--------- Code enforcement special magistrate hearing for Monday, July 14th at 10 a.m. My name is Erica Aello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases. I am a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida Bar and board certified in city, county, and local government law. I have been
appointed 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 I do not represent the city here today. I also 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 in which they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed. Every effort
will be made to hear all persons having relevant evidence, arguments, or comments related to the specific case that is being heard. If you wish to speak today, it is necessary that you be sworn in, which I will do momentarily. All testimony given will be done under oath, and in all cases, since the city
has the burden of proof, the city will present its case first. The respondent will then be given an opportunity to refute the city's allegations. Formal rules of evidence do not apply to this proceeding. However, I will make every effort to ensure that fundamental fairness and due process is afforded to all parties. After hearing all relevant
evidence, I will issue an order. The order will be reduced to writing and all parties will be provided with the copy. So, please ensure that we have your current address or email address. Additionally, you are advised that I do not have the authority to grant you a variance, permit, or special special
exception of any kind. My role is to solely determine whether the city code has been violated and under some circumstances to provide a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever means 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 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. Is there anyone wishing to speak today? You plan on speaking at all, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So sworn. Okay. Are there any changes to this morning's agenda? Yes. Good morning, Madame Special Ministry. Pete Der, code enforcement manager for the city of St. Pete Beach. Uh changes to the agenda are as follows.
We'd like to continue case number 20240584. Can you tell me what agenda item number? What is that? Cat 2 C or 3 C. I don't know that one. Neither one of those are 2024.
224. This one 584. Uh O O 4 and 20 25388. Eight.
Which is C 4 C on the repeat. Okay. So 5 and 4 C. And you'd like to can continue those to a date certain. Is that correct? Yes, please. And the next hearing is
August the 11th. August 11th. Okay. So, both of those you'd like to continue to August 11th at 10 a.m. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Um, additionally, and this case is not in the agenda, so I'm I'm hoping that you would honor this
request, which is to provide us an order. Um, there was a property sold after the hearing, which is code enforcement case number 20250035. The address is 311 South Basin Avenue.
um that property was sold. So, we would like an admin an order saying that administrative costs only. Okay. And you said that's not otherwise on the agenda. No, ma'am. Okay. Then we'll take that up at the uh end at the end of the hearing. Very good. Thank you, ma'am.
All right. No other cases cases to be changed on the agenda. Madame Magistrate, as you are aware, um the 2A has been dismissed. Correct. Okay, that's it, ma'am. And those are no more. Okay, thank you.
Okay, and I believe um Okay, so uh the first case on the agenda, which is case number 20240475, City of St. Pete Beach versus Bayside Shops LLC, has been dismissed by the city and that will no longer be moving
forward. Um, does the city need me to get an order on that or is that something that you guys have handled in? I believe the other magistrate has provided that Mr. has done so. Okay, perfect. Okay, then moving on to the next case on the agenda which is 2B case
zero. Case number 20250010, city of St. Pete Beach versus the Emily Hagen uh trust uh with trustee Emily Hagen. Hi, good morning madam magistrate. Lewis Cruz representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status
hearing to determine the compliance and to assess any authorized fines and cost. The property is not compliant. The city will be asking for $250 a day starting June 2nd, 2025 until compliant, plus
$329 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. Okay. Have you spoken to the property owner at all or anyone represent? No, I I haven't. Our administrative assistant, who's not here, she did get a chance to speak with her. I tried to
reach out. Haven't heard anything from them since. My administrative assistant talked with them. Um I went there. It still looks like nobody's living at the property. It looks like there was a little bit of work that was tried to be done, but it still is definitely needing um a lot of repair on the building
itself and still has trash and debris on the left side of the property. um like uh palm frrons, trash and debris that is still current. Okay. So, still not compliant with the city's code um upon inspection. No, ma'am. Okay. All right. Is there anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Emily
Hagen, as trustee of the Emily Bhagen Revocable Living Trust. Okay. If you could please come up here, state your name and your affiliation with the trust for the record. um that's up to the city and we just need to make sure that you are able to be heard on the recording.
So, of course, move. Yeah, I do apologize. I was in a hospital and I had a very bad car accident where I had and also well number one I lost it and I'm I apologize to interrupt you but
could you please state your name for the record? So I'm sorry. Emily Hagen. All right. Thank you, Miss Hagen. Okay. Go ahead. Proceed. Well, I was um I was in the hospital. First of all, I moved and I was staying with a friend. My mail didn't get forwarded, so I never got any of the notices until the last
one. And uh I hired somebody to go and you know do whatever they could at the property. But uh I like I said I've been I can't even drive. I've been stuck and I've been in very bad shape. I I had nearly bled to death. I'm having to get
iron infusions and all kinds of stuff. I had four broken ribs, possible concussion. Um anyway, so the reason why I haven't responded is because first of all, I never got noticed because I've moved twice because I was staying with a
friend and then I moved with my son up to Holiday. Mhm. So, uh I I do apologize and I tried to respond as soon as I spoke to the lady at city hall that called me, but um I didn't get any other calls.
Okay. And so in and I don't make this to sound like it's an interrogation, but when when did you were you involved in your car accident? Well, that was May 2nd and then I had to have surgery. I was in the hospital like a week. Okay. So, but before that, I was moving around, so I had different addresses and
the mail didn't get forwarded. And actually, I did come to city hall once and they they hadn't u inspected the property yet. So, I said, "Well, when are you going to?" And they had it out. They had to do another inspection and then it was out for inspection then. So I did try to take care of it before my
car accident. Okay. And so then my understanding as well is that to this date the city is saying it's still not in compliance with the city's code. And you said you had hired somebody. Yes. Okay. Supposed to have removed all the debris, painted and you know fixed up the front of the house.
Okay. And once that was completed, did you talk did you speak to them and have them provide you with any because understanding you can't drive. Have them provide you with pictures or something of what was done? No, I guess I should have because they didn't apparently do the right job because I paid them to go and do it.
Okay. Um, and since the city is now saying that there it is not completed and is not compliant with the my previous order, is there an amount of time that you think that would you could use to to facilitate that? Understanding that you've had these things that have come up in the interim.
Uh, I however much time you're willing to give me, I will make sure it gets done this time. which is apparently the person I hired charged me but he didn't do it and I couldn't come down to visit it. Okay. Um and just a question of the city. Do you happen to know um what is
left as far as what needs to be done to comply? Um yes ma'am. It looks like it looks like he was duct taping the fascia boards. I don't know what this guy was trying to do. It's not very helpful cuz I could tell that someone was trying to do something. whoever you
hire. Um, unfortunately, you didn't do such a hot job. The front yard does look better, but on the left side of the property, if you're looking at the house from the street, there's still a whole bunch of trash and debris in there. Um, but the front looks like he didn't clean up the stuff. Um, but the facial boards need to be fixed properly. Can't be duct
taped. Duct tape needs to have painting. And then where there's any rotted wood, which is usually on the exterior walls cuz it's a old style home as well as like the uh I've owned it for 60 years. That was my first house out. I've lived on St. PV since I was 2 years old and I'm 77. So,
yeah. And uh the door frame that's starting to deteriorate to rot. So, just fixing up some of these things and you could be in compliance fairly easy. These ones obviously hire somebody who I was say and Mr. Mr. Cruz, I know in my order I had said that any permits for anything that required permits. I'm assuming the fascia board would require
a a general contractor or someone to pull permits for. It looks like the majority of it is going to need to be redone and because it's that much of extent and maybe even some of the door trim and stuff like that that may need to just be thrown in there. Okay. Um but yeah, that facial board, it's the
majority of the facial board. Okay. Okay. Well, definitely we'll get them to replace that. Today is the 14th. Okay. Um Jenny, what is September's hearing date? September 8th.
September 8th. Okay. Okay. Based on um and I'm sorry, Miss Hagen, do you have anything else that you'd like to add? No, it's just that I wasn't thinking clearly and I, you know, wasn't Yeah, I can understand. Anything else from the city, Mr. Cruz? Okay. Um I am
going to allow for a 30-day extension um from today's date on the order for compliance. The reason I'm allowing for 30 days is because it does from the pictures that were given to me last time and the the testimony from the city, it may look it looks like you may need to contact a general contractor in order to
pull permits. Okay. Okay. Um, so you will have 30 days to comply with my previous order. Do you have a copy of that order? Yes. I didn't. Okay. So, you have 30 days to comply with my previous order. I will get you another written order to that effect. Please just make sure we have your
current address or email address to send it to. I'll speak for the record my address now. You can put if you put it on the sign-in sheet that's best for me because they'll send that to me afterward and I can make sure you get it. I'm living up on holiday now. You had mentioned that. Um and then I will set a case status
hearing for uh the September 8th hearing and if the property uh fails to comply by that date or if there hasn't been a good faith effort to be made, we can discuss it at that time and determine if there's any imposition of fines or costs. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Hagen. Have a wonderful day. How how long is it taking to get permits?
Sir, this is not a question and answer session. That's something that you'll have to take up with the city and you can certainly talk to somebody in the building department about that. Thank you. All right, moving on to the next case. That's 2C. Case number 20250211, City of St. Pete Beach versus Starlight
Tower Incorporated. Mr. Cruz. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Give me one second. Lewis Cruz, City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. This is a status hearing to determine compliance and to assess any authorized
fines and costs. Um, the property looks to be working with the city going through the proper channels through the permitting process. It is in review right now with the planning and zoning department. Um they're definitely making all the right markers that they need to throughout this process. Um the city will be asking for a continuence of
another 30 days um to give them additional time to fulfill and obtain the proper permit for the garage wall that was um broken during the storm and being redone without a permit. Okay. So 30-day extension from today's date or from the date of the compliance in the order from today's date.
From today's date. Yeah, please. Okay. So, 30-day extension from today's date and then reconvene on September 8th for um a status hearing to determine if it's okay. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent Starlight Tower Incorporated? If you could please state your name for the record. Yes. Good morning, madam magistrate. My name
is Edward Wolf. I'm here representing uh Starlight Tower. I'm a member of the Starlight Tower board of directors. I'm also one of the owners there uh for unit 108 that was damaged in the storm. Um I appreciate the comments. Um I just like to tell you we are trying our best. It's
been very difficult to get a contractor to come in and take over somebody's work. I finally did get that to happen. Um, and unfortunately the permit when he filed for it, um, he filed it incorrectly. Uh, he did lay the blame at his staff. Uh, it was new. It was filed
as residential, not commercial. He took care of that. They sent in the cost. They sent in the engineering drawings. Um, I tried to make a couple phone calls on July 8th and 9th um, to talk to Mr. Curtis's office. I got a call back on the 10th of July. Um Mr. Green was very
helpful to me uh and and took care of that. Um he Mr. Green did say that um he would help to facilitate the permit process. I don't know if it's been approved or not. Um so I'm guessing it's still under review, but he did send an email telling us that we would need a
threshold inspection. I will tell you that we're working with Karen's Constru um engineering, Mr. Tom Buffington, if you need his guard. Tom agreed to do that for us. So, we are making progress there. I think all our ducks are in order uh and we can move forward once we
get to approval of the permit. I will say that the permit did have uh not only the garage walls, but when the the gentleman came out, it was the north and south barrier wall and there were five small knee walls on the back units that were damaged during the storm. We're just trying to get all the masonry done at once.
Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. I do appreciate that and I appreciate that you guys are trying to to make do good on on the mistakes of the the previous hand. I guess a point of clarification then will will I need to appear I drive back and forth from Lakeland so I'm sort of a weekend warrior here when the place is
working. Um will I need to appear back or will it go through the permitting department? How does that work? So I was going to say that will back before me that will depend on whether or not things are solidified by the the next 30 days. But keep in contact with Mr. Cruz and he'll let you know whether or not you need to appear back or
whether we're good or what will need to happen, but you'll know before that. So, great. So, that you can plan for my board. Um, if there's any administrative fees or fines, I'm willing to take care of that. Just let me know what we're not there yet, but if and when we get there, you will know. Trust me,
ma'am. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. I will get you guys a um an order on that. Mr. Wolf, I have your email address, I believe, so I will go ahead and forward that to you. Okay, moving on to agenda item 2D, case number 20250223, City of St. Pete Beach versus Kathleen
Johnson. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Lewis Cruz representing the City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status hearing to to determine the compliance and to assess any authorized fines and cost. It looks like the property owner I stopped there this morning. I did my rounds this morning
just in case. um went there. It looks like some of the um furniture and some of the debris is gone, but there's still furniture existing there, as well as the trailer that's unregistered. Um so, the property is not compliant. Um, the city will be asking for
uh $250 a day starting July 10th, 2025 until compliant, plus $329 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. Um, I I don't really
have any contact for them. I've done everything I could. I exhausted kind of every avenue um that I have in my disposal um to reach out to the property owner. Still, no one's living there. No one's been there um and haven't gotten any contact from anybody. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner,
Kathleen Johnson? Anyone here? Kathleen Johnson or anyone on her behalf for the property located at 620 64th Avenue. Okay. Seeing no one. All right. I do find that the property remains non-compliant and non-compliant with my
previous order. I will assess a $250 a day fine starting on July 10th, 2025 and running until the property comes into compliance. It is the property owner's, excuse me, responsibility to notify the city when the property comes into compliance. I'm also going to assess a $329 FI cost for the administrative cost
of the city and any lean recording fees that may be necessary to affect that lean and I will get a written order out to that effect. Right. Moving on to 2E. Case number 20250056, City of St. Pete Beach versus 5411
Polyway Paliway Land Trust. Uh Christopher McMillan is trustee. Thank you, Madam Mad. Straight Lewis Cruz representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status hearing to determine compliance and to assess any authorized fines and cost. Um the property unfortunately is not
compliant. um doesn't look like they've made any headway at all and now it's starting to have overgrown grass on top of all the other violations um that you saw last time at the hearing. The city is going to be asking for $250 a day starting July 10th,
2025 until compliant plus $329 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. Um I still have not heard from the property owner. Um I still don't really see any movement there. One of the doors is is a jar now.
So, I don't know. People are coming in and out of there. I'm not sure. Okay. Um but I have not seen any movement at the property. Okay. And no, none of the I didn't receive my last order didn't get a notification that it was returned to me. You haven't received any notices returned to you at all? Okay.
Okay. Anyone here on behalf of 5411 Piway uh Land Trust or Christopher McMillan as trustee? Anyone here on behalf of 5411 Paliway Land Trust for the address of 5411
Pyway, St. Pete Beach? Okay, seeing no one, I do find that the property remains non-compliant and with the city's codes as well as my previous order, I will be assessing $250 a day from July 10th, 2025 until the property comes into compliance, as well as $329 of
reasonable administrative costs to the city and any lean recording fees that are needed by the city to infectuate that lean. Thank you. Okay, moving on to case 2F. Case number 202500064, City of St. Pete Beach versus uh Kenneth
Don Kenneth Donovan and Wilma Donovan. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Lewis Cruz representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status hearing to determine the compliance and to assess any authorized fines and costs. Um drove by the property today. It looks like he did fix the fence. Um,
so that is a plus, but he still has the outside storage of equipment, different materials. Um, I don't want to say trash and debris, but it looks like quite a mix of things, so it's hard to differentiate. Um, so the property is not compliant. Cities will be asking for $250 a day starting July 10th, 2025
until compliant, plus $329 a day for or excuse me, plus $329 for administrative cost and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. Proper owner has not reached out to me or tried to contact me. Obviously, he
wasn't very happy um the last hearing, but um it looks like he made some headway with cleaning up some of the stuff, but um there still is quite a bit of outside storage there on the driveway. Okay. So, that's the only thing that's remaining is the outside storage, and that is his automotive equipment that he is trying to repair, he said, like the
sitting lawn mower and all of that stuff. Do we know is he bringing that in at night and and leaving it out during the day as far as you know, or is that something that's consistently sitting out there? That's something that's consistently out there all from your observations? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, he's made no headway to try and bring that in at all.
No. Okay. All right. Um, Mr. Donovan, are you here or is anyone here on behalf of Ken Donovan? I didn't see him come in. Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Donovan or here for 82059th Avenue?
Okay. I will find that the property still remains non-compliant with the city's code of ordinances and my previous order. I will find the property owner um $250 a day starting July 10th, 2025 until the property comes into
compliance, as well as the $329 in administrative costs of the city and any lean recording fees necessary to effectuate a lean. Thank you. Okay, moving on to agenda item 2G. Case number 20250224,
City of St. Pete Beach versus Develop St. Pete LLC. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Lewis Cruz representing the City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status hearing to determine the compliance and to assess any authorized fines and cost. I went by the property today. It looks like there has been no change at all.
still that debris left in the rightway as well as on the property along with palm frrons, stuff like that. Doors that are um interior doors that are just leaning up against um the walkway path that you can see from the street um as well as other debris on the left side of
the property. So, the property is not compliant. The city will be asking for $250 a day starting June 24th, 2025 until compliant, plus $329 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated
with this case. Um, I have not made any contact with the property owner. I've tried to exhaust every avenue that I possibly can um within my means to try and speak with them. I I see nobody at the property. I haven't seen any cars parked, any any changes at all, unfortunately. So, we're kind of in the
situation we're in now. Okay. And I didn't receive a return uh on my last order that I sent to them. Did you receive any return notices or any any returned mailings to them? No, ma'am. Okay. All right. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner develop St. Pete LLC? Okay. If you could please come up here
and state your name and affiliation with the LLC for the record. Alexis Selby and I'm the owner. And I'm sorry, your last name is Selby. S L B Y. Yes, ma'am. Okay. And you are the owner is an LLC. So, what what is your affiliation with the LLC? Are you the manager?
I'm not the owner of the LLC. I own the property. That's my LLC. I understand. So, you're you're the Okay. Yeah. Okay. And go ahead and you you're welcome to respond to the city's allegations with regard to the property. Absolutely. So, the reason why obviously I never responded is because I never
received any of the notices. Um, ironically, the only reason I'm here today is because I received a notice for another property that I own on St. Pete Beach. That's 65059th Avenue. And that was actually the reason I came to this hearing today. Come to find out, I noticed that that one had been removed because I came into compliance because
as soon as I was notified, I handled it immediately. And just so you're aware, I actually have a handyman at the property as we speak handling the debris on the property. And I I literally only found out about it this morning. Okay? Okay. And so had I known sooner, I would have taken care of it because I know 65059th
Avenue was on the docket and it had been removed because as soon as I found out that I I had an issue, I had somebody there taking care of it and I do apologize. I've been working with um going through permitting as far as for new construction. So I haven't been to the property and so that's the reason why I didn't even know anything was
wrong with that. Okay. And is the ad the mailing address for that property is your correct mailing address? 283048th Street South in Gulfport. And the irony is, but I did receive the notice for 650. And somebody actually reached out to me directly via email for 650. I think it was Jose, I believe, or
I was with you. Okay. Sorry. I apologize, but I I I didn't have receive an email or anything for 8090 G Boulevard, but I can assure you it's being taken care of right now. So, I'd be happy to upload photos and send you guys photos as soon as it's done today. Okay. And on this property, did you receive my order with regard to the
violations? Nothing. Like I I That's the problem. I didn't receive anything for that property at all. That is interesting because it's the same address and all of it with just a simple case and that's what's so crazy like the only reason I'm here today is literally for the other property address and so yeah I mean I promise you it's being taken care of right now and I'd be
happy to send photos. Okay. Um anything else that you'd like to say? No ma'am. Anything from the city? Okay. Um All right. What I'm going to do on this one is I am going to allow um 48 hours
for this property to come into compliance. Basically a 48 hour extension. The weather's kind of uh Yeah, he's there right now. He actually just confirmed he was Yeah. I just want to make sure if they're unable to take care of it today that at least because of the weather, you've got time that you you have credible testimony here today that the property is being taken care of right
now. That even though notice didn't come back that you didn't receive notice. Um I don't find that notice was improper. I do find that I'm just based on the credible testimony, I'll give you 48 hours from today's date in order to bring the property in compliance. If the property is not in compliance in the 48
hours, I will impose a fine of $250 a day starting on June 24th until the property does come into compliance, as well as $329 in administrative costs and any costs to affect um the recording of a lean. What that means is you need to make sure that within 48 hours you
contact the city and let them know that the property is in compliance. either send them pictures or have them go out and inspect. Um, and if it is not within that 48 hours, that fine is going to start to run on the property. Okay. You have a print out of all of the um the code violations that you might be able to provide.
