4 nuisance activity means any activities relating to the following violations whenever engaged by the property owner, agent, tenant or invitee of the property owner, agent or tenant. Four is junked, wrecked, abandoned property as defined in 46 of this code.
When you go down to junked, wrecked or abandoned property, it defines it as for the purposes of this article, property shall be considered abandoned or unclaimed if the owner of the property cannot be found. The property has been left on city- owned lands.
>> 46-96. It's the definition of abandoned or unclaimed property under junct, wrecked, or abandoned property, which is how your nuisance code defines it. All the certified mail has been coming back.
>> Makes perfect sense. >> So the owner can be found. Um >> this has to do with personal property. This is the same thing that I mentioned last time. >> When you see Oh, p. Oh, not real. Got it. So
the way I'm reading the code and perhaps the city attorney reads it differently and can enlighten me so that I can consider but you've cited them under 46142 A4 which says junked wrecked abandoned property as defined in chapter 46 of the code. When you go down to
chapter 469, well, article three, which is junk wrecked, abandoned property, which is definition of that portion of the code. It has to deal with real property. I mean personal property, not real
property. And it does say under 4697, it's declared that the abandonment of or leaving unclaimed any personal property within the city constitutes a nuisance. This is not personal property. This is
real property. >> So your honor, there is also in the record, I have to go back and look and um there is the finding of the unsafe structure by the building official. >> Okay. Um >> and how was that cited to the property owner though? How are they on notice of
that? >> Not I'm looking. Yeah, >> I and I don't within my packet have a copy of the notice that was sent to them. All I do have is a copy of the recorded lean from the previous final administrative order and the
photographs. I don't have a copy of the actual notice that was sent to the property owner of the nuisance violation. Do we have it in the file? Is it in the file? >> Officer could be offered.
>> And to be clear, it does look like your chronic nuisance property code follows the state statute pretty well, which is usually criminal in nature. >> If we strike that And I know we've had one of these before. Mr. Meyer's property dealt with
personal property on his property. Madame Magistrate, um we're striking A and would like you to look at the definition in B. Uh 46 B4. What is that? 461.
>> Failure to correct code violations. But you would have had to site them under, in my opinion, you would have had to site them under the first, which is 46142A 33, which gives you what the nuisance
activity is. And then and then I if you want me if you cited them under B4. >> Yes, ma'am. >> That's fine. Where's the pattern of activity? Is it because you fa because you failed to do it one time that's now considered a pattern of of chronic nuisance
activity? Is that the city's contingent? >> I think the the city has supplemented the record with the finding of the unsafe structure by the building official as additional evidence that the that there is present a nuisance condition. Um, but I need to check on
the noticing >> how it was noticed to the property owner. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I don't have a copy of that notice. So, I >> So, >> can you go >> But it's similar, >> but I need to know what was noticed to them in this case.
>> Pull it up in >> It's It should be on that computer. Could we go straight to um files? And this says failure to correct code violations by the time ordered by the special magistrate. Is it the city's contention one is
enough to create the pattern? Plus with the um the time um I believe that the one code violation um has been in effect for quite a number of time.
Well, this is December 9th, 2025. I am concerned just from a purely legal perspective. I'm concerned one does not make a pattern. One is not chronic. Mr. Meyers was chronic was clearly a pattern. >> Understood. I am not saying that this is
not dangerous, unsafe, and should not otherwise be abaded. I just don't know that this is a chronic nuisance. It's not something that is recurring. It is something that is static and has not been cured. There's no pattern of activity.
>> The pattern would be the um violations that were cited previously that have not been complied with. >> The pattern needs more than one thing. You can't have a pattern. If I just have a red marker, it's just a red marker. If
I have a red marker, a blue marker, a red marker, a blue marker, red marker, blue marker, that's a pattern >> of activity, >> your honor, I think that um staff may have the um information in their files. Okay. and possibly uh if we could just
continue the matter, let us um go through our files and bring it back to you um in the correct order. >> And I think that yeah, the biggest thing is I just need to know how it was noticed to the property owner because if it was noticed under >> the correct numbers need to be in there,
>> then then I I could at least consider it and we can move forward. But if it's under the personal property, junked abandoned property, then >> there's a good chance I'm going to find that it's not a chronic nuisance. I agree. I understand. >> I think that was my concern at the last hearing. >> So, um,
>> Mr. Door, is that okay if we continue it? We go through our files, come up with our evidence and our documents, and then we bring it back to the magistrate. >> And so, we might as well do that for >> case number
>> 20250069. >> Yes, ma'am. >> City of St. Beach versus Annie Nuin and Jimmy Trong. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Um, and because this is the second time we've continued these, I am not advising the city. You have a city attorney to do that. I am simply stating
what I would need to consider is I want to I need to see the notice to see how it was cited to the property owner. >> Okay. >> Um, if it was cited under the junct property, understand that that's personal property. So, I just need to see evidence of that. if it's cited under not complying with a previous code
enforcement order or orders just need to see that that's what was noticed and that's what they were violating. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um your honor um just to going back to that other case um there is a citation I wanted to share with you. So at the appropriate time I can
>> we are concluded with those two. So, which going back to which case? The >> um the one that we were talking about um with the pool and the fencing. >> Um I just want the abatement. >> Yeah. I just want to bring to your
attention section 22-279. Um and there in that section, that's that general language that um that I was referring to. >> 202 of the city's code. >> The city's code not 162. the city's code
22-279. It does have some general language that talks about um or any other type of Let me see if I can get there real quick. >> This seems to be a paring of
>> 16209. >> Yeah. And I do see where it says, "In addition, if the violation is violation described in 220 2277 2764 of this article, the special magistrate shall notify the city manager which may make all reasonable repairs or
other corrective actions which are required to bring the property into compliance or otherwise secure the property." That is different than 162-09. So then what is 2764 say? >> My computer is not cooperating. for
reason believe the violation of the condition causing the violation presents a serious threat to the public health and safety. Okay, my order still stands. I will go because it's not um it's not contrary to that. That just provides additional authority and does discuss abatement. Thank you um Miss Stubric. I
appreciate that. I will include that language in my order as well. >> Um uh and still obviously need to reserve what the imposition of costs will be based on what the actual costs too. >> Yes. Thank you. But thank you very much for that. Uh 22
and just so we know that was case 2026 0129. That is 2279. Correct. Okay. So we continued the two nuisance abatement cases. I don't have any lean reductions. The next hearing is on June
8th, 2026th at 10:00 a.m. Same time, same place. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Anything else that we need to go over while I am here? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you all very much. You guys have a great day. >> Well, thank you. Bye. Bye.