I don't. That was in my order. The city can get you a copy of that order. Please though, do make sure that we have your email address that um on the sign-in sheet so that I can make sure I get you that order today so that you have the information and can contact this. Fantastic. I just want to make sure everything's done that's on that list. Of course. And then we'll provide with the email address of where I can email
everything to as well that you'll you can get with Mr. Cruz and he can assist you with that. So I don't I'm not with the city. I'm just an independent human being who's just trying to facilitate this. So yeah, um if you get with the city that they can assist you with answering those questions. Thank you so much. Not a problem.
Thank you, Miss Selby. Okay, moving on to agenda item 2 H, case number 202500045, save St. Pete Beach versus Genevie Curtis. Good morning, Madam Magistrate. C River on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status hearing to determine uh compliance and
assess any authorized fines and costs for I'm sorry here, which is this 3307 East of Basin. The property is not compliant. Um, I had the city arborist go back out. There's still about three trees left on the property uh that need
to be removed. The boat is registered. I don't know when it was registered, so I'm not sure if it met the time frame that you gave them, but it is registered. It is tagged. Uh, so that's in compliance. There was a dead tree in the front yard that was removed. Uh, but there is still two trees on the right
side or would be the east side of the property. uh and I believe one on the west that uh still needs to be removed. Okay. So, there's still three trees that the city arborist has determined need to be removed from the property because they're either dead, dying, or decaying. Correct. Um and the remainder of the property has been cleaned up. I know we said the
Norfick pine stays, but everything else that state there was a royal palm. Um there's a royal palm that's on the property. Give me one second. I actually have an email uh printed out for you. Okay. I apologize. Stack of papers when I came. No worries.
There is an email here from the city arborist. Overhead, please. Okay. And he even included a few photos with it. So he circled the one tree there. So that the pine, as you can see, is to the left. So that's still there. That was
the pine that he said good day. Good day. Uh this was another tree that was able to say this was the royal palm that he said was in good condition. But then there's the tree in the back. And then the other trees that were in
question. Okay. And the tree in the back, you can see that from the front of the property, but are we sure that's on their property? Yes. Okay. And how are we sure that's on their property? Uh Google Maps, uh property appraiser, look at it from that point. Okay. All right. Have you had any
contact with the property owner? Uh our admin did. Um he did ask uh what else had to be done. Uh I believe she was in contact with him. I did get a chance to finally get out there. I believe it was Thursday uh was when I saw the tree. So I asked the city
arborist if he could go back out again just to make sure that you know we were crossing all our tees, dotting all our eyes. He sent that email this morning. Okay. Right. Thank you, Mr. River. Uh I'm sorry. And what was the ask from the city as far as fines and costs?
Oh, I'm sorry. Um, so it would be uh $330 a day. Uh, I'm sorry, $225 a day. 250 250 a day. 330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated from 617.
617. Okay. All right. Is there anyone here on behalf of Genevieve Curtis? if you could please come and state your um name and affiliation with the property owner for the record. Yes, ma'am.
Robert Curtis. Uh my mom is the property owner. Um for starters, I apologize for showing up so casually, but I was needing to get out to the house actually again today. No worries. And before we begin, Mr. Curtis, do you have your mom's um authorization to be here and represent her interests on her behalf?
I do. I don't have that in writing, but that's okay. I'll take your credible testimony to that to that effect. Um, so I'm a little bit at a loss on some of what was stated because I don't actually have all the information. Um, so the house is not liable right now.
Mom's living with me right now in Seol. Um, we've had multiple health issues in the family. I've had a cancer surgery this spring. My brother and I are the only ones able to help her. He actually has been in treatment for cancer for over a year. Just wrapped it up a couple
months ago. Um trying to keep it all in my head. Um the boat was registered. Well, I I should explain first of all that um we didn't actually find out. We've been at the the property over two dozen times as we were able to since the hurricane. I've been
working through the spring as best as I can. Um we weren't able to get a mailing of this cuz she's not at the property, but this apparently had been mailed or taped to the front door. Mhm. We discovered this literally stuffed down. The explanation is we had years
ago redone the front porch with some archways. We were going to put some row iron in because that hadn't been completed when we uh fenced that front section. We just kind of and move the fence up so we could fence right along that open side so nobody could get through our front porch into the backyard. So the fence is literally up
against the raised slab. This had been wadded up and if you want to inspect it, it's kind of hard to put it under the camera where you could see it, but literally wadded and stuffed down. We were out there one day in June, first week of June or so that my brother who's here saw it, pulled it out, looked at
it, I said, "Hey, we got a big problem." Um, so that's immediately when I contacted city and uh talked with I think her name is Jennifer Donch, assistant um for the city. She was going to send me pictures. Uh she did email an
email saying thanks for calling. Um but I never got those pictures until last week when I called to let her know that per plan we had been doing a bunch of work out there and I had a bunch of pictures that she had requested a vertal report and all the rest.
Um so she said something. Well, didn't she see my picture? Said well no I didn't get those. So she sent them. Sorry I'm checking my brother. She didn't actually send those pictures yet. I think the bottom line is we've been working like Turks out there. Um about
easily 90% of what I was told about was done. Those um tags were not put on. Um they're my brother's boats. He explained, he's been in the boating business his entire life. He explained there's a phenomenon in Florida, people stealing boat uh tags. I guess it's just
because people don't keep an eye on or put in their garage their boats the way they do their cars. Long and the short of it is he got him registered, but it was only after I called and found out that was what the issue was. So I can tell you up front it wasn't I mean we found out after the hearing that had
been set because we were this is dated I think you know um January 15 and I think there was a May hearing and this was first week of June we were finding out about it. So we were in a bit of crisis mode. I do have photographs of what we've done there. It was very overgrown.
continual problems with a lawn man. I've talked to him many times. I don't want to waste your ear on that. But my brother and I have personally cleared fence to fence, house defense, and I can show that um if I don't know whether the fellow from the city could report that,
but zero. So that's one view on of the backyard. Another I'm trying to show that the ground is literally cleared of everything except for trunks.
This would have been scene last week because I took these pictures on um Monday and then the other one is here. Um, as to the trees, well, so I was understanding that because the nature of the citation is to tell you what
elements of city code you're not in compliance with, but we had a problem once back, I think in 2023. I struggled then to understand, okay, but what exactly is it on the ground that lines up with that? So when I was asking um Jennifer, don't mean any
disrespect, but she took Donch, Mrs. Donch, she referred to herself as Jen, so I a little wrapped around that, but um she was saying, well, you know, just make it look clean and neat. I mean, if you're driving down the street in a car, it should be obvious what the problem is, and I'm kind of struggling with that, but we
literally clearcut. Um, so they said there was a rat issue and I understood that was from refues or like thicket of It really wasn't refuge. There were shingle bits that had been taken off the roof, but there was uh overgrowth of like weed shrubs. That stuff's been cut
back. Um, so I and I had emailed this last Friday, Thursday, sending photographs asking, you know, I think that's it. Is that okay? So I didn't get anything back from the city. So, I wasn't prepared to, you know, know
what you're you're still saying the problem is, but I think we would in agreement that the rat problem is gone. Um, other than the trees, it was the boat tags, the rat problem. There was a pond. There is a pond. Um, it's been neglected because of the horror hurricane, but we
cleaned it out except the muck that develops in the bottom. We pumped it out, got all the leaves out, and as I explained in my email, that's up next. Um, the trees are a problem. Um, I'm a botonist. That's my degree. I'm a
former nursery licensed by the state. I grew up here. I actually planted those trees. Yehigh. They've been there for 40 years. Um, and I do have some photographs of the trees, but I'm trying to remember the ones that were stated because I wasn't aware the I
think it was the first one was to the left of the front porch. Is that right? So the truth is uh I almost don't know how to respond to that except it's categorically incorrect. Um the standing advice from
the state of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences freezes hurricanes. You always wait through the following growing season because trees and palms especially take that long to demonstrate that they're coming back. And so this tree actually you can see
sprouts all over it. That tree won't be sprouting especially this late in the heat of summer because heat will cause a plant that doesn't have a sufficient cambium to support the leaves to collapse in heat. It's just I mean I wish I could confront him and
ask him questions because I have at least as much expertise as he and he's simply wrong on that one. And ironically he completely missed another one that is a problem. But uh this is one of my pictures that's of the tree. So this right here is a tree just behind
the fence to the left of the one. Yeah. So there's a tree right here. It's kind of coming out at you, but there's a tree right behind it. That is this one that's got sprouts all over it. I don't think that's the one that This
is a different one. It's not this one. Nope. So, well, I don't have a plan view, but this one itself has sprouts. And I actually have a picture of that one as well. This one's got sprouts all over it, though. That I think you didn't
have a problem with. That's in the back along the back fence. If I can't see it from the street, I didn't write it up. It's just from what we can see from the roadway. Okay. Um, so this was actually good and I had been watching this. I had emailed
u Miss Don um explaining to her that I have been giving remedial care through the winter. This particular um it's a mix of vitamins you can give plants. Uh I gave it a light fertilizing all the rest. Took some care of it. This one's developing a a loss of bark. That's a
clear sign that the plant's just not going to survive. But that's the only one that I've been watching that's definitely not the um I think what they mean by this yellow is this tree here that has sprouts on it. They're not as many and I'm watching it
now. Um all of these plants, by the way, are collector's items. Um I acquired them through a lot of difficulty. In one case, I got seeds from overseas. It matters a lot that we not just cut these trees down if they're actually going to survive. Um, and they're showing clear
signs that they are surviving. I'm the first one to cut it down for safety. I don't want my mom's house or the neighbor's house coming under a problem. And I actually spoke with a neighbor next door, so she's aware and she supports what we're doing. Um, I remember in 2023 I had come in here
with the wrong idea about what I needed to address because the code enforcement officer told me it's really about the tree. Turned out there were other issues. I spent my whole time talking about the tree. I don't want to do that again, but um Well, let me stop you. So, of the trees that the And can I see the email from
the arborist again? Of the three trees that were pointed out, you're saying at least two of them have sprouts and in your opinion as a botnist and and as a licensed nursery man by the state of Florida, those you think will come back
and are not dead and dying. They were destroyed, maybe impacted by the storms, but you think those could come back. The one tree that you're saying has the bark issue. Um, that one you think probably will not make it. Correct. I'm confident it won't, but that's not
one that they cited, by the way. Okay. Um, I'm trying to remember the ones you sit. There was one in the front yard right in the middle of the front house. That one? That was a Well, yeah, there's one I I was There's eight foot of one because there were four trunks, but we worked and worked and worked on. So, that's one out of three. or is that
other than the three you mentioned? So, the email was from this morning of his morning inspection that he did today. I'm just wondering if that one tree is one of the three you're mentioning. I wonder if I'm missing one of the tree referring to that he said were okay were the uh royal p the royal pond and that Australian
pine. Those were the two trees that he said was in that he could see were in good shape. And the other trees that were circled in yellow that were on the same side as the Royal Palm. So, there was one there, right? The email from Mr. Shelton says that the tree in
the third picture shows a large amount of dead branches in the entire top of the tree. It does not be to be tree worthy of keeping and should be removed. I don't know what that means. Worthy of keeping should be removed. It says the large dead limbs pose a threat in any storms with significant wind. So for me
that to pair those those dead branches down I think that would be you know suffice to for the arborists because I do understand the safety portion of it. If they are dead branches and they are likely to be brittle and come off they should be removed.
Um may I make a quick comment about the Sure. The problem is we don't know whether they're dead and brittle until the sprouting's complete which it should be by the end of this growing season. So, I mean, I've When is the end of the growing season? Well, actually, it's into the fall.
Okay. I I can just tell you from personal experience, I can bet money and I'm usually on the money. I know some of them are going to have some dead branches and I could start trimming those for sure. And dead branches don't mean dead trees. I can understand that, right? Um I don't know whether you would be prone
to granting uh credence to the comment it's not worth saving and should be taken down. I don't I don't know what that means. And do we have the arborist here that can one I mean he has the right to inquire of the arborist's opinion. I have nothing more than an email. So I'm going to accept what I've got as far as
testimony. Um because I can't inquire of the arborist either. So I I am inclined to I mean please continue. This is your chance to respond. I I feel like I'm at risk of talking in circles. I my concern is that the trees
simply as a matter of fact are not discernable except that the one clear sign is that they are rejuvenating. Uh I will tell you that this one right here a month ago had green sprouts that are beginning to brown up a little bit. That's an exact nature of what these
trees will do. If it sprouts more green, which is entirely possible because we've had a dry season with only the rains hitting now, uh then that's a good sign. It's rejuvenating. Um, if it doesn't, we're already, by the way, on this one, cutting both major limbs off. That all
this all this infrastructure you see here, all those limbs, they're going to go just because it's misshapen. There's a broken limb there. The trunk and like a vase at the top. Uh, our intention is to keep. Um, and so I I'm guessing that might and that would be consistent with
the way he was saying. So, I'm trying to remember that there was this one and then the one at the left of the house. I'm not remembering the third. Or was that the the it's actually a bottle palm. It was the palm or was it another tree? Two trees. I believe he said
so that would be that is this tree and the other tree is this tree because this tree is a little tree here. overshadow the section and it could be the same tree. I mean we
yeah not to step on on respondent but we're doing it from the the front of the property. We're not in the back. Right. Which is why I asked before if that are you sure that was on their property. So be happy to escort the the um arborist on the property if he wants to take a closer look or you for that matter. I
mean, I've been telling Miss Dodge, in fact, I'd asked if I could get with Steve Rivera before he would sign off on things because I think he was a case manager for that. That's my case. Yes. Oh, okay. Are you Steve Rivera? Yes. I spoke to you on the phone like a couple years ago, last year, but I never put a face to the name. Sorry. Um Oh, I
wanted to say too that because unless this is not an issue, we had been just This is a stack of logs from all the trimming we've done. We've That used to be about 10 times as much. We've been hauling it. We're going to keep a small amount for firewood, but that's neatly stacked um on the left side up against
the fence. My concern was that that would be an issue about rats, but I mean it's a neat log pile, right? I mean, you can have firewood and I don't think that's a concern for today. Um so I I think I'm ready to make my ruling unless
you have anything else. And I and it is going to be limited to the trees because that's kind of all that Mr. Rivera is concerned with and I think we've had a good discussion on that. Is there anything else that you want to I wouldn't accept I would I would ask you to accept my good faith because I'm just telling you I surgeries cancer
treatments we are trying our level best. We have to actually make headway on inside. We've got an extension on forgot what it's called but it had it hit the 50% rule. So we got a permission on an extension on that. I have my own house in Seol that has ongoing issues. Sure.
I need to work. My mom's 96, had a stroke. She's with me. There's only so many hours in my day, and I really I'm trying my best. And we don't intend to stop, by the way. We're easily 90% through what was all there to start with. So anyway, no, I appreciate it. I thank you for um
coming here today and um Mr. Curtis and and pleading your case. Is there anything else left from the city? Uh no, ma'am. Again, the boat's registered. There was brush pile that was cleaned up. There was a dead tree that was removed. Uh just the trees after my question. Okay. Um I am going to find that the
property is in compliance with uh the city's code um and with my previous order. I do find that the credible testimony of the respondent here and the the proof of the photographs are that the trees are sprouting. Um there may be a determination perhaps at the end of the growing season that those trees are
now can be determined dead. I didn't see from the photographs any um concerning branches as far as if there were, you know, a storm to come through. um that they would they were precarious or any type of thing like that. The code specifically states um that it was cited
under dead branches or fronds or trees or shrubs that constitute a nuisance. I didn't see anything in there that constitutes a nuisance from the trees that we are concerned with here today. Um the one that you determined might be dead that we said we don't think that's one of the ones that was cited. That's
something that might you might need to contend with, but that's not an issue here today. Um, so I am gonna find uh because that's urgent that I get on that tree. It's big and I'm confident. Sure. And like I said that for my time on that is what I just Yeah, we're not we're not here about
that tree here today. So if that's a concern to you and you need to focus on that, that's certainly something concern. It would take time away from other tree trimmings that I'd have to do. I mean I have Well, and because I'm fine that the property is in compliance, there's no citation that will be out there. However, if the city does inspect after
a time and finds that they're that they are continuing or they're getting worse, they're not getting better, the property has fallen out of compliance, there may be a time that they cite you again. Um, and then I would just encourage you to speak with the city to figure out exactly what needs to be done. Um, but right now, I'm going to find that the
property is in compliance. However, I am going to assess the $330 in administrative costs for the city having to bring the the um case before the magistrate here today. Okay. Um, and then I will get you an order to that effect. Since you are having problems with receiving that, do I have your email address on that?
You do. Okay. And I've been in contact with code enforcement. I mean that I will send the order there that you'll have that for your records and then hopefully I don't ever see you back before me again. Uh, I hate saying it that way, but yes, I agree. Yes, you guys.
All right. Well, thank you for your time, Mr. Curtis, and please stay safe out there. Looks like the weather's getting a little nasty. Okay, moving on to agenda item 2 I. Case number 20240539, City of St. Pete Beach versus Thomas Simmons.
Good morning, Madam Mag. Stea on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This was a status hearing for uh permits for hurricane repair for 103rd A. Um we had at it was continued and then we asked for a continuence. He
is in compliance, so we're not seeking any fines. Uh, just the $330 administrative cost. Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Simmons or for 103rd Avenue, St. Pete Beach? Have you spoken with him about
the property being compliance but assessing the costs? No. Uh, he was actually here at the last hearing. Um, he was here with Miss Babbot, uh, trying to help her with her properties, right? And I don't think he realized, but we had spoken prior to that that as long as he was working toward getting the permits, I confirmed
this morning the permits been issued. So, okay. Okay. Well, I will find that the property is in compliance. Uh, and I will be assessing the $330 in administrative costs and I have Mr. Simmons email, so I will send him the order to that effect. Thank you. All right, moving on to agenda item 2J.
Case number 2024529, City of St. Beach versus the Rich Richard Allen Long Revokable living trust and Richard Long as trustee. Good morning, Special Magistrate Ayaka Rupt Shell representing City of St. Pete Beach code of enforcement. This is a
status hearing to determine compliance and to assess any authorized fines and costs. Um, if you recall, this is the uh permitting case for uh grilling and chilling. Um, as of the last status, it had a third denial by planning and zoning. I believe that was around in in
mid June. Um so I've got the permit department here who would give you the absolute latest of what is required for them to complete there. I'd like to call Joan Bolan. Certainly. is bowling. Inspect permit number apply 2550
2703. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Joanne Bolan, permit administrator, city of St. Pete Beach. Um, we're looking at permit number 25502703 and our software is going a little slow
right now because of the storm. Um, latest on this is last review was completed on June 10th. Uh, we had a denied third review from planning and zoning
and Make sure I'm here. All right. The building was denied on 613 2025. fire was approved and um if you'd like I can tell you what
is needed requiring what's required for these denials. Okay. So there the planning and zoning was denied for the third time but that's not based on these recent submitts. There was those were also based on the prior submitts. Is that correct? submittals done on 62
2025. Okay. So, this went back in review after those submitts. Okay. There's no other submitts since 62. Okay. Since 62. Okay. And so, the planning and zoning was denied for the third time. Building was denied on 613 and then the fire was approved. Correct.
Okay. And then what is outstanding? And this is I guess I guess my next question is the statute says upon three rounds through on the building side, not necessarily on the planning side, but on the building side it's kind of a wash. Correct.
Um where are we on the building denial? Building denial is and those are for after the fact, right? Yes. Um, I can read this to you if you'd like to know what the I just want to know what how many
denials we are at on the building side of things. Is this the first denial on these submitts? No. Um, looks like third third on this one as well. Okay. Um, so what is outstanding as far as deficiencies for uh the permit
on the building side? Plans are not legible. Redraw plans so that all elements of the area are clearly defined and words can be read. FBC 105.1 pergola is required to have signed sealed plan showing that it meets
the required wind loads. Details should include how the structure is going to be held down. Previous comments have not been addressed. FBC 107.1 plan showing the required rest rooms. FBC 403.1
plumbing plan showing the required accessibility ADA 101.1. So we're looking for all of that to be submitted. And as far as planning and zoning, um staff still requires a survey showing
a fence installed at the maximum height allowed by the code pursuant to LDC section 6.24. Um please see comments from prior review. We also need to ensure the pergola and other features meet required setbacks. Please submit a survey showing that the setbacks are met and note that
the location of fence as required. Um number two, the city has performance standards as listed in LDC section 6.17 pertaining to smoke and odorous matter. If the smokers are placed and approved by the city's fire marshal, they will
need to remain compliant with these standards. Failure to comply may require the smokers to be modified or replaced. This approval shall be granted contingent on compliance with these standards. Okay. So, we've got a survey issue
for required setbacks. Correct. We've got legibility for the building side. Correct. Um and wind loading, etc., etc. for the pergola. Yes. Okay. Um Okay. Anything else, Miss Bolan, that you have? That is it. Okay. And so, right, those comments have
been already directed to the property owner's contractor or the the tenants contractor. Yes. And when were those comments sent out? Those comments were sent out on 610 and 6:13. Okay. And the last upload we received was on June 2nd, 2025.
Okay. So, the newer comments have not been addressed yet. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Would you like to hear from the This is your case. whoever you'd like to put on. So, as far as the city's concerned, this property is non-compliant. And so, we
would be seeking, you know, $250 a day fines from the order date that you had set. I think you gave them 30 days from your last order to obtain a permit.
It might be as of today or it might be as of I didn't give any set time frame. I just said that they would do a status hearing to make sure that there was a good faith effort in applying for permitting. Right. So, whatever day you determined that they were, you know, didn't obtain their permit, that would be the and
administrative cost, of course. Sure. And what are the name, what is the amount of administrative costs? $330. Okay. Okay. Anything else from the city? Nope. Not from the city. Right. Mr. Barry.
Hello. Can you give me an update on what's going on? Absolutely. Um I had a we had a meeting with the senior planner Brandon Barry. It was a good good meeting. Um all the things that uh Miss Bolan spoke about. We did address um the fire marshall has approved the smokers and the position of
the smokers. We have a fire retardant, everything around it and stuff like that. Um, as for the bathrooms, the health department and the uh state has already told me it's still compliant. Um, from the first time they approved of my bathroom, um, nothing has changed. I can understand that. However, the
Florida building code requires you to have ADA compliance if you are making any renovations renovations to those areas on a commercial property. Yes. Um, so I understand the health department is saying they're fine, but you know, the building official is looking for
compliance with the Florida building code to get you the after the fact permits for the renovations that you've done. So, can you address that with the the contractor? It looks like the notes were that the the per the submission was not legible and that um they needed to be able to see some of the the items on there to so that they could address the
issues that they might have to get you the after the fact building permits. Um, have you have you addressed those issues with the contractor? Yes. And um, for the seating, I mean, it's limited seating. And so, uh, yeah, and I'm not worried about that. I'm more worried about the we had, you
know, electrical that was done, that other stuff that was done. And at this point, the building department can't review those plans because the comments that came back were the plans were illegible. Um, and those were the the comments that Miss Bolan said were submitted to the contractor on 613. So, I understand your testimony here today
is with with the planning department, you've addressed kind of those issues and you're ready to do another submitt, but from the building side of things and the actual permitting um that they're looking for plans that show ADA compliance with the restrooms for maybe
and I I'm get me I might have said this wrong, but maybe for ingress and egress as well, but also for making sure the plans are legible so that they can address the issues of the electrical, the plumbing, etc., etc. Um when I sat down with u Mr. Bren that wasn't something that I was aware of um only of
the fact that he wanted me to get um he wanted us to get a survey. Sure. Boundary survey. Um that's what we've been working on. Okay. And that's on the planning side. So So I guess maybe I need to take a step back. So when you got the email, you haven't got the building email yet. That and they haven't email. They have and
constantly they have not been emailing the property owner Richard Al Long. He asked that. He did require and ask that when he was here. Sure. And I've been having to forward everything that I've been giving. I have a huge uh email thread with uh with Brendan Buried everything, but nothing from them.
Nobody's emailed me or or the owner. And you and I we should verify this with the city, but my understanding is when things get submitted to the building department, it goes to whomever the contact is. The applicant should be getting it. Um AOK, can you verify when stuff is submitted to the city? Is it
going to Is it going to the contractor? Is it going to It should be going It goes to the contractor. Okay. So then your denials for your permit are going to your contractor. Have you spoken to your contractor about that? Yes. And the last denial that he had,
that's what I um went to Brandon Barry with and I said, you know, and it was actually the boundary survey. There was nothing. Right. But Brandon Barry is with and he's with the planning department. He can't address the building concerns. That's going to be through the building department. I'm going to pull up my last uh
sure message from So I guess then my com comment is or my question is you had the the meeting with Mr. Barry and you were addressing the boundary survey all the remainder of the comments. Have you have you submitted or has your contractor submitted and
uploaded all of the issues with those deficiencies yet? As far as I know, yes. Um the last one that he sent me was from from Mr. Barry to him. Um regarding the pergola um the fencing uh perlar drawing
the scale. I've sent um all the information I've actually I put the all the information on the pergola. Um the fence was something new and it needed a boundary survey and that's what we were working on. But yes, we sort of made all the information on the pergola, how it's built, and what we're going to use to uh
hold it down. Okay. Um for the wind loading. Okay. Fence was the the new addition. He's like, "Oh, you got Well, he said you have to put the fence 8 foot high, non uh non-porous." Okay. Which which is not a problem with me doing um but I needed he required the boundary service before that before
that. And we assumed that the the owner of the property, Mr. how long and we thought that the city had already had these uh items these the the surveys because the building's been there before I was there and there's been obviously work there been done but they couldn't find it and
so I we we emailed him last week I finally found a surveyor um surveyors are very hard to find right now because of all the destruction and people with fences going down and people checking their properties so they were 3 weeks out uh I have the email which was
forward to predator that they will be there this week. Okay. Do the boundary survey and he he he required thank you and then we could just move forward after that and then he said you know b basically told me once the boundary survey is done and this uh
like you said it's legible and we can see where the fence is going to be and the pergo is going to be. Sure. Um he said once those two steps are done he said that we'll go forward with approval another another review. Yes. Okay. go. He he said, "Jason, get this done and then your your permit should be able to be approved." And I
said, "Okay." And so that's what we're that's basically what I'm working on. So within this week, the boundary survey should be done before then, you know, and I will submit a legible. Yes. Copy where everything can be read and seen the proper way.
Okay. Um obviously the general contractor has been busy and has a lot of work and still in Fort Myers and other places. So, he's been working with me also and so has the other contractors who have signed on to the permit. So, Okay. All right. Well, thank you. I'm just, you know, waiting for the survey to do what you got to do.
And they've been they've been I've all four of the surveying companies that I've talked to, they thought that the city should have these already, but I said, "Let's just do it." You know, I'm going to come out of pocket and just pay for the boundary survey. So, this way I can move this process forward and hopefully be done with it.
And hopefully you'll say to me, "I will see you again." Yeah, not that I don't enjoy talking about this property. Um, okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Barry. I appreciate that. Anything else from the city? So, I believe the question is really
about the building side and not the the planning side of the issue. I do have the building official here if you'd like to. Again, this is your case, so if you want to put him as a witness, I will listen to whatever he has to say. And I believe um I'm just going to jump
in. There was also a question as far as documentation of the authorization for the gentleman to speak on behalf of the owner. Mr. Bowie, is that also a concern? Mr. No, I I have no concerns with that considering Richard Allen. He has been
here before and he has said that we needed to need excuse me, need to inquire with his tenant and then he needs to be given emails from the city as a result. So I I understand that's in the record. Yeah. So that is in the record from previous CA from this case previously
two or three hearings ago. Okay. So thank you. Mhm. Good morning. Luke Curtis, building official for the city. Hello Mr. Curtis. So just to touch on the building comments that were provided for this uh application. So there's a few different
points to it. Number one was the plans that were provided were unclear. uh didn't define where the bathroom was in relation to where the service or uh patrons would be. Uh, additionally, the ADA regulations require a certain
percentage of renovations to go into the making it more ADA compliant. But above and beyond that, when we're adding space, it has to be fully conforming. So, for example, if this back patio area is has gravel that would not meet ADA
standards. So, we want to see that all of these are being met or at least being added to. In the case of the bathroom wouldn't necessarily need to be fully compliant, but code requires at least 20% of the renovations to go to making it more more compliant.
And at this point, you can't see that because you don't have any idea where the bathrooms are located in relation to Correct. Correct. And then the total scope of work is not clear on the plans that have been provided. So once they get that clarified, get clear concise
plan and that is ADA compliant, then we can make a full review to determine if it is uh adhering to all the regulations. Okay. And at that point then right now you're just waiting to get something that you can even review completely. And so those are what the deficiency
comments are really centered on because you haven't been able to make that determination yet at all. Correct. Okay. Anything else, Mr. Curtis? That's it. All right. Thank you. Do you have any questions for anyone with this city, Mr. Barry? Um yes. Um that was the first time that
I've heard about because we've had to continue adding things to this permit um to be compliant. And so I can understand how it could be a little bit kind of jumbled. But um in the egress uh way there is supposed to be um
there is shell back there. Okay. So, I'm going to stop you right there, Mr. Row. I am not going to be listening to anybody trying to figure out if the permits are compliant or not. I appreciate that. I know a little bit about the building code to be dangerous. I don't want to get involved in it.
What I do want to say is I think the comments are pretty clear here today that you are making an effort to try and comply with the order and get the permits that you need. You've talked to Mr. Barry trying to get the planning stuff sorted out. Mr. Curtis and his
department have gotten you the comments on the building side of things and you are working to get legible uh plans submitted to the city so that they can actually conduct a review. So from my perspective I think I have enough information to say you are making a good faith effort to go through the
permitting process albeit it's a slow process. Um and so I am going to go ahead and um I'm not going to make a ruling on fines and fees today. I am going to say that you are continuing to make a good faith effort and are compliant with my order, but we are
going to be back here at the August 11th hearing to have another status check. I will say I'm I am almost to the end of having status checks. You all are are going through what you need to go through and I understand that that that takes time, but what I'm also hearing
from the city is that we are on third reviews and denials and we're going to be here on fourth reviews and denials. So at some point the train has to land in or the train has to get to the station, the airplane has to land, whatever metaphor you want. Are you confident that okay this will this will be hopefully wrapped up within?
Sure. And whichever way it goes, it matters not to me. I know it does to you. But whether or not they approve it or deny it, if they deny it, then we need just make sure that you get the property back into compliance where it needs to be so that we can be compliant with the city's code. If it's approved, then that's great. Hopefully I don't see you back here in August, but if I do,
then we'll just keep going to see, you know, where we are in the process. But I have your information. I will get you guys in order to that effect that right now my my ruling is that the respondant is continuing to work in a good faith attempt to secure the necessary permits to get the property into compliance. Um,
there have been reviews and comments. There were deficiencies that I understand that the testimony of Mr. Barry are being addressed. And so we will meet back here on August 11th at 10:00 a.m. and hopefully all of those issues will have been addressed and you will have a permit. Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you so much.
Okay. Moving on to agenda item 2K. Case number 20250139. City of St. Pete Beach versus Milad Musana. Musupana. Yes, I shall representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Um,
this is a status hearing to determine compliance and to to assess any continued fines and costs. This property is compliant. You may recall that there was an issue with returned mail. He wasn't receiving notification. However, I did hear from him after he received
your order. I did confirm the address was exactly the same and what we had been sending it to, but the order actually triggered a response. So he property is compliant and he did comply by your order date. So I just got an overhead here to please
to show you that he has cleaned up the property. Trees have been trimmed away on the property there. So um the city is not seeking any fines but just administrative costs. Okay. $330. All right. Okay. Is there anyone here on behalf of the property owner?
He lives in Arizona. So, Okay. And you said, did you have a chance to speak with him? I did. Okay. Yes. And he is aware um that the property is he aware that you're now finding the property in compliance, but you are seeking to assess costs against him? Yes. Okay. All right. All right. I will find that
the property is in compliance um by the date of my order, and I am going to assess the $330 of reasonable administrative costs of the city. Okay. Okay, moving on to agenda item 2L, case number 20250173,
city of St. Pete Beach versus Blind Pass Properties 3 LLC. So, Aayaka Rockell uh representing City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status hearing again to determine the compliance and to assess any authorized fines and costs. Um um this
case had to acquire a demolition permit and the last check that I had made it needed the only last part was a pre-sight inspection which the um contractor has to call into the city to arrange. So, I'd like to call Joanne
Bolan to give us a up-to-date status check on that, where the permit is. Good morning again. Joanne Bolan, permit administrator, St. Pete Beach. We have a demolition of a home permit,
permit number 25504949. The permit is approved. We are waiting on uh pre-sight inspection and we sent an email out on go
July 7th, 2025. Please schedule your pre-sight inspection. Okay. Anything else, Miss Boland? Yes. They went out and did a preset inspection and it failed. Oh, okay.
Uh it said that the condenser still connected. There was no silt fence put up. And that was on the 9th. of July. Okay. And any contact from the
contractor since that date or the applicant? Doesn't look like it. No, it is what the 14th. Okay. All right. Thank you, Miss Boland. Thank you.
Anything further? Okay. Okay. So, I guess the property is still not compliant as so we'll be seeking fines then as of the day that that failed the inspection July 9th. And what are you requesting as far as
the amount of fines? $250 a day, $330 in administrative costs. Okay. And that is you said you'd like that from the date that the they failed the preset inspection of 79. Yes. Okay. And just for clarification, the violation on this property was that it
was otherwise unckempt and from my recollection that the contractor came in as well as with a representative from the property owner and said that they were planning on demoing it. So, they weren't going to clean it up. So, they didn't have to secure the permit in order to comply. It was just that's how they were choosing
to do so. Um, can you tell me otherwise is the property in compliance? because I believe the issue was that there was just vegetative debris, furniture, discarded trash, and whatnot. Has any of that been cleared? Because it really wasn't the issue, wasn't the permit. The issue was
the status of the property. No, nothing's been done on the property. Nothing's been done on the property at all. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um, is there anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Blind Pass Properties 3 LLC? Anyone
here on behalf of the property owner blind pass properties 3 LLC? Last time I think I spoke it was Jack Buns and Bill Majuski. Nobody. Okay. Um my previous order had gave the
respondent 30 days from the date of the order or by Thursday July 10th to bring the property into compliance. Um the testimony of the city is that the property is not compliant. Regardless of the fact if they have a demo permit or not, the property still is outstanding with debris on the property and other
vegetative issues. So I'm going to find the property is not in compliance as of today's hearing. I am going to order um I am going to assess fines of $250 a day beginning on 711 2025 which is the date after the date of compliance in my order
until the property comes into compliance as well as the $330 of administrative costs of the city. Okay. And moving on to agenda item 2M, case number 20250165, city of St. Pete Beach versus NXT Acquisitions Court.
Morning Madam Magcaran on behalf of the City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. This is a status hearing to determine compliance and assess any authorized fines for permits at 39641st a uh permits pool and the dock that was
in disrepair. The dock has been uh removed. The pool has been covered and drained uh property has been cut. Um the only deadline that was missed was the permits by a few days. Uh so we're going to be seeking fines from 66 to 624 of
$250 a day plus 330 uh 330 administrative costs and any fees associated with the leans. Okay. And do you know um they were required to get permits. Do you know if there was any delay in the permitting or was that when their
submission was? No, I I went back and looked at the previous order uh you gave them until 66 and uh it was uh to apply for the necessary apply for it. It wasn't it didn't say to secure, right? Uh 624 it was applied for.
Oh, they didn't apply for them until 624. Okay. Okay. All right. Anything else, Mr. Rivera? No, ma'am. just uh the 66 to 624 the date that you gave them to come into compliance. Okay. Is anyone here on behalf of NXT Acquisitions?
You could please come and just state your name for the record and affiliation with the company. Hi, my name is Kaylee Arn and I'm a representative for Next Acquisitions. And do you have a POA on file? I do and I remember you from last time. Miss Arn, how are you? Okay. Anything that you'd like to say?
Um yes, there was like the GC head came here that day. Um and just there was a couple of u slight corrections that need to be made on the plans and also energy calcs needed to be replaced needed to be um fixed. The energy calcs when in our final kind of like run through they only
had one AC. It's going to be two. It's a split split unit. So that had to be updated with the with the window schedule which is why like a slight delay unfortunately just takes a little bit of time for engineers and architects to restamp them. Uh currently I do have just the permitting on my side of
things. Um everything as as they said is currently in review. Um and everything's been paid. Uh we did receive a uh rejection on the plans. There was a correction which I have the email for
and that was sent on um the email was sent to the GC on July 5th with a 10day compliance with a couple of his details for the corrections which he did. to the engineer and that will hopefully be sent to us uh by the
end of the day from the architect. So, they did give us a 10day kind of window to fix that. Um and we're still within within that time period as well. Okay. All right. Thank you, Miss Arn. I appreciate that. Is there anything else from the city? No, ma'am. Okay. Um
I am going to find that the property is now in compliance. I am not going to issue any fines because I do believe that there was an effort to go ahead and make that there were corrections that need to make on the plans. So, I do understand that. I am going to however issue or uh assess the $330 of the
reasonable administrative costs of the city and then I will get you guys an order stating that effect. Thank you. Okay, moving on to agenda item 4A, case number 20250410, city of St. Pete Beach versus 3511 Gulf
Boulevard LLC. These are for repeat violations. Yes. Good morning, Madam Magistrator. Steve Rivera on behalf of the City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20250410. Respondent is 3511 Golf Boulevard LLC. Violation address is 3511 Golf
Boulevard. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 46332 and 3. Enumeration 98654. Unsightly conditions 9866A B and 20. Residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of
ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 625 2025. Notice of repeat violation dated 626 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 626 2025.
The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 3511 Golf Boulevard. This is a picture of the branches and fronds that are piled up on the property and the overgrown grass.
It's another angle of the property with the overgrown grass and weeds. You know, measurement the front of the property. This is debris that's on the property. It seems like it's chunks of wood. Uh couldn't tell what it was. Maybe old
furniture that was tossed out at one point. There's a basket there. Some more debris that's on the property. More trash, some palm frrons. You can see in the back uh the brush pile that's back there and dead
vegetation. Then the dead palm frrons that are on the tree. There we go. Corrective action. Property must cut the grass and weeds and all trash and debris must be cleaned up and removed and the branches and palm frrons must be cleaned
up and disposed of. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $500 a day starting 626 until compliant plus $330 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation.
Okay. Have you had any um contact with the property owner at all? No, ma'am. Uh I got a complaint from the neighbor. Um apparently there's a uh rodent infestation I was unable to prove. Um but the it's overgrown. sent
notice, posted the property. I did go out this morning to see if there was any change since I hadn't heard from them. It's actually worse now than it was at the time of the inspection. Okay. And um you said you didn't you did send out notice was does do you have a
return for the certification at all? Did you do was notice returned at all or did you get any indication that they didn't receive the certified mailing? No, not to my knowledge. Um I the our admin's out today so but she did include I believe with our packet was the
certified mailing certified mailing. Yeah that we sent it out certified. Okay. All right. Thank you Mr. Rivera. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner blind pass. Oh no 3511 Gulf Boulevard LLC. Anyone here on behalf of the property
owner 3511 Gulf Boulevard LLC. Okay. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. I am going to assess I'm not going to assess the $500 a day, but I will assess $250 a day um from the date of the violation until the property
comes into compliance as well as the $330 of reasonable administrative costs of the city and any lean recording fees that may be necessary. Thank you. Yes, Mr. I have to request a brief extension. I
have a conflict on Zoom for a few minutes. I'm here for item D of violations and then A, B, and C of the new violations. Mad respectively request that you just carry those over for a few moments so I can go take care.
Sure, Miss Lero. So, you are on D and then A, B, and C on the new ones. Okay. So, we will go ahead and just continue those until you return. Thank you so much. Not a problem. Okay. And
all right, moving on to 4B. Case number 202550367, City of St. Pete Beach versus Irene Herrapian and I and Albert Bedalian and I
apologize if I've butchered anyone's name. I'm sorry about that. Ayaka Rockell representing city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement on this is case number 20250367.
The respondents are Irene Hay Rat Petian and Albert Adilanian. Violation address is 9140 Golf Boulevard. Violation description. The property is in a repeat violation of section 46-33,
items 1 A and B. Enumeration of the code of ordinances the city of St. Pete Beach. Um in the agenda packet you may see um other ordinances noted. But I just wanted to have make note that they should be removed. If I can point them
out to you, that would be 46-33 item C. Entire section 9864 and 9865 and 9866. That's in reference to other prop um problems on the property, but they are
not repeats. Okay. So the only section that is proceeding today for repeat violations is section 46-33 uh subsection one. Is that correct? Right. A and B. A and B but not C. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
So the um there was an initial order date um case number 2021 0342 back from October 15, 2021. Um my initial inspection this time around was on June 5th, 2025. It's a uh the notice of
repeat violation was sent on June 17th, 2025 and the notice of hearing dated and posted on the property on June 17th, 2025. This is the affidavit of posting. Um these pictures show um overgrown
vegetation on the property. You can see again overgrown vegetation. They have several dead trees on their property. Different view. Overgrown vegetation and a dead tree. This is uh illustration of the height of
the grass exceeding 10 12 in. So, the corrective action is the property landscape must be maintained and remove dead trees and debris. The property actually did come into compliance as of July 3rd. I do have some uh recent pictures here maybe back
with the overhead that were sent to me. They have cleaned up the property. um removed the dead trees and piled their debris on their roof front as you can see here. Um back over this.
So uh came to compliance as of July 3rd. So, we are recommending um only $330 for administrative costs at this time. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Is there anyone here on behalf of the property owner? Yes. If you'd like to please come state your uh name for the record and then um my understanding is that the property is now in compliance and the city is just seeking $330 in administrative costs. So, if you'd like to go ahead and
prepare any response to that. Yes, my name is Albert Bedellian. The property is 9140 G Boulevard and uh the property is unlivable. There's no water, no
electricity. So, we are renting right now. I found this notice uh a week later uh after it was uh posted. the I
immediately came into this office in person and spoke with Jennifer uh Don and um so um I never got any uh notice in mail
uh although we uh redirected our mail but I never got anything. So uh I was unaware of this notice. Uh I also sent uh three emails
explaining our situation and I believe with uh photos uh never got a response. So I have photos on my uh computer. I can show it to you if you want. So the
situation with our uh property is that uh if you are familiar with the 50% rule so our damage was estimated more than 50% of the uh structure cost. So we
applied for the FDM program if you are familiar with that. So uh and we are waiting they already postponed once the their inspection. So they have instructed us not to touch
anything around the perimeter of the house within uh 3 to 5 ft. not to disturb uh the soil around because they are uh going to uh come and
make an inspection uh for the foundation uh that if it is sound or not. The next thing is that uh we are waiting for although we have a contract with the roofer and other
people with the contractors we are waiting for them to come and make an inspection of the house because we are uh unsure if they are going to raise the house or just mitigate it. Okay. So we are
waiting for their decision and uh the contractors don't get the permit yet because they don't know precisely what they are going to do. Also we have been told that uh we cannot
do any repairs in the house because that would disqualify us from the their program. So we waited for this long for them and we cannot do anything.
So uh I go to the property every week just to inspect around and to see what is happening. So uh immediately when I got the and by the way uh I was told uh
uh Ayaku Ram uh she called me uh after I sent these emails and she said uh do something about the fasia and all
that and I cannot do anything because it would uh void uh the insurance and the contract. So I cannot touch anything. I cannot do any repairs. So the only thing I could do I removed all the wheat and
all that and also uh dead palm tree. There is a tree mango tree which is not dead. It has some uh dry branches but it is not dead. It is uh reviving itself.
So I'm not going to touch that. Uh so uh that's the situation and um there is we have a road sign in front of the house uh for the bump and uh it was broken. So the city or
somebody, I don't know who, I am assuming the city came and repaired that road sign, but they left a pile of asphalt by that sign, which is not mine. I I didn't touch anything. So other than
that, I uh the the front of the house is clean of and everything. If you uh would like, I can show you the pictures. I I have credible testimony from you and also the city has said that the property is in compliance.
So I would ask you not to find us. Okay. Uh because we are already in quite uh uh great distress with our situation and we have no idea what we are facing
in our future. Right. Okay. Okay. All right. Anything else that you'd like to let me know about? I think I understand the situation pretty well. Yes. Uh just one one thing when I came to uh the city and spoke with um
Jennifer she said oh you are a repeat offender which so so today in this case again I am going to be qualified as an offender.
So the repeat offense is very specific to a very small portion of the code and it is based on a an order that was given by a different magistrate, Mr. Thannis with for the same code section for it looks like overgrown
um vegetation on the property. I don't I don't actually know the specifics because the the the order is pretty vague. It just says that you violated section 46-33 section 1A and B for having overgrown
vegetation. And this was back in 2021. Exactly. And you have five years that if you violate that section within those five years, it's a repeat offense. the the the reason I'm asking this question is that they they uh came to the conclusion
that we offended or didn't the the proper job. Sure. Which which I contested then because uh we cleaned everything but we left few uh like grasses which are protected by
Florida law. they were protect pro protected by Florida law. So we left there but but the inspector was unhappy uh because uh he he felt offended that we did not
remove everything he said to to be removed. So he brought this case uh in front of the uh magistrate previous magistrate, right? And and the inspector before him that came and
post a notice uh we told uh that this grass is protected by Florida law and we are going to uh leave it there. Uh are you fine with that? He said I don't
know. we have to uh ask an arborist or botonist whatever. So, and I don't want to be rude and interrupt, but I can't do anything about that previous case. All I can say to you is that at that time, Mr. Thannis, who was the magistrate, did find that there
was a violation, though you came into compliance before the hearing, so no fines were assessed. That's all that I can consider was that there was a previous finding that you were in violation of the state of code sections. So today I'm just here to determine one if you violated those same code sections
and if you did violate those same code sections if a fine should be assessed for any violations. So the information that I have right now from you and from the city that's what I that's the only things I'm supposed to consider and making my determination.
Okay. Just to make sure that I understood everything correctly. So today uh are you going to qualify us that uh we make this offense so that we will will go into our records. So 72
years later somebody will find that we repeatedly offended. So it's within a fiveyear it's a fiveyear time span. So it would start today and it would go through 2030. So if in the next five years if I were
to find there was a violation day if you violated that same code section in the next five years it would be considered a repeat violation. Still this is going to qualify for that. The the only way I can determine I can't take anything new to give you time to qualify. The only thing I can look at since this is a I can either find
there's a repeat violation or not find that there's a repeat violation based on the information that I'm given here today. What I have so far is testimony that there's a violation and just pictures from the city stating that there was a violation, but then I also
have testimony from you stating that that got taken care of. Now, I can take into consideration testimony and find that there's a an equitable reason that you're in compliance. Maybe there was something outstanding. I can take that into consideration when I'm determining
the fines and fees. But whether or not there's a violation or not is something that I need to look at. Um, and I don't really have a lot of wiggle room to determine if there's a violation or not based on the evidence that's presented in front of me. So to your point, whatever determination I make, if I do
find that there's a vi violation, yes, it will carry for the next 5 years. So don't violate the same code section in the next five years. Otherwise, it's no longer a repeat violation. And that's Florida statute. So I don't my hands are tied on that. I don't have any um I can't I can't have any wiggle room on
that one. So, I haven't made my ruling yet, but just in the event that I do, that's what will happen. Yeah, please don't find us. I can I can understand that. I just have to base it on on the evidence that's in front of me. So, I I can understand it and I do I do appreciate your testimony
here today. All right. Anything further from the city? Thank you. So with the other problems that are um apparent on the property as well, the fascia and the roof, hence the the removal those other um ordinances out of the thing, just wanted to explain that
and just focus on the repeat violation. Sure. So based on the evidence that was presented here today, I do find that the property is in violation of the stated code section, which is 46-33 section 1 A and
B. I am not going to assess any fines. I am not going to assess any costs at all. Um there will be no financial repercussions on that. I am going to include in my order though the information um that the respondent gave to me about the 3 to 5 foot perimeter for the foundation because the FDM. I
think those are um extenduating circumstances that are being considered in the order. Um, in the event that the city does try and site this property for that same violation in the in the next coming future, just to make sure that we have that on record, take that into consideration for any future potential
violations that the property owner is not touching that area because they've been instructed not to by the state in order to qualify for um the ability to rehabilitate the property. So, and if I have your contact information, please let me know there on the sign-in sheet. I will get you an order to that effect.
I might to my uh apartment unit. Okay, moving on. Uh agenda item 4C, case number 20250388 was continued until the August 11th
hearing and there will be an order to that effect. Uh Mr. Laro is back. So, moving on to case number 20250313, City of St. Pete Beach versus Sunold LLC. Good morning, Madame Magistrate. Steve
River again on behalf of the City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20250313. Respondent: Sunold LLC. Violation address is 3815 Golf Boulevard. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 46331B.
Enumeration 98654 unsightly conditions 9866A, B, and 24. Residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pet. Case summary. Initial inspection 523
2025. Notice repeat violation 528 2025. Notice of hearing date and posted to the property 528 2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting. It shows portions of the fence that are
in disrepair. Another section of defense. This shows the dead vegetation that's collected along the uh walkway there. And then there was a pile of uh palm frrons and branches that were in the in
the back corner on the property as well. And this was a root ball, palm tree root ball. Looked like they removed it and it was sitting on the property. Corrective action. Property must clean up all dead vegetation to remove the root ball and replace a fence on Golf
Boulevard. Property, it is not compliant. They're close, but it's not compliant. Recommended fine is $500 a day starting 523 2025 until compliant plus $330 administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be
associated with this case. That concludes my presentation. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Laro. Pleasure to be here. Thank you for the break. Apparently, I didn't need it. Of course,
this prior issue dealt with some I think a the prior complaint that we have some photographs to show. My understanding was that this had been taken care of. And I think the history of this case is that the the fence and the vegetation
was ordered um by the city and my client put it up, didn't want to put it up because they expected the same result to come from this, but I know that she travels a great deal. She's prepared a statement about the the several I want
to say dozens of code enforcement issues that she's faced. uh she feels that she's been focused on quite a bit, but I would like to at least have an opportunity to finalize this. I don't think we had a notice of this until I made my public records request. We thought that today's proceedings
candidly would just be the new cases A, B, and C. I was unaware of this until I actually saw the agenda a couple of days ago and we asked for the presentation. I would like just a little bit more time to finalize this. We'd like to be able to just simply take the fence down and
take that vegetation out. I think that's No, it's gone. The vegetation is completely removed. I don't have to take the fence is repaired. Okay. Apparently, I don't know when the last
inspection was, but we're hoping that everything has come into compliance and that we certainly can have an opportunity to prove that. I again I didn't know that this was on the agenda today until just recently. I don't know when the city has gone out for any kind of
followup, but I certainly would invite this fine gentleman to come up and explain the situation. So, I did go out this morning. I did see that the vegetation was cleaned up. Um the root ball was removed. However, there's portions of the fence that are still broken and they're falling over.
There was sections that were replaced, but they didn't replace the whole thing. big 4ft sections. There's a couple of broken slats uh down that whole side of Golf Boulevard. Okay. So, this the outstanding issue is the the fence.
Of course, under chapter 162, there's no time cure time that's required as this is a previous repeat violation. No, the the repeat violation was again a
situation where Miss Moran will explain. Uh she is often outside of the area and the notices that she received she was not able to act on. I think it was a one of the items I think was a cup, a frond
and it looks to be the city's Christmas decoration somehow found their way as some kind of item that was left on her property. um $500 a day since uh since May would be quite a detriment to my
client and I know that she's in her best interest done everything she can to bring it into compliance. Uh I will defer to her as to what she wants to do with the fence. But if we could get some more time just to finish that up again. Uh
I don't want more time. You don't want more time? No, I don't. Okay. Um, what meets with the pleasure of the magistrate? So, I guess my my question is
I understand the affidavit vote of posting, but the certified mailing, Mr. Rivera, do you have a copy of the certified mailing from the notice of violation? Understanding it's a repeat violation not necessary to cure, but my understanding from Mr. O is that the
notice for the repeat violation wasn't even received by the respondent. Um, so do and this is now several cases in were around the same time frame where I'm hearing people didn't receive their you're looking for the certified mailing
for the notice, right? And I appreciate that you guys put the affidavit of posting, but the chapter 162 requires you to send it certified to the property appraiser tax collectors. I don't have it in front of me included as part of the packet. It's not. No, it very rarely if or ever is.
Could you ask? Madame Magistrate, if we could indulge Miss Morian for a moment, she uh of course she prepared a written statement that she thinks uh would certainly memorialize her position here. Absolutely. This is her time, so please.
Thank you. So, I have quite a history here, and I think that you need to know the history to even be able to figure out what's going on here. My name is Beth Morian. I live at 3618 El Centro Street, St. Pete Beach, Florida 33706. I have lived here almost 45 years. I'd
like to ask the magistrate's indulgence as I feel I need to give you some history on what is going on here. About 20 years ago, I gave the city a million dollars to build a new rec center and the new pool. This was for all the citizens of St. Pete Beach to enjoy. Unfortunately, no good deed goes
unpunished. This donation actually put a target on my back and over the last six years, I've gotten over 170 code violations. And that's as far back as the city records go. I've gotten code violations for such things as three palm frrons laying in my yard, five pieces of
sophet missing after a storm, a plastic cup someone threw in my yard, my garbage can left out after 5:00 p.m., and many other small items. I've also gotten code violations for having a bad roof and rotted windows in a 1923 property I own in Pasigirl. Since I travel a lot and
the city insists on sending code violations by certified mail, I never received the code violation and then I never received the special magistrate hearing either. By the time I find out what was going on, a $200,000 lean had been placed against my property. When I returned, I immediately called code
enforcement, told them I'd never received the code violation or the special magistrate hearing letter. And the fact was that I had replaced that roof and the rotted windows over a year before the code violation was issued. I also pulled a permit from the city to do this, but code violation, code enforcement would not remove the lean.
So then I called the mayor, who was at the time Al Johnson, and explained to him what was going on. He told me he would take care of it and call me back. He called me back and left me a voicemail offering to let me pay a $500 fine. He would make the whole thing go away. I have that recorded in my phone if you'd like to listen to it. I called
him and told him I was not paying the fine because I had actually pulled the permits from the city year before. Then he told me that he would be glad to have someone else pay it. And I said, "Absolutely not." Part: 2
told me they have seen city workers throwing trash on my property before. I do not have evidence of this, but I do believe it's true. A few days later, that Christmas decoration was magically gone. I picked up the other four items, and the code violation went away. I pay
someone a monthly service to keep that property cleaned up, but there was no way that someone can be there day and night picking up one cup or one beer can or trash that pedestrians and other people throw in there every day. It seems like the property is cleaned up and the next day I get a code violation
with a photo of a few pieces of trash the day after it's been cleaned up. Fast forward to now and another code violation for the same property. This time it was a pile of debris that had not been removed after Helen and one stump from a palm tree that had died and been cut down. The stump was put out to
the street for pickup, but no one picked it up. This was all part of the ongoing hurricane Helen cleanup and also waiting to see what plants would revive and lived. We have we already heard that from several people here today. We're supposed to wait until to to see if these plants live, but then I got a code
violation for it. The stump and debris have been removed at this point. There are so many properties still in complete disrepair in a huge mess here in St. Pete Beach. I do not understand why code enforcement continues to harass one single citizen for over 20 years. I'm a female senior citizen who lives alone
and I now suffer from PTSD. This is diagnosed PTSD directly related to the ongoing harassment by St. Pete Beach code enforcement. And that fence is I don't have to tear that fence down. I can repair it or do whatever. But first of all, I was forced to build that
fence. I told them it was a bad idea and it's not on my property. It's in the city easement. So, as far as I'm concerned, this this whole thing is about harassing a female senior citizen in St. St. Pete Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for letting Miss Moren
exercise her first amendment right. Would you like to see the pictures of the Christmas decoration and the other things that were on my property? I I actually this is has nothing to do with this particular violation. I don't need to see them. Well, it does. This is the repeat repeat repeat offender part of this violation. Well, actually it's not the order that
this is the basis of on was issued in August of 2024, which would have been prior to Christmas, which would have been prior to what you just testified to was in in January. Right. But this was on my property in May. This was land on my property in May. Okay. And the pictures that I have for
me, if you would like to show them, by all means, this is this is your case as well. Um, the property pictures that I have now are just of a a broken three-foot fence, the palm on the the root ball from the palm tree, which are gone, right? And and I think the city also
agrees with that. And then the um the vegetation on the side. I don't have anything on here with regard to a Christmas decoration. But again, this is your case. So, if you would like to put that into evidence, I'm I would certainly consider it. There's the Christmas decoration that
the city threw on my property. And these are the pictures of the of the one can and the one uh lid and the one straw. There's there's three acres of property. It's got it's got a straw with a lid right there on three acres of
property. And the fence, as far as I'm concerned, the fence when the pieces I replaced several pieces of it and the other part of it that's still down now, I'm not going to replace it because people are just knocking it down. So, I'm going to
leave those openings in there. The fence will be intact. I'm going to leave those opening for entrance to and from the property. Okay. Okay. So, if I understand your testimony correctly, then the fence the portions that you wanted to repair, the sections
that are you have repaired, specific sections, but specific sections, there are gaps in the fence which you are using for ingress and egress. And so, the slats themselves should all be repaired, but the gaps are on purpose. They're not No. Okay. We're not going to We're not
You don't want one continuous fence. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. It was it was it was it was ridiculous to begin with. It doesn't need a three-foot deck or defense. It's 650 ft on G Boulevard with a public sidewalk in front of it. So, every time somebody has a McDonald's
bag, they toss it in there. Well, I can't keep somebody on the property 24/7 to shoot people that are throwing trash on my property. I I just It's impossible to do this. And they're sitting there sitting there watching my property like
this. And it it's it's become it's become an impossible situation. They won't let me develop the property either. I've got I'm in a litigation right now with them stopping me from developing this beautiful piece of property and making it the gem of St. Pete Beach. And I gave them a million
dollars to make this city really nice and it literally put a target on my back. So 150 code violations in five years for a palm frown in my yard. Come on guys. You know, thank you. Thank you. Anything further, Mr. Luro?
I would defer to the magistrate. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Luro. Anything further from the city? I was trying to I can see it on there. I can't get it to open apparently with the internet flickering. It just won't open. I can see it that it was certified to the registered agent and to the property owner. To the registered agent and to the
property owner. Okay. And and going back to the fence, I think she was saying about the openings. Those are actually coming up on the separate cases just because they're different parcels. So the section that I was speaking on on the first half for the repeat violations was separate from the
section of the fence that she's speaking on. Okay. And and to the point regardless of what parcel it's on, if a property owner chooses to maintain a fence but not a contiguous fence around the perimeter of the property or or even in this case on one portion of the property to allow for ingress and egress in different areas.
Um, is that something the city considers disrepair or are you looking specifically for the portions that are there are in good repair? The portions that are there that are in disrepair, not the the egress, not the entrance and exit. Right. So, if I've got a hundred 100 yards on the side, but somewhere between
I've got 25 yards on this side, 25 yards on this side, and 25 yards in the middle. I don't want a fence. As long as I maintain in good repair these two 50 yards of fence, that's okay. portions that are that are actually broken would either have to be removed or repaired. Okay. Yeah, understood. But I don't I'm not required
to maintain a contiguous fence along that's not considered disrepair. Correct. No. No, not the continuous fence and would have to look into it. I think it's required to have a fence where they're at, but don't Well, and that's not part and parcel of
this code violation. So, I am not considering that today. I'm just looking for the the maintenance portion of Right. I'm just looking to consider what the city considers disrepair and and what was in Madam Special Man Street. Yes, Mr. Der. Uh Pete Der, code enforcement manager. Um Stephen, is the
fence contiguous except for two openings on two separate parcels? I and I I'm not going to entertain that at this point because if it's on different parcels that are part of different cases, I'm just hearing the fence repair on this particular case with this debris. So that that question may come up in in one of the ABC cases,
but um for this particular case, the testimony is that I just I just need to know if it's in disrepair or not. What's on the property? Thank you, Mr. D. I appreciate that. Okay. So is what's on the property? So um what is presently on
this parcel in this property is the repeat violation. The palm fronds have been taken care of. The palm ball has been taken care of. The root ball, correct? It's just there are sections of the fence that you're saying the slats are there's a couple of portions of the
slats that are damaged. Um sections were replaced but there's sections that are still damaged that need to be repaired. That's the only violation that remains at this time on this particular on this particular property. Okay.
Okay. Anything further Mr. Laro to that? No. Okay. We appreciate the privilege. So the violations that were cited for the repeat violation are section 46-3312 and three. I think my previous order
found 46 33 9865 9866. So these are the exact same sections of code violations. Um, I have credible testimony from the city that the certified mailing was sent to the property owner and to the property owner's registered agent under chapter 162. There is nothing that says
that they have to specifically receive the certified mailing. I don't write the laws. Perhaps there should be. Um, and I don't have any really counter on the registered agent. I do have testimony from the respondent and the respondent's attorney saying that she travels a lot. So even if she received the violation
notice, she may not have gotten it in a timely manner. The fact of the matter is I find that proper notice was sent. I do find that this is a repeat violation that there were broken portions of the fence, the root ball on the property under chapter 162. No cure, no cure
period is necessary. Um so I will find that there was a repeat violation on the property. I am going to find that the property is in substantial compliance. Understanding there's some sections of fence that need to be repaired. Um, so I'm going to find that's in substantial
compliance. I am going to issue a $25 a day fine until the fence comes into full compliance. Um, and that is going to be from today's date until the property comes into compliance. Um, I am going to also issue the $330 in administrative costs and any
lean recording fees that might be necessary. Thank you. Um, and just for purposes of the record, I am not, while I appreciate the respondent and the history and the property, for purposes of my order, I am not considering any of the history of the property or history with the
donations, etc. I I wish that I could. That's not part and parcel of of this um proceeding. So, purposes of the record, I'm not considering that. I'm only considering the relevant evidence that was presented as of today for this particular violation. And we appreciate the privilege and also
appreciate the clarification. Thank you, Mr. Laro. Okay. So, Miss I'd like to go ahead and offer her uh statement into the record if I may, and that will be accepted. Thank you very much. Recording fees. Okay. And moving on to new cases. Uh agenda
item 5A, case number 20250312, City of St. Pete Beach versus Sunold LLC. I do have a question on this. A, B, and C are all the same property owners. It's all representation by Mr. Laro, and it seems to be all the same violation.
Um, I I would defer to the city attorney, but is there any value in consolidating? I had the exact same question. Um, and I think our code officer will explain that the parcels are all together. Um but they have different street addresses or
different folio numbers. So I'll defer to his but I had the same question. Yes ma'am. So it's it's the other half of the lot that we were just speaking of. Right. Um there is different parcel numbers. So there is different case numbers but they are it's I'm going to present as if it's okay with you present it as one whole. Well it's okay with me but is it okay
with Mr. Loent consent to stipulation? Okay. So I will consolidate those three cases. So it's case number 20250312 20250417 and 20250418.
We will consolidate those three cases um and I will hear presentation of evidence uh as one consolidated case. Thank you. So this is case number 20250312, 2025 0417 and 2025 0418. Respondent is
Sunold LLC. Violation address is 3855 through 3861 Golf Boulevard. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 46332. Enumeration 9864A general maintenance 98654
unsightly conditions 9866 A B 22B 1 2 C and three residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection 523
2025. Notice of violation dated 528 2025. Notice of violation compliance date 612 2025. Notice of hearing dated to the property 617 and 73 of 2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This
is the affid affidavit of posting for case number 2025312. This is the affidavit of posting 20250417. and the affidavit of posting for 20250418. This is a section of fence that is uh in
disrepair. Another section of fence in dead vegetation. This is one of the openings. looked like it was a section of fence that was knocked down. As you can see, a couple of the slats there on the left side of the screen
that are in disrepair. Uh portions of the fence that are on the ground. Picture dead vegetation and missing slats on the fence. more dead vegetation. There overgrown weeds in the background.
Uh just beyond the rope line there. Another section of fence that's in disrepair. And the palm frrons uh scattered throughout the property. and picture the overgrown weeds on the property. Section of fence it's in disrepair.
Another section, this was on June 16th. There's debris along the sidewalk. Corrective action. Property must cut the grass and weeds. The fence must be replaced and all dead vegetation and debris must be cleaned up and disposed of. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day starting
72 until compliant plus $330 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Mr. Laro. Okay. Sounds like a continuation of the same issues as before.
This this was repaired on 69. 69. Will it I would imagine that the best approach would be to try to adopt the same ruling. It's all the same property. It's all one
property. The whole thing. So this is all one thing. One property. And if the magistrate would entertain this, would you adopt the same binding? $25 a day from here on out. Well, and at this point, this is not a repeat violation, so I'm not assessing any
fines and fees today. My question, however, is um the last statement that was made was I don't intend to do anything with and and I don't want to misquote, but my my understanding is I'm
keeping the fence that was repaired is repaired to the extent that I'm going to repair it, and I'm not doing anything with the vegetation that's in the eman or did I get that wrong? Has that been cleaned up? Vegetation I'll remove. Okay. Okay. So, the vegetation, so as of
today's date, the the the testimony is that the fence has been repaired to the extent that it's going to be repaired. It does not need to be replaced and the property owner does not intend on replacing it and or taking it down. Um that there are ingress and egress
pathways that are intentional and that the vegetation's all been cleared. Um, and okay, so that is that that's where we sit on the property now. Um, Mr. Rivera, have you had a chance to go out to see the property as of today's date? Uh, I did actually as of this morning
and I was trying to pull the pictures up, but we're havingity issues so we can get the overhead. So, these are and I'm going to try to do my best to get it in there, but there's a section of the fence with today's gate on it, but you can see the fence is still down
down on the ground. Okay. There's another section of fence uh again with the angle's kind of hard to see. Sure. Aside from the fencing, is the vegetation has that been cleaned up? Vegetation has been cleaned up along the sidewalk. The fence and the overgrown grass and weeds seem to be the main
concern or what's still outstanding? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Um, and Mr. Lo and your client would two weeks to, and I understand the testimony is that it's been taken care of. I have photographs that were taken this morning that do show portions of the fence being down. So, whomever
you've hired to go repair that, you may wish. Once again, this is not a fence I ever wanted to build. I never wanted on the property. It serves no purpose and the city forced me to do it. Yeah. And I don't have any control.
They can tear this fence down. It's on their property. It's on city and I never wanted to build it. Yeah. I don't have any control over that. So, nobody gave me the authority to do that, which is probably pretty smart. But, um, I will say, okay, so what I'm going to
do is I'm going to allow for 14 days from the date of my order to comply with the remainder of what the city is finding. the down fence portions um and the overgrown weeds. So within that 14 days, whoever you from the date of my order, which may or may not get done
today, depending upon how long this hearing goes, um just get with a contractor, whatever you got to do to make sure. I don't from my point of view, compliance, gaps in the fence are okay if they're for ingress and egress. If there's gaps every two feet, that's that might be a problem.
But um so I'll do 14 days from the date of my order. This is going to be for all three cases. Um and then we will reconvene at the next hearing in on August 11th. August 11th uh to determine if there's been compliance with the code.
Um hopefully I don't see you that the propertyy's in compliance and we all move forward. Thank you for the privilege, Melo. Thank you, Mr. Laro. And thank you and I will get you I think I have your email address, so I will get you in order to that effect. Very good. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Okay. So that moves A, B, and C. We are on to D. 5D, case number 20250220, City of St. Pete Beach versus Oh, I'm so sorry. Uh, Funius Starkus.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach. Case number 2025 0220 respondent I'm going to try not to mess this up also Svenius Starkis
1104 Passigrowway is the address violation description property is in violation of section 98651B unsightly conditions 9866A B 252 B1 1 3E residential and commercial
property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary initial inspection was 416 2025. Notice of violation dated 522 2025. Notice of violation compliance date 612
2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 624 2025. following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 11:04 Passigil Way. This is a picture of the damaged
sighting there at the top. Uh it looks like on the the chimney and right at the peak and then above the right window uh balcony window there. This is damaged siding in a garage door
uh on the 11th a side of the property. More damaged siding. This is a damaged garage door on the pass side of the property. It's a picture of the damaged uh siding and the railing that was in disrepair.
Another picture of the siding on the north side of the building. North side of the building as well. It's a picture of the overgrown veget uh vegetation, the outdoor storage. Uh I don't know if they're studs, but it looks like uh
planks of wood. This is in the carport area. More wood. This is on the pass grill side. I'm sorry, the uh east facing side. more overgrown vegetation. Corrective action. Property must remove the items stored in public view, trim
the palm trees back that are overgrown, repair the damaged garage doors, and repair the siding and railing. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day starting 617 2025 until compliant. plus $330 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that
may be associated with this case. Uh the property owner has been in contact with us. Um we did get an email pictures that they've been working toward compliance. So the the trees have been cut back. Um he cut all the vegetation back. He's cleaning up the property. The siding and
the garage doors haven't been repaired yet, but they are working toward compliance. And is this a commercial property? No, ma'am. Okay. It's a residential property. Residential. for the siding and the garage doors. Does that require permitting? Yes, the I know the garage doors will. I'm not 100% about the siding, but I
know the garage doors will require. And do you know if a permit has been applied for? Not to my knowledge. No. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner, if you could please come and state your name for the record.
Yes. Hello. Uh I am Suna Starkus owner of the property 11 104 Pasig railway. Uh so situation is that uh that notice I received only two weeks ago. I didn't receive those others before you left
only on on the door this one and uh I came Yeah. So I found first time only that one and I came next day right away. You need I met Jennifer Hanch. So uh I started sending uh pictures uh uh that
I'm cleaning up uh you know all that uh building stuff it was moved from the garages because uh you know after those hurricanes I was working over there cleaning up and now uh garage door and siding especially with
siding it is not that easy not that simple because about 1/4 of the siding is it's gone completely and uh damages water came through the roof, all uh uh sliding doors and uh everything is completely damaged inside the house. And
the house is very huge, 6,000 square ft. So, uh I'm dealing with the insurance, but as you know, it's it's not easy. It's still not done. And I don't know when I'm going to end with them. So, uh uh there is not only some small repairs
with that siding. I practically because uh what is holding still on it? It's it's almost practically lost because uh after those winds uh and uh water came through. So I have to do uh I have to replace practically all of the windows
and uh sliding doors. Uh I have to do waterproof and new siding. It has to go completely on all house because there is no other way how to do those repairs. But it's not like uh know few thousand job. It is like hundreds of uh thousands
is going to cost for me. So I'm dealing with insurance but uh I still didn't finish with them. So uh if it is uh and like outside I cleaned up everything you saw probably already and uh so I don't know. I'm just asking some
time somehow to finish with insurance or if I have to do something uh but it's it's really expensive. if it is impossible to to handle. So uh so where are you Mr. Starkus in the insurance process? You've already made the claim. You have an inspection two claims after those two hurricanes
for Hilton and Helen. They were sending some inspectors but uh three months they still didn't finish after 3 months. So I hired private adjusters. They were dealing like for six or seven months with them and finally they informed me he informed
me like uh because I contacted contacted with them again after this uh receiving this notice. I said you guys we have to do something to finalize or I don't know what to do. Uh so they said that they just uh can't do anything because insurance not working with them, not
transferring uh and uh I have to hire a lawyer to to to start working that way and you know they just walked away few days ago. I received notice that they are okay to leave it and they have to hire without like paying for them something and they
have to hire uh a lawyer. I contacted with insurance again. So I will see how how it goes if I have to hire the lawyer I have to hire. So okay that's where I am in. Yeah. So I mean the reason I asked the question is I was trying to figure out how much longer you would need. It does sound like there's a lot more extensive
damage and just repairing the sighting isn't going to do anything because if you repair it now the roof also won't you'll have to rip it all up. Whatever you repair now just to fix to cure this issue. You'll have to rip it all up to do the larger repair of the damage on the inside. There is no way how to replace those uh that siding
because it's you know it's more first of all been those doors supposed to be replaced the roof the garage doors and the doors garage done siding. So okay um Okay. And so at this point you are you've reached out to the insurance company to work with them directly to
see if you need to hire a lawyer or if Yes. I hope it's it's going to work without that but if not so okay we'll see. Okay. So at this point um anything else from the city? No ma'am. He is cleaning up the point. He did get the notice on the door. I
mean in his favor the trees were getting trimmed within a day or two after that. So he is trying to work toward compliance. I do believe right everything that you can do that's not otherwise reliant on somebody else to do their job you kind of complied
with. Um, I do have some concerns about I mean honestly there's nothing really you're going to be able to do. My concerns are we've got hurricane season well underway at this point. You've got exposed sighting, but you're no different than anyone else that went through the last two hurricanes as well.
So, um, I'm going to do this. I am going to find that there is a violation of the state of code section, but I'm going to give you 60 days um to work towards
compliance. And for me, compliance is going to look like a building permit application, but you might not be able to do that until you get information from your insurance company and to figure out where you're going to go. So, at this point, I'm giving you 60 days, two months to figure out what direction
that you can go in and to make headway on whichever way that looks like. Um, and then we will meet back here. That's actually going to probably put us into no uh September, October, October. Jenny, do you know when the October hearing is? October 13th.
Okay. Um, yeah, let's go ahead and set a status hearing for October 13th for that hearing. Um, and then we'll figure out how far you've gotten within that time period. Um, and and what the next course
of action is. If you've made good faith efforts, then we'll look to continue it and see if there's no light at the end of the tunnel. We'll figure it out from there. So, okay. Um, thank you, Mr. Starkis. and make sure we have your contact information so I can send you a copy of the order. I left it. All right. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Madam Special Man. Yes. Um, a respondent is here who is experiencing difficulty with his eyesight and has requested um his case be heard because the light
is impacting him. Certainly. What case number is that? Q case number 20240504. Right. Does the city have any objection to hearing that case out of turn? No, you are there. Okay. All right. Then we will move on to
um agenda item 5 Q. Case number 20240504, St. Pet City of St. Pete Beach versus Jeffrey Meyers. All right. Madam Special, man, I'm afraid that was me going through the 600 pages of
I think it's 588. We're there is where it begins. Thank you. Case number 20240504. Respondent Jeffrey Meyers. Violation address 19173rd Avenue. Violation description. The property is in
violation of section 46-142A 4 and B4 pattern of nuisance activity of the chronic nuisance property code for the city of St. Pete Beach. Special Man Street ordered um or ordered
2021 0494 from 112 2022 violation of section 9866 residential and commercial property maintenance special magistrate order 2023 0536 from 1114 2023 violation of
section 46-33 enumeration and 9865 unsightly ation. Initial inspection um for this specific case is 442025. Notice of nuisance dated 623 2025.
Notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 623 2025. These photographs are an accurate description of what was observed on the dates they were taken. This was actually posted by officer Raktell and she's here
to testify in case you need uh to hear from her concerning any of the postings or pictures. So, this is a closeup and this is out further from the property from the fence that it was posted on. Uh this is the finding of fact
that was submitted as part of our evidence. And as you can see here on this first page, it shows that the section in violation was 98-66. And the respondent was given until January 20th, 2022 to bring the property
into full compliance with the city code. November 2023. This order was found the respondent was found to be in violation of section 613 46-33 9865
of the code of ordinances and was given 30 days from the date of this order or by Thursday December 14, 2023 to remove the portal uh the portable able storage unit,
remove the remaining debris and furniture, and remove or address the issues with the trailers, RV, and clothing. These photographs again are a true and accurate representation um as to what you are observing on the dates they were
taken. As you can see, this was in n uh 19 uh 2021 on 9 se September 23rd, 2021. So, we went from 2021 to now 2022. And you can see the change,
the progressive change of that property uh becoming more and more of a nuisance property and an isore in the community. and these photographs are 2025. I'd like to introduce uh pictures taken
this morning. And these pictures speak volumes. As we um know, a picture is worth a thousand words. So, there's not much needed as far as narrative is concerned. But you can clearly see that the property um I will say this on behalf of the owner. Could we go to the overhead,
please? Um, I think they've been furiously trying to clean this property up ever since they they were notified. Um, I spoke to the gentleman in in the picture. Could you go back um to the monitor, please? If you if you notice, there's a
gentleman there. I spoke to him and like I said, they've been trying to bring the property uh to some semblance of order. There's much work still to be done. Um, go back to the overhead, please. What you're looking at in the upper
balcony of the of the property, um, those are shoes that have been laid out for some odd reason. Um, I couldn't tell you why they were there, but there were over 30 or 40 shoes, uh, placed on the balcony. That vehicle remains and these um
pictures again are true and accurate and they were taken today. That vehicle does not have uh vehicle has an expired tag on it. There is evidence that in this area right there um they have cleaned that
area up. There's a dumpster being filled with materials. This is the garage that they're unable to close because it's so filled. Um the materials debris is is uh they're spilling out of the
garage. More debris. A closeup of one of the trailers. Um indicative of no license tag, license plate. trailer showing the um wheels are
deflated. And that's another photograph of the garage that's filled to the brim. Madame special magrate, we're here requesting that you declare this property a nuisance and
the city be allowed to abate the nuisance. Um, madame magistrate, may I ask Mr. um door a few questions? Absolutely. This is um for the benefit of all watching. Um this is I believe the first time that the city has moved forward
with um the chronic nuisance um section of its code of ordinances and uh I know that there were recently some amendments that were made to that as well. Um and um Mr. Dwire and I we did have a conversation before this
morning's meeting and I want to make sure that um that we have in the record um I believe what's needed. So before you go on, Miss Subri, are we moving underneath the chronic nuisance property code or the nuisance abatement section of the city's code? Because
those are two separate sections and the chronic nuisance has to do with criminal activity. The question you're asking is one that I raised as well, so I'm glad that we can clarify this for you. Um, as I understand it, it is the city's intent
to proceed under the chronic nuisance section. And that would be um that that part of your code begins in 46-141. Okay. Um therein in section 46-142
the definition of nuisance um has been defined by three different or 33 different ways um including the criminal activity that you've referenced and um Mr. door. Do you want to specify for the
record your testimony as to why you believe that the evidence you're presenting is nuisance activity? Yes, ma'am. Um could we go to the overhead please? Madame special magistrate um as was just mentioned
section 46-142 pattern of nuisance activity includes as as you just heard several sections to it subsections um nuisance activity means any activities relating to the following violations whenever engaged in by the
property owner agent tenant or inviteee of the property owner agent or tenant and specific sections that you believe um fall under uh the definition of of nuisance activity based on your uh
testimony and your evidence. A four junk wrecked abandoned property as defined in chapter 46 of this code. 33. Failure to correct violations on or before the date specified in the notice
of violation issued in accordance with section 22-276 of this code. B pattern of nuisance activity. The real property shall be deemed to exhibit a pattern of nuisance activity if before failure to correct code
violations by the time ordered by the special magistrate in any order entered pursuant to section 22-277 of this code. So is it the city's position that um that this property is uh declared to be
a chronic nuisance? Yes. Based on the subsection cited and was notice provided to the property owner to that effect. Notice was provided. Can you describe the notice that was provided? Can you uh We the uh notice that was provided was
uh notice of nuisance on that property. I'm going to get that notice. And while he's getting that, um, if I may, um, the property owner is present today and staff has had some ongoing
communication with him, um, in view of the weather. Uh we appreciate him being to here today and um and and your um approval to provide accommodations to him um for his uh visual.
There's a notice of nuisance that was sent to Mr. Meyers June 23rd, 2025. That's on the under the overhead. So, your honor, I think that based on
the new um changes that were made to the uh ordinance, I believe that we would be asking under section 46-145 um PNE E that you review the record and
the evidence upon which the city has based its declaration of chronic nuisance activity or notice of the violation uh regarding the action plan. Um and I don't recall Mr. Dwire if you provided your testimony regarding the
status of the action plan. Uh no action plan was received by the city within the time uh period specified in the order in the notice. Could we go back to the notice please? Paragraph two, you're hereby notify that
unless the condition above is remedied so as to abate the nuisance within 14 14 days from the date hereof, the city of St. Pete Beach will proceed to remedy this condition and the cost of the work to remedy the condition. Advertising costs, administrative costs and other
expenses will be imposed as a lean on the property described. Remedy of to remedy the condition causing the nuisance. The following must occur. The property owner is required to provide the city with a written action plan outlining the specific measures that you will take to eliminate the
reurrence of nuisance activities on the property. The action plan must be provided to the city no later than 15 days from the date of the declaration notice of chronic nuisance property on 623 2025. Failure to provide the city
with a timely written action plan shall be a violation of this article. An entry of a chronic nuisance service order by the special magistrate. Costs of any chronic nuisance services provided by the city to a property that has been declared to be a nuisance or a chronic
nuisance may be levied against the property as a nonad valorium assessment superior to all other private rights interests leans incumbrances titles and claims upon the property and
equal in rank and dignity with a lean for ad valorium taxes and all unpaid assessments may be certified to the tax collector tax collector for collection pursuant to the uniform method provided in Florida statute 197.3632.
So if I heard correctly then your testimony is that there's no formal plan that's been provided. However, you have had ongoing conversation and and I think your testimony was also that there has been some improvement.
Is that correct? Or can you clarify or or testify as to the interaction that you've had. I've had um several inter interactions with um Mr. Meyers um including today
and he as a um as I've mentioned earlier has an issue with his eyesight and part of that difficulty is I think what has created the situation at his property. Um Mr. Myers has been at his wits end
trying to clean the property up um but unable to do so and this property has been an eyesore for the last several day uh years. Uh because of that um I think the city has left no other recourse but to try to get uh an abatement order by
the special magistrate so that the city can enter the property to clean it up. So that begs the question, why isn't the city looking to get an abatement under order underneath the nuisance abatement? I've heard at least one case with Mr. admire with regard to
this property and I understand his his visual capabilities and lack thereof and the the issues he's had trying to get people to help him clear the property and whatnot, but why is the city seeking to look at this as a chronic nuisance abatement instead of going underneath
the nuisance abatement code and seeking to enter the property to clean it up there? There you have two different codes here. So, what I was provided for, what I was provided with um yesterday from the city is a copy of the uh newly revised ordinance from the city
commission with the nuisance abatement code and the chronic nuisance code. The city is my understanding from the clarification from Miss Sup is that the city's choosing to move under the chronic nuisance abatement and and I'm certain I can certainly analyze it
underneath that section of the code. My question is, you know, the city seems to be seeking recourse and going onto the property and abating the nuisance, but the chronic nuisance abatement code seems to be um
not only seeking that, but al a lean, I'm not 100% certain that it will have the effect that the code references based on some case law. But other than that, I guess my simple question is why are we looking under chronic nuisance abatement instead of nuisance abatement?
There are two leans on that property and sure obviously with those two lanes it means nothing. The neighbors are upset over the fact that it's continued. So how come the city isn't seeking just to go under the nuisance abatement code and go clean it up?
That's a good question madam special magistrate. we felt that uh the authority was a little bit crystal clear under section 46-147 that it it was just a little bit stronger. Okay. Yes.
Um because there is this pattern that has been established by testimony and the evidence for the need to abate. Okay. Anything further from the city? Not at this time. Ma'am, I don't see in your property in the
chronic nuisance abatement section that the property owner has the ability to challenge this at all. Under my reading of the code, and it gives me pause, but under my reading of the code, the
notice and opportunity to be heard is based on the notice being the notice of the chronic nuisance referencing chapters 46 and the um opportunity to be heard being the submission of a chronic
nuisance abatement plan. Miss Subric, is that your reading of the code as well? I believe there was the opportunity for the property owner to request a hearing. Um I think there may have been a a modification to that to allow the city
to come forward as well. Um regardless um the property owner is present and um based on the information that's been provided I think that I'm looking at 46-145. A request for a hearing may be filed
with the city. Sure. And I'm looking under the 46-145 where it's just been changed to hearing. And under subsection E, it says, "Upon the request of the code enforcement officer, the city shall schedule a hearing before the special magistrate, the hearing shall be limited to the
review of the record evidence upon which the city based the declaration of karmic nuisance property or notice of violation regarding the action plan. And all I'm supposed to do is review the record evidence that the city made its determination of and either accept it or reject it um the declaration of the
chronic nuisance of the property. Um so I would uh concur that the language again um this section of the ordinance has recently been amended um and this is really our first um use of it. Um,
however, the property owner is present in in utmost respect of his due process rights. Um, he is present today and can provide you with his version of why he may not be u believe himself to be the
chronic um the chronic nuisance. My concern is the code directs me to limit my determination based solely on the city's record evidence. So, I guess my question would be if the city has no objection to the property owner
presenting testimony to be considered as part of the record that I am allowed to consider in determination of whether the property is a chronic nuisance, then I we would agree to that. Okay. Then, um, anything further from the city, Mr. D? No, ma'am. Um, I was just wondering if failure to provide the city with a
timely written action plan, which is a violation pursuant to this article, wouldn't that be sufficient enough to um allay your fears of him not being able to have a a response? And and I and I don't necessarily disagree. You're given notice and an
opportunity to be heard. Um, and your opportunity to be heard might be the uh action plan. I have some hesitation in the way regardless. I don't get to comment on how the code is written or determine whether or not it's sufficient or not. I just have hesitation with
considering this necessarily a chronic nuisance when you've given me two dates. I don't know if that's necessarily a pattern. There's now three. So, that might be a pattern. They're all within uh two four years. So, I'm not obviously I'm not making a determination right
now. I am just inquiring as to I the way I read the code is it doesn't matter what Mr. Meer says to me today because he had pursuant to the notice which I've had an opportunity to review against the code.
It it would appear from my cursory review that the notice is sufficient to meet with the chronic nuisance ordinance um and that it's giving him 15 days from the date of the declaration of the notice of the chronic nuisance to
provide an action plan. Um but this is also saying this is a notice of nuisance, not a declaration of a chronic nuisance. Um, well, and it does say that you found and determined that a nuisance has occurred.
Are you also taking into account pattern of nuisance activity to include failure to correct the code violations? I am not even there yet. I'm literally just talking about the notice and whether it meets with so your question to me was do I need to even entertain Mr. Meyer's testimony? That's my question too.
Got it. My understanding, you know, we are talking about due process rights. It's a notice and opportunity to be heard in an administrative hearing such as this. Is notice sufficient? I've looked at it. It appears that notice is sufficient to meet with the um the city's amended code. Is the opportunity
to be heard? Is submitting um an action plan enough? You know, I don't necessarily think so. I think that you're submitting an action plan and you're not giving the opportunity to object to the fact that you've determined that it's a chronic nuisance. So, I'm willing to um I'm willing to at
this point entertain um Mr. Meyer's testimony if he has an objection to the property being considered a chronic nuisance because I think he has the due process right to to do that. So that may not be included in the code and if this is appeal that might be something that gets overturned on appeal. But I think according to basic due process rights I
don't think that's sufficient enough opportunity to be heard as it's not really there's no information here that allows for him to object to the determination. It just subjects him to the chronic nuisance and then says give us an action plan on how you're going to do that. Perhaps maybe that means he
could have submitted an action plan that says I don't think it's a chronic nuisance. Have a nice day. So, just to make sure everyone gets there, we'll call it a day in court. Um, I would like an opportunity to hear from Mr. Myers if he so chooses to speak on his behalf. And I apologize, Mr. Myers. You've had
to wait so long, but we'll try and get through this. My name is Jeff Green Myers. All right. And Mr. Myers. Um, you understand that the city is uh seeking to have your property determined to be a chronic nuisance. And if it is determined to be a chronic nuisance,
they're seeking to enter your property to clean it up. Um, and then after cleaning it up, whatever cost it takes them to clean it up, they are going to assert a lean on your property for that. Do you understand that? I do. Okay. And do you have anything to say in defense of that?
I I missed a court date a long time ago and I spoke to him right right that day and I thought I was going to be receiving something in writing and I he just encouraged me to continue cleaning everything up and I've had a lot of ups
and downs with that. I had a lot of problems with that. I have a lot of people that I trusted and they weren't doing what they said they were doing. And but then I didn't hear for a long time from anybody. But I had a realtor because I I was looking at I'm looking to sell the
property. I'm looking to be able to move um closer to um where where I came from. I came here because I was ill and I went to Mop It and got treatment and lost my eyesight in the process and it was COVID and I bought this property.
Um I need I can't I I'm trying to adjust to being blind. I hoped that transplant surgery would have given me some eyesight back. It didn't. I rejected two times the surgery. Took five years to get my social security. I was awarded that in May.
Before any of these notices in June, I already had a dumpster at the property and was already trying to get everything taken care of. We had five feet of water during the hurricanes this year go through the lower unit, lower area of the the house to the garage area. All
that stuff has to go in the last since they talked to me and and I was aware of this this water thing. Um they think they've gotten rid of a lot of the garbage. They I mean substantially got I mean two huge
dumpsters of stuff that have been removed and they're continuing to work every day. The trailers are are scheduled to be removed. The RV I is a little bit more challenging because I think the flood destroyed it. It won't start anymore. It only had 30,000 miles
on it even though it was an older one. Um but I think it has to be taken to a junkyard. I'm not opposing any of that and I I just don't understand why it's happening now. I I could have used this help. I think if you're if I'm hearing you right, you would have come in and
help me get rid of everything and just charge me for it. That would have been great. Like a year ago, what should happened? Um because I I really need to be able to get on with selling the property and and getting closer to where I can have
friends. All my family's deceased now, but I I do have friends. I was in the Daytona Beach area for 20 years. I was respected there before I lost my eyesight and everything. I have friends there that will help can help take care of me. Um
I don't think I've ever been resistant to any help or anything. I don't know. It's just a lot of what I'm hearing today, I don't even understand. Okay. And so, and I want to make sure that you do understand it. So, at least from my involvement and from what the
the evidence that the city has presented me with is at least in 2022 and 2024 um there were code enforcement violations against the property for it being um ju just a lot of debris, junk,
that kind of things or just outdoor storage, that kind of stuff. I've seen the pictures. I was here for at least one of those hearings. um and gave you a certain amount of time based on your testimony to clear all that out. And I understand that you had made efforts to do that. Um and I understand to your
testimony in 2024 about not being able to do that because the people that you said were going to help you ended up not helping you um or there there were not groups and you you did have some issues in between there where you were going through uh personal things. So, I can
understand that where you're sittued. Mhm. So, I think the city at this point, and I don't want to put words in the city's mouth, but my understanding from the testimony is that issuing a code citation isn't enough because that comes with a financial penalty to try and get
you to clean up the property, but it doesn't actually clean up the property, which is really what the city is seeking is compliance with the code. Isn't that what I've done over the last 10 days or so? So yes, but what the city is saying is it's taken since 2022
to get to this point where you're trying to do it and and I understand the hurdles you've had. It started before the the even I got a notice and I've been actively trying is get being able to afford the dumpsters and all that. Right. I have an insurance claim that is still
in process. I've decided to simply accept the claim. I had they had me do estimates on it. They want like 28,000 to clean the property up. They're only give me $10,000. I'm just accepting it. I'm going to use my money I got from social security. They just make sure it's all cleaned up.
I So, and here's what where the ramifications of this particular thing. So, it's no longer just a code enforcement violation. Now, the city is moving forward with a chronic nuisance violation. And what that means is twofold. If I determine that I agree with the city's representation that it's
a chronic nuisance, then the city will have the ability to go onto the property and clean it and then charge you back for it, but it will be a lean on your home. So, if you're trying to sell the property, that's going to be an incumbrance to selling it. I don't understand why wouldn't this be satisfied at the time of I don't it it it might be satisfied at the time
of the sale. And that's fine. I mean, the same as your other code enforcement leans, right? Once the propertyy's cleaned up, too, that's going to satisfy your other code enforcement. not aware of any other leans in my property. Well, you do have two outstanding code enforcement cases that had daily running fines on them. Is
that correct, Mr. Der? Yes. So, those daily running fines are still going until the property comes into compliance. And again, that's what the city is seeking. So, isn't aware of any of this? What you don't notify me or I did notify you. I sent an order to your home and I've spoken with you about
this before. We were supposed to meet on the on the on I had the date down being Tuesday and and I think court was on Monday and I I thought I was going to get called right back again and I never heard from nothing. And then I when we
went to sell I went to ask a real to help me with it and I told him about all this. He came over and talked to people here and he just said I just needed to get everything you know continue getting it cleaned up and I've been doing that. Um, and and there's a way for the city to to work with you on reduction of those
fines and and you can talk to your realtor aware what they are and and I am not either. And the only reason I am privy to that information is because one, the record evidence that Mr. Derer just presented and two, I was here for some of those hearings. So I I from my point of view, what I just need you to understand is that if I find that
it's a chronic nuisance, um, then again, you'll get the help that you need because the city will go in and make the property compliant. Hopefully it would be done before that but it and it and it may very well be and if it is done before that then the city won't have to go in and and abate too much right and so they may not have
to put any lean on your property because it might be satisfied on your own but there will be that type of a declaration out there. So I just need you to understand that. And so you're telling me that and I and I've heard this before from you that you have been trying to clean up the property and I've seen based on the pictures that Mr. doer just
recently put up. There has been substantial cleanup, but there's a lot more to go. Right. There's a lot more. I was And so this morning about So in your eyes, you you think that you can get it all cleaned up? How long do you think that would take?
It should have been done yesterday. Um it uh I I have the funds now, though, too. It was funds were a big issue for me. I I didn't like I said, five years I've been fighting for myself. I finally had a hearing. Mhm. And the offer gave me a hearing and the judge ruled in my favor based on the
initial documentation that was given to my first application five years ago. So I received the red pay on that. And so now I'm actually in a position where I was able to pay for all these things to start to happen. Okay. And so what do you think? How long
do you think it would take you for hire more people other than the people that were working on it because pretty much everything just has to go into the trash. Okay. I'm aware of that. five feet of water into the downstairs. I was fighting with the insurance company because I mean some of the stuff
in the downstairs there is still filled with water, flood water. It's not even safe and they just I heard somebody else here say they have like all this time. My insurance company, which is the National Flood Insurance Company, they were without even taking phone calls for
almost three months. Yeah. They wouldn't even take our phone calls. And then they come in, they they give me this offer back and I don't even care at this point. I'll use whatever monies I have to get this cleaned up. So if you have the funds now and you have people there, how long do you think it would take you to clear the property?
I want to say within a week to two weeks to much more. I need help to I don't you looked at it this morning, right? They got a lot of it gone. Yep. A lot of it just has to go into the dumpsters. Okay. Okay. It shouldn't help. It shouldn't be that hard for them, you know, for them just
it's literally just haul it away, right? Just hauling it away, right? Okay. There's already a schedule what they're doing with the trailers and the and the RV. I They They want to move it to this uh place to have it stored. I don't think it should be. I think it needs Just want to junk that, too. Okay. Okay.
Well, that gives us then a time frame. All right. Um, anything else, Mr. Meyer, you would like to say on your behalf? It's just I wish that people were I wish there you guys communicated more to us in in a form of the mail or something
that we were more aware of what was happening. I I I kind of thought no news was good news and I didn't hear nothing from nobody for so long. I can understand that. Mr. Mayor, I will say that the process that we have in place for code enforcement has been around for a while. We're subject to what the state allows us to do and you
know there's I'm right next door. You can just come. I know. I' I drive I've drive by your house when I leave here. So, I know I will say this, you know, I think the city of St. Pete, it it means nothing to this case and it's not really part of the record. I think the city of St. Pete Beach has done a lot of communicating. I
think you've done a good job communicating with them, but they are a city of thousands of people and they can't cater to every single person. So, um Okay. Thank you, Mr. Myers. I really appreciate your um coming here today and I appreciate the information that you've given me and that I can consider in
making my determination. Um and if you have nothing else to say, you can go ahead and be seated and I'll go ahead and um if the city has nothing else. Again, the city's primary um goal in this situation is uh to bring the
property into compliance. Um it has been quite a while um that it's been subject to these various um code violations and um being out of compliance. Um I'm I think the city is is hopeful to
hear that he can have it fixed and come into compliance um within a very short period of time. Um there is no written um plan to bring it into compliance. Um we would like to have some type of
certainty maybe from him um within whatever time period you you offer uh for a compliance date. Um so that there would be perhaps periodic uh checks with the city as far as how
it's coming along. um and then report back to you at a particular time to let you know whether or not it has been um complied come into compliance. Um based on the evidence that has been presented
to you, we would also request that perhaps you make partial findings of fact. Um well I'm going to comply with sections 46-146 and 46-147 of the chronic nuisance abatement code
which deal with entry of the chronic nuisance service order as well as abatement by the city. Um so in in with my order I will have to enter establish findings of fact that the p pattern of nuisance um well we'll
go through it and I'll do it on the record and I'll also put it in writing that way the city has it. So, uh, section 46-146 of the chronic nuisance abatement code says that if the timely request the hearing has, uh, well, let's see, blah, blah, blah. I the the special magistrate
shall enter a chronic nuisance service order if I uphold the declaration of the chronic nuisance property or determine after the hearing there's been a failure to provide or implement an adequate action plan. At this point, I find that the notice of nuisance provided to the property owner by the city meets and
comports with the chronic nuisance abatement code and with sufficient notice. I'm also making a determination that the property owner received such notice and had an opportunity to be heard at a public hearing. Um I do make a determination that based on the record evidence presented by the city which in
is included with the dates of 1112024 and 112 2022 um going back several years and not having found that those uh final magistrate orders have been complied with. Um though the property owner is looking to bring the property in
compliance, I do find that the um evidence does meet with the standards in the code and that there is a chronic nuisance established by the city at this property. Um I will authorize the city to provide chronic nuisance services to
the property. However, I will not allow the city to do so until after 14 days from the date of a chronic nuisance order as that is the time that the property owner said it was sufficient enough for him to clean it up. I would allow like to allow him to get as much done on his own as he can without
allowing the government to enter his private property and do so. Um, I am going to authorize the city to bill the cost of any chronic nuisance services to the owner of the chronic nuisance property. Um, and I will go ahead and mail a copy of the chronic nuisance
service order by certified mail. Return receipt required and first class mail to any mortgage of record. Um, and I will go ahead and have that um, unless the city would like to record the order, I can certainly have my office record the order. Um, in the public record, it does
say provide for the recording. So, my order can just say that the city will be directed to record the order. Um, if you'd like to record it, it would be fine. Okay. I will provide for the recording of a certified copy of the chronic nuisance service order in the public
records. And I will provide uh in my order for continuing jurisdiction over the chronic nuisance property for a period not to exceed one year after the entry of an order. Um, after after one year after the entry of the order, my jurisdiction will cease. If there has
been no nuisance activities, if there has been nuisance activities within that one-year period, I will retain jurisdiction and ex um extension of that order may be granted pursuant to the city's code. Um again, the city does have the ability to abate after 14 days
from the date of my order and to um to uh assess the costs, the reasonable costs associated with that. And I will make sure that I get that all put in a written order. And Mr. Myers, you will be provided with a copy of that. If you have any questions about that order, please contact the city.
Okay. Okay, 14 days appropriate or Okay, 14 days. Okay, that sounds good. All right, then we are concluded on that case and Mr. Myers, if you have any questions, like I said, please contact the city. Okay.
All right, that was Q, correct? I think we are on E. Yep. Okay. Okay. Moving on to 5E and you get to go back 588 slides, I think, or something like that.
Um, and just to tie up the loophole on the last the chronic nuisance case, if I will be recording the order once I once I fill out the order, I will just need the city clerk's office to certify the order before I can record it. We'll take care of that. Thank you. Um, moving on to 5e case number 20250279.
City of St. Pete Beach versus Coconut in LLC. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve River again, uh, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20250279. Respondent Coconut in LLC. Violation
address is 113 11th A. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 44.5A 1 and 2 B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and 10.
Standards for existing beachfront lighting of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 59 2025. Notice of violation date at 5:15 2025. Notice of violation compliance date 616
2025. Notice of hearing date and posted to the property 625205. Following is a true and accurate representation of what I witness. This is the affidavit of posting at 1131 a. These are the balcony lights that were
non-compliant or upstairs lighting. Second level, there a little bit of a zoomed in photo there. A follow-up picture. Same lights. Corrective action. Property must replace the lights with turtle friendly lighting or turn the lights off from May 1st
through October 31st. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day starting 527 2025 until compliant plus $330 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation.
Okay. Thank you. Anyone here on behalf of Coconut in LLC? If you could please come and state your name and affiliation with the LLC for the record. Hi, Maggie Leblanc. I'm the owner of Coconut in LLC, managing partner of the LLC. Um I am really embarrassed because
I am super um thought I was super aware of all of the sea turtle um you know um things to to protect the sea turtles. In the 16 years that I've had the property, we've never been alerted to the fact and
it really just never occurred to me. I don't know why. Um, I have no excuse for not doing it in a timely fashion other than the sconces that we have there are 16 years old. Um, we had a hard time finding the correct light bulbs. We have
since found them. Um, and so what we did was, uh, well, we have a timer on it, so we figured if it goes off at sunset, uh, but then that didn't seem to work. It was like a series of things that happened. Um, and then we unscrewed the light bulbs. Um, as for the guest rooms,
I it didn't even occur to me that the guest rooms needed to be um, you know, the lights needed to be off. So, we tried communicating to the guests about that. I did come here after the second notice of the violation and um Jen gave
me the little decals which we now put inside of all of the guest rooms that are there on the corner um so that the guests are aware because what was happening we were communicating it but then the guest was forgetting or staff wasn't communicating it properly whatever the case may be. But um the
bottom line is we are now in compliance and we have those light bulbs um being delivered probably in the next few days and um and you know we should be in full compliance. We are now temporarily but I do have other measures
like turning the lights off now instead of having them. Yeah, correct. But that's not foolproof. So we really do need those light bulbs um because those sconces were so old. it it was and they're very specific and I can't just replace those three because I have 30 of them matching on the property. Okay.
So, we didn't want to have to replace all 30 sconces. So, we did find the correct light bulb finally and and so that'll be installed. Do you have a time frame on when all the installation might be completed? Um within the next week, but like I said, we are already in compliance
because we did unscrew all of those light bulbs and put the decals in the rooms. um that has really helped and the brochures that um Jen gave me, okay, as well, which is good for the guests. It gives them a better understanding um about how important it is to do that. Okay. And then keep in mind, too, if
your guests choose not to listen to that, you'd still be subject to future code enforcement on that. So, that's the scary part. There might be window tinting or something that you can do. I'm not super familiar and don't take my advice. I am just the magistrate, but there might be something else that you can do. Okay. Yeah, that's a good point. Thank you. All right. Anything else that you'd like
to say in your defense? No, that's it. Okay. Just embarrassed by the whole thing. Well, thank you very much, Miss Leblanc. Anything else from the city? No way. Okay. So, I am going to find that there was a violation of the stated code sections. I'm going to allow for 14 days from the date of my order to come into full compliance. Understanding you're in
compliance now, but full compliance with whatever you need to do with the light bulbs, etc. Um, and then if the property doesn't come into compliance in the 14 days, then we'll see you back here in August. If it does, I hope to not see you and I hope to not see you again. Um, and I will get you in order to that effect. Just make sure that we have your
contact information on the sign-in sheet. All right. Thank you very much. Okay, that was E. Moving on to 5F, case number 20250275, City of St. Pete Beach versus Hurricane Lounge, Inc.
Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera again, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20250275, respondents, Hurricane Lounge Incorporated. Violation address is 809 Golfway. Violations description. The
property is in violation of section 44.5A 1 and 2 B1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and 10. Standards for existing beachfront lighting of the code of ordinance of the
city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 59 2025. Notice violation date at 5:15 2025. Notice violation compliance date 6162025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to
the property 625 2025. Following is a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 809 Golfway. This was from my initial inspection May 9th, 2025. Shows the lights at the top
there. uh upper half of the building. It's a picture highlighting the lights that were in violation. This was on June 24th. This was a follow-up inspection. It looked like there was some uplighting that was hitting the roof of the uh the lounge.
And then there was a stairwell that was also notice that was in violation. Corrective action. Property must replace the lights with turtle friendly lighting or turn the lights off from May 1st through October 31st. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a
day starting 527205 until compliant plus $330 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. Right. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Anyone here on behalf of Hurricane Lounge, Inc.
If you could please state your name and affiliation with the corporation for the record. Rick Valenstein, 809 Golfway, St. Pete Beach 33706. president owner. We have
done a lot of mediation uh using orange tent. Um the one roof line that that was added the orange tint and we turned off multiple lights. Staircase we've added some orange tint
to the to the lights. Um and if we need to do more, we'll do more. Okay. Okay. So, at this point, you find that you are compliant. Have you contacted the city to come out and look to make sure that you're compliant with the turtle lighting code?
I I spoke with Stephen last week and told him what what was done. Okay. And then before that, I've been in contact with the city uh probably three times. Um Jen and then Jen would transfer me to Stephen.
Okay. Okay. Um, and then, um, and when did you do the orange tints? Was that before you, well, I guess the Well, before I went on vacation. Okay. There was some done. When I came back, uh, we we completed it. And when was that date,
if you recall? I I want to I want to say uh after June July. It was July. July. Okay. All right. Okay. Anything else that you'd like to say? If I'm not in compliance, let me know. and I'll I'll get more orange tint.
Okay. All right. Sounds good. Anything else, Mr. Rivera? Uh, no, ma'am. Okay. So, I'm going to give you, understanding that you feel that you're in compliance, I want to make sure that the city goes out and and that you are in fact in compliance. So, same as the last respondent, I'm going to give you 14 days from the date of my order to
come in full compliance. I am going to find that you were in violation of the state of code sections, but you did make effort. So, I'm going to give 14 days from the date of my order to come into full compliance. just get with the city and make sure that the orange tint orange tinting is enough and that everything is fully compliant with the turtle lighting code. If you do that
within 14 days and everything's good, then I won't see you here. If you don't, then unfortunately I'll see you here in August and we'll talk about if we need to impose a fine or anything like that. I've ordered more or more orange tint. So, okay. You should be here uh Wednesday. All right, sounds good. Just make sure I
have your contact information so I can get an order to that effect sent to you. All right, moving on to five FG. Case number 20250069,
City of St. Pete Beach versus Annie Wyn and Timmy Trong. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Lewis Cruz representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is code enforcement case number
2025 0069. Respondent is Andy Nan and Jimmy C. Trong. Violation address is 2055th Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 46-33
enumeration 1 A 2 and 3. 98-64 General Maintenance A. 98-65 unsightly conditions 1 A B and 4 9866
Residential and Commercial Property Maintenance A B 20 C 2 and 3 of the code of ordinances of City of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial inspection was January 11th, 2025. Notice of violation
dated 416 2025. Notice of violation compliance date 57205. Notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 519, 2025. These are a true and accurate
representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 2055th Avenue on May 19th. This is trash and debris on the left side of the property as well as overgrown grass and weeds.
Just different shots and different angles of the trash and debris that is present on the frontage of the property. Overgrown grass and weeds that are continuing to grow as well. Trash and debris on the property. This
is towards the driveway and the rightway as well as a fence in disrepair. Pile of trash and debris, mostly palm frrons and it looks like a mixture of a couple different trash debris underneath. Just a pile of debris there to the left.
Broken mailbox up here by the the front door. And on the side here, there's a lot of dead vegetation and and piled up branches and stuff like that on the back side of the house on the side there on the left side as well as a fence in
disrepair. This is another pile in the right away from the property. The corrective action property must cut and maintain grass and weeds, fix the fence that is in disrepair, and all trash and debris must be cleaned and removed from the property. The property
is not compliant. The recommended fine is $250 a day starting 58 2025 until compliant plus $329 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And
that concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Um, is anyone here on behalf of the property owners? Either Annie Nuin or Jimmy Trong. Anyone here on behalf of Annie Nuin or
Jimmy Trong for the address of 2055th Avenue, St. Pete Beach? Okay. Have you had any contact with the property owners? No, I have not. They haven't reached out at all. Um I've only spoken to a renter that was there I think about a year or
so ago, but I've never actually talked to the owners. I've tried to reach out with whatever information we have in our system currently. Um and they have not reached out. California. Okay. Um, all right. I will find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections and the property owners have 14 days from the
date of my order in order to come in compliance with the stated code sections by cleaning up the property um applying for any permits needed for the fence repair um, etc. Um, if they don't, we will see them on August 11th and I will go ahead and look at imposing any
additional fines or costs. Thank you. All right, moving on to 5H. Case number 20250232, City of St. Pete Beach versus Fresh Development LLC. Mr. Cruz, thank you.
Lewis Cruz representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is code enforcement case number 2025231. Respondent is Fresh Development LLC. Violation address is 6800 Sunset Way.
Violation description, the property is in violation of section 98-123.1. Permits required. 98-65 unsightly conditions 1 A B and four 98-66
residential and commercial property maintenance A B 24 C 1 A B C D and three of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach.
Case summary. Initial inspection was 418 2025. Notice of violation dated 421 2025. Notice of violation compliance date 58 2025. Notices of hearing dated and posted on
the property 519, 2025. These are true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 6800 Sunset Way, May 19th, 2025. This is in the rear of the property in the alleyway. This is the fence in
disrepair, this portion of it. And there's also accumulated trash overflowing out of what looks to be inadequate trash containers for the business associated with this property. This is the unpre excuse me, this is unpermitted fence that was erected,
assuming that must have took damage from the storms that came in. Just different shots of the overflowing trash and accumulated litter and trash from inadequate trash containers for the business on the property.
Got multiple complaints about obnoxious smells. I didn't smell it at the time, but I did the last time when I was just doing a regular reinspection, but it was too late to put it into the notice of violation. And these are different dates with a lot
of the trash sitting like this for quite some time, June 20th, and the other one was April 30th. Corrective action. Property must clean and remove all accumulated trash, supply
the business with adequate trash containers or bins for the trash or litter, fix the fence in disrepair, and obtain the proper permit for the replacement of the fence. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day starting 592025
until compliant plus $329 for administrative cost and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Mr. Cruz, anyone here on behalf of Fresh Development LLC? You can please come up
here. State your name and affiliation with the business for the record. Yes. Uh Igor Savage, LLC owner. All right. And Mr. Savage, uh, what would you like to say the city's allegations? Okay. What u I was actually out of
country for over two months. Uh, the property is a rental restaurant rental. I don't own a business. I just own a building which is kind of unique as a restaurant is built in a short-term rental condominiums or I guess
condominiums, apartments. So, uh, at the beginning when I was first made aware of this, um, I spoke to the tenants. They said they have a issues a little bit. People are throwing the trash from the from the condos on on the side just over the fence. I actually have some pictures
showing like uh I even have some pictures showing clear bags with uh beer that they don't actually sell in the in the restaurant itself. Um so it was going they were going back and forth with the with the a homeowner association and maintenance
and maintenance guys over there. Uh, now that I'm back, I spoke to a homeowner association president. We're gonna we're going to have uh maintenance guys there on the ground, check the the the properties. Usually, this happens only mainly on Monday and Tuesday where people check out the Airbnb or
short-term rentals as well as they order a bigger container. The restaurant owners did. Uh, as far as fencing, I met with with Lewis was it last week one? Yeah. One day, and we discussed about a meing permit. the the issue about like why did
they didn't pull the permit because the restaurant owner is supposed to pull a permit. Uh they need to get a survey for the property. Well, survey for the property is about 34,000 at you know some of that. So they didn't want to spend that money and I don't have a survey because I bought a building and I
never had a survey with whether I have a private loan on it. So, um, this week I'm going to see actually I mean the city official as far as, you know, permitting. See if I can pull the I can't remember the name of the permit. It's, uh, it's like administrative permit because there's only 10 ft of the
fence that that was replaced after hurricane. We want to put they want to put something right away so you don't you know the and nobody sees the the containers on the back. So, if you look at the pictures actually, you can see all two old 4x4s are still there. So basically just like two sections of
fences are brand new because it was kind of you know ugly to see that obviously containers because the the the windows are on the on the back side of the property. So as far as CL clean stuff on the back I'm not sure when after I spoke uh you did you reinspect the property? I I went
I went inspected myself. It was uh it was much cleaner. I did spoke speak to restaurant owners as well to clean it a little bit more. There were again some bags they were not their bags but again they have to clean it and I understand. So we're working on HOA just somebody
sees it every day and now that I'm back in the country also I get a little bit of better handle of it. Uh so uh tomorrow 11:00 I have a meeting with uh with the city officials regarding their permit. If I can if I can pull a permit uh with uh without having a survey I can
you know rent do get this fixed like in a day. If I have to wait for a survey, I might have to have a little bit of time because it's I I don't know. The survey company's probably about 30 days out until I get survey back. So, okay. Great. Anything else, Mr. Savic?
No, that's pretty much it. Thank you. Anything else from the city? Okay. So, I am going to find that the property is in violation of the state of code sections. I'm going to allow for 30 days through the date of my order for compliance in the event that you do have to get a survey and some of the other testimony has been 3 to four weeks out.
as you said. Um that'll get you time to get the survey. Um and then um we will meet back here. 30 days is going to probably put us in September. So we'll meet back here in on September 8th to figure out if you've come into
compliance or if there's anything necessary that we need to do or to impose fines or fees at that time. Okay. They'll have a GC license as well. So that fully is not going to be an issue. Okay. just make sure I have your contact information and that way I can send you a copy of the order. That way
you have it. Um and then hopefully I don't see you in September would be great. Thanks so much. And moving on to five I case number 20250067. City of St. Beach versus Lake Merit Partners LLC.
Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Lewis Cruz, representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is code enforcement case number 20250067. Respond is Lake Merit Partners LLC. Violation address is 6636 Corey Avenue. Violation description. The
property is in violation of sections 46-33. Enumeration 2 3 4 A 98-64 general maintenance A 98-65
unsightly conditions 1 A B 3 and 4. 98-66 Residential and Commercial Property Maintenance A B 2A NB 3A 5 7 9 14 C 2
and 3 of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was January 11th, 2025. Amended notice of violation dated 418, 2025. Notice of violation compliance
date 59 2025. Notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 519, 2025. These are true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 636
Corey Avenue on May 19th, 2025. This this is a deck in disrepair on the property. And the building is obviously in disrepair, taking damage from the hurricanes, as well as trash and debris that has been left on the property. Just different shots of the deck in
disrepair. The building also in disrepair between sophets and fascia boards as well as trash and debris. Just different angles started to board things up. The exterior wall was
damaged. The monument sign is also in disrepair as well and could be a safety hazard for people walking on the sidewalk there. Different shots at different times throughout the process that the property
was going through. They did clean the trash and debris eventually. This is June 20th, 2025. still in the same state as well as the broken monument sign. But there still is some debris here on
the right side of the property even though they cleaned the majority of what was on the left side of the property. And that's just different shot the broken fascia boards. Corrective action. Property must clean and remove all accumulated trash or
debris. Fix or remove the deck and disrepair. Fix all areas on the building, fascia boards, doors, windows, exterior wall, etc. or demolish building in disrepair and fix or remove monument sign in disrepair. Property is not
compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day starting 510 2025 until compliant plus $329 for administrative cost and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that
concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Anyone here on behalf of Lake Merit Partners LLC? If you could please state your name and affiliation with the LLC for the record. Rachel Smith. I'm a representative. Do you have authority to speak on behalf
of Lake Merit Partners LLC? And are you So my question is, are you associated with Lake Merit Partners? Are you a partner? I work I work for the owner of of Lake Meritt. Okay. Okay. And Jason Matthews and you have uh written authority to speak on his behalf and represent the LLC here today. I don't have any writt I do not have written authority.
Okay. But it's your testimony here today that he's given you specific authority and he is the managing partner of the LLC. He has the he has the authority to give you the authority to speak on his behalf. Yes. Correct. I just understand I've dealt with like partners in the past. He's usually been here if not a lawyer. So I've not seen
you before. I just want to make sure you have the opportunity or you have the authorization to speak on your Absolutely. So, I was brought into this the beginning of June or Yeah, the beginning of June to assist um with the clean up and the helping because I'm local. Okay. With getting And Rachel, what is your last name?
Smith. That's easy. Thank you. All right, Miss Smith, go ahead and uh anything you have to say in relationship. Sure. So, um yep, I have been in touch uh with Luis Cruz a couple of times regarding this and Jennifer. I've been sharing photographs, uh communication. I
did get the sign repaired uh the day actually that he reported it and all the cleanup that was done on the property as well. Uh even the the later photos on that sidewalk that was all taken care of as well a few days um after he had sent
me the messages. Okay. Do you know so you said it was a few days? I think the last photographs I saw were from June 20th around. Yeah, I have June 26th. Okay. Was the final. Did you want to see that? Yes, please. Sure. Okay. Where do I put this? I'm sorry.
Put it right here. Okay. Oh, yeah. That's the right side of the the rest of that sidewalk area and the rest of the front and then now it's that final over. Uh I you know I don't have a picture of
it but we rebolted it and re you know attached it. Yes. Okay. And what about the issues with the fascia board and the other decking? Has that all been taken care of as well? So I know all of the debris has been removed and every anything that was hanging was cut you know removed or you
know just as best that they could. Um, as far as the decking you're talking about, like the wooden the actual decking that's just sitting on the ground currently. So, okay. I didn't know that that needed to be removed, but I can get that scheduled right away. Okay. And then how about the I know
there's the boarded up windows, but the fascia board and stuff on the side is are the owners planning on pulling permits and repairing the building or No, I my understanding is that it is going to be for uh to be demolished and they are just in the middle of the insurance claim and then they're going to move forward with that. Okay. Um, all
right. Anything else, Miss Smith? I don't think so. Okay. And Mr. Cruz, on from the city's perspective, understanding that, you know, the insuranceances, whatever it is, um, the compliance with the boarded up windows, the fascia board, the sighting, that kind of thing. When would
the city consider that fully compliant after it's completely repaired or is there any forgiveness on the fact that they've done substantial compliance? Yeah. And obviously, as you can see, January 11th was when we seen this. Then there was a reprieve there for a little
while. We kind of backed off, try to get people back up and going. Um so then obviously we had to ramp things back up. Got to keep things clean. Um so they've had some some time to get things done a few months here now, almost a half a year if not a little bit over. Um depending on when they put in the claim. So they would
have to actually be demoed for because of the type of violations that I cited, right? It's going to have to actually be gone or you know till they get put in a permit which will give them an extension. Um if they want to fix it, which as she's alluding to, it's going to be a demolition. Um, but if they did
put in a permit, then we can extend so they can go through the permitting process to get that demolition fulfilled. Okay. Do you know when the insurance claim was submitted? It was submitted. I want to say it was in October. Okay. So, right after the storm.
Correct. Okay. Okay. Um, and do you know if the property's been inspected by the adjuster at all or I I don't know. Okay. I I know I'm asking you questions you may or may not have the answers to. I'm just trying to make a determination on how much time I should give in order to bring the property in compliance. Sure. Sure.
Um so I am going to find that the property is in violation of the cited code sections. Um I am going to I understand that the property has been brought substantially into compliance, but there still are some outlying issues with the deck and some of the other things. I am going to allow 30 days to come into
compliance and within that time that'll put us at the September hearing. Um, I understand that that may not get us the facial board, the sighting, the windows, etc., but it may get us more
information on where you guys are in that process. So, keep that in mind. If you are back here in September, please let me know. Have the information on where you guys are in the insurance process, what types of permits are going to be applied for, because there is going to need to be some sort of compliance at some point. um
understanding there's extenduated circumstances for a lot of properties here. There are not for others and so we just got to make sure everyone's coming into compliance with the code. So um 30 days from the date of my order, we'll see you back at the September 8th hearing maybe. Hopefully not. Hopefully it's all in compliance and everything is
good. Please just make sure I have your contact information or whomever I need to send the order to so that I can get that to you. Okay. Thank you, Miss Smith. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Okay, moving on to 5J20401. Well, before we do that, is it Well,
Miss Dup already left. Does anyone need a comfort break at all? Are you guys ready to just keep going through? I'm fine. I just didn't know if anyone We could keep going, I think. Okay, great. All right. Um, I mean, this is probably the longest I've ever been here, so thanks, guys. Um 5J case number 20240193
city of St. Pete Beach versus Brightwater Beach Condo Association. Mr. Cruz. Thank you madam magistrate. Lewis Cruz represent the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is code enforcement case number 20240193. Respond is Brightwater Beach Condo
Association. Violation address is 55th Avenue. Parcel number 06 32 16 11 40 45 0000 00001 violation description. The property is
in violation of section 6.12 commercial accessory and temporary struct excuse me temporary equipment, structures, portable buildings and trailers, dumpsters and commercial tents D3 and 98-123.1
permits required of the land development code and the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial inspection was 41 2025. There was a mis up there. Amended notice of violation dated 424 2025.
Notice of violation compliance date 58 2025. Notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 519 2025. These are true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at
1755th Avenue, which is their regular address, but 55th Avenue, parcel number 063216 1144500 01 on May 19th, 2025.
This was the first unpermitted fence and dumpster enclosure that was being erected on the property in April. It was 2024. Excuse me. It was April in 2024. They fully finished the dumpster enclosure. That is the dumpster
enclosure there. Just different shots of it. Stop recorder that was posted on the dumpster enclosure. That's the unpermitted fence. This is April 22nd.
This is the previous dumpster enclosure, which was 2022. Just another shot. This is the same dumpster enclosure that they had for quite some time. This is back from 2017. And so you could see the fence in the background there. It is a new fence as
well. Corrective action. Property must obtain proper permit for the newly erected dumpster enclosure and fence. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine $250 per day starting 59 2025 until compliant
plus $329 for administrative cost and any lean recording fees that may be associated with the with this case. And I just want to state um throughout there there was a one dumpster enclosure. That's why it's from 2024. They were working on getting a permit. They applied for one. It was no
movement. It got voided and then the hurricanes hit, took out the one they erected and then they built another one without a permit. And that's kind of what we're dealing with here. So, it's kind of two unpermitted things that were done. Okay. So, is the violation are you requesting the violation be cured by
securing two after the fact permits or just one after the fact permit for the erection of the fence? Yes, ma'am. Just one for the fence and the dumpster enclosure. Yes, please. And that concludes my presentation. You answered the question I was going to ask without me having to ask it. Try to make it a little bit clear. All right. Anyone here on behalf of
Brightwater Beach Condo Association? You can all come up. Please state your names for the record and your association with the association. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Scott. I'm the property manager for the community. Scott, what's your last name?
It's VI Ner Y. Vignet. Venetti. Venetti. I tried. Okay. And then I have a board member here. This is uh Brandon K. I'm a owner of 203. Okay.
My name is Matthew Ryan. I was hired to be get it permitted after the fact. Okay. Perfect. All right. Who wants to talk? Go tell me what's going on. And I just gave an update to Mr. Cruz. We are just waiting on an amended site survey.
Okay. That's in the works. So that's basically what we're just waiting on right now. Okay. So, you've already applied for the after the fact permit for both the dumpster enclosure and the fence. Okay. And just waiting on the site survey in order to submit with that package to get the peritting
was only a few minutes ago. We're just waiting on the on the site survey. Okay. Do you have any idea how long that will take for They are very slow. Three to four weeks is just a preliminary. I be nice if we get 60 days minimum to Okay. get our permit active.
Okay. Right. Anything else you guys? That's it. All right, sounds good. Anything else, Mr. Cruz? Oh, I'm sorry. No, you're fine. Anything else? No, fine. Yeah, I spoke with them out there. They said they're, you know, making rounds to get it done. Actively working.
Um, just don't don't do any more things without the permit. Stop doing unmitted work. Got it. Okay. Um All right. Well, I am going to find that the property is in violation of the cited code sections. I am going to allow for 60 days from the date of my order in order to secure a permit. So, not just application for but secure the after the
fact permits both for the dumpster enclosure and for the fence. Um, hopefully I don't see you, but if we need to, that will be an October hearing, so October 13th. And just make sure I have someone's contact information so I can send you the appropriate order detailing all that information. Okay. Thank you.
All right. Thank you, gentlemen. Have a great day. All right. Moving on to 5K. Case number 20240699, City of St. Pete Beach versus Jennifer Franco. Lewis Cruz, representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is
code enforcement case number 202040699. Respondent Jennifer C. Frank Franco. Violation address 490 82nd Avenue. Violation description, the property is in violation of section 98-123.1.
Permits required of the code of ordinances of the city of St. P Beach case summary. The initial inspection was 121720 2024. Amended notice of violation dated 42 2025.
Notice of violation compliance date 416 2025. Notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 519 2025. These are true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 490
82nd Avenue on May 19th, 2025. Here is part of the garage and as you can see there, there is a difference of the drywall there and that is where they did an unpermitted drywall reinstallation after the hurricanes. They installed a new exterior door which
does need a permit as well as unpermitted drywall to the left side there. Just a better shot of what was done. They redid the drywall. I guess there was vents there or whatever they were doing there.
Different shots of the new drywall that was put in. This was them doing different drywall stuff as well as electrical stuff and moving the fridge. That was the stop recorder that was placed on the property while they were
redoing the floors. Corrective action. Property must obtain proper permit for all work done from the posttorm renovation. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 per day starting 417 2025 until compliant
plus $329 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Is Miss Franco here or anyone here on behalf of Miss Jennifer Franco?
Jennifer Franco or anyone here on behalf of Jennifer Franco? Mr. Cruz, have you had any opportunity to speak to the respondent at all? Yes, Miss Franco is from Nevada. Um, she came out here one time, never got a chance to meet with her. She said she was working on trying to get permits and
try to get a contractor. um given, as you can see, I gave her ample time. Obviously, through all this stuff that's going on, we're trying to give a little bit of reprieve so people can find contractors and um get the work done properly. So, I reached out to her um and let her know, you know, hey, we got
to kind of ramp up something here. Um and she hasn't reached back out. She hasn't applied for a permit or anything of that nature. Um she still has permits that need to be finished out from a couple of the other things that she actually did get permitted that she fixed from um the hurricane damage. So, um, but I have not talked to her
recently. No. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. I am going to give the respondent 30 days from the date of my order to apply for a permit for the after the fact permit for
the So, here's my Oh, so the stop work order is still on the property. I don't know if they removed it. I think the last time I drove by there, it was still up. Okay. But no further work has been done. So it's just sitting. They actually have renters in there right now. Yes.
So they completed all your pictures were half finishedish work. They completed all that work in violation of the stop work order that was posted on the property. Yes, ma'am. There's no violation in front of me for violation of a stop work order. Right. Okay. All right. All right. So that changes my analysis a
little bit. Since their property has already been completed, I'm going to allow for 14 days from the date of my order in order to apply for a permit, an after the fact permit for the uh outstanding work that was done on the property. Um, and if we don't get that done, applied
for, then we will see her or you somebody in August. Thank you. Okay, moving on to 5 L case number 20250287, City of St. P Beach versus Shannon Hunter. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Lewis Cruz
representing the city of St. Pete Beach. Code enforcement. This is code enforcement case number 2025287. Respondent is Shannon Hunter. Violation address is 65059th Avenue. Violation description. The
property is in violation of sections 46-33 enumeration to 98-66 residential and commercial property maintenance. A B 22A C 2 and 3 and 98-66
or excuse me 98-65 unsightly conditions 4 of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial inspection was 552024. Notice of violation dated 514 2025.
Notice of violation compliance date 525205. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 64 2025. These are true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting on at
65064th Avenue, June 4th, 2025. This is a pile of trash and debris left on the property at 65064th. There's trash and debris left on the
property as well as a dead tree there to the left of the screen just a tad starting to overgrow a little bit but mostly just palm frrons branches stuff like that left on the property. There's a pile of debris that later
showed up on the property in the rightway and on the property near the driveway on the right side. and some palm frrons and different type of stuff that was on the property. Corrective action. Property must clean and remove all trash and debris from the
property and have the dead tree cut down and removed. The property is now compliant. I would like to show the compliant pictures. If you could do the overhead for me, please. Thank you. And all the debris and all the palm
frrons, trash, stuff like that. and the dead tree has been rem removed. So, the city will not be asking for any fines, but will be asking for the $329 for the administrative costs. Okay. Anyone here on behalf of Shannon Hunter
or is Shannon Hunter here? I talked with her, said she wasn't going to be able to be here, but she did reach out to me um a little bit ago. I think it was last week, and I went and reinspected this morning to make sure we could close it out. Perfect. All right. All right. Well, I am going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code sections. I'm going to find that the
property is in compliance as of 7:14 2025. I'm not going to be assessing any fines as with the property, but I will assess the $329 in administrative costs. Okay. Thank you. 5M
case number 202470, City of St. P Beach versus 33 33 Capital LLC. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Lewis Cruz representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is code enforcement case number
20240470. Respondent 333 Capital LLC. Violation address 54071st Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violation of sections 46-33 enumeration
2 and 4. B 98-65 unsightly conditions for 98-66 residential and commercial property maintenance A B 2 A and B 71
C 2 and 3 and E of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary initial inspection 731 2024 amended notice of violation dated 513 2025 notice of violation compliance date
527 2025 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 64 2025. These are true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 54071st Avenue on June 4th.
This is what the property looked like before the storm. This is trash and debris and outside storage of equipment and material under the carport there and things that started to get outside of the property. Just a different look. has
a fridge and all different types of equipment and material being stored in public view. This is what it looked like after the storm. The property lost their carport, started to remove a lot of the stuff or it was damaged,
but still has some outside storage there. They also have a fascia board in disrepair, deteriorated paint on exterior wall and roof shingles in disrepair there on the corner. Corrective action. Property must clean
and remove all trash and debris from the property. Have all outside storage of equipment or materials removed or screened so that it is not visible from public view. Deter the deteriorated paint on the exterior wall must be cleaned and painted and the roof in
disrepair or the shingles I should say in disrepair along with the broken fascia boards must be repaired. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 per day starting 528 2025 until compliant plus $329 for administrative
costs and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Anyone here on behalf of 333 Capital LLC? Yes. If you could please come state your name and affiliation with the corporation. And also thank you for your patience. No
problem. My name is Paul Bis. I live there. Okay. And what is your affiliation with the property owner of the LLC? I live there. You're just Are you the tenant there or? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Um do you have uh authorization to
speak on the property owner's behalf? Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. And uh could you just explain to me what your response is to the allegations from the city? Uh we have uh some of the uh the construction work done and painted
up on the inside. Now the the people that has got to put the the carport back on and the facial board was the ones that was that repaired the like where the board went across the
side of the house where it ripped off to. They repaired it. I painted it, but the guy had a heart attack like three weeks ago. So, I don't know when he's going to be able to come back and
do that facial board and uh the carport. Now, as far as everything else, the the chairs and stuff, we have them. Uh yeah, you can have the chairs in regular, you know, outside city. It's Yeah, we're just waiting on now. We
we had the big mangrove tree and we had it cut down in the back. That was so we're we're just now and we had a a Wallywatt building. Mhm. That got smashed up and we got all the
we got it done. We're just waiting on the contractor to come back and do the carport. Now, the paint I'm I just I sent a picture to like Miss Jenny. Jennifer. Yeah. Okay.
Uh the we just got the paint this past week. Okay. So, right now you're just waiting on the contractor to finish out the carport and fix the facial board. Yes. Okay. And I know this he just had a heart attack, but do you have an estimate on how long it might take for
him to come back? I haven't talked to him. My wife's a nurse. She happened to seem when they brought him in. It's the only reason we knew about it. Oh gosh. So, okay. Um, that does complicate things a
little because obviously you want it to be done and I need to be able to give the city a time frame to have it completed. Also, you need to have a time frame to have it completed. Um, anything further from the city? I I just want to add just so that we have it on record. If he's going to have the car port back
in, just make sure you get the proper permit. So, you don't want to Yeah. violation, right? Yeah, that's the owner doing that. Yeah. All right. So, the owner and I assumed when you had a GC that the the owner was contracting to pulling the facial board with all the permits for that. So, that's a good point. Thank you, Mr.
Cruz. Um Okay. Um let's do it this way. I will um I'm going to find the property in violation of the state of code sections. I'm going to allow for 30 days from the date of my order um to
come into compliance and we will come back here in September um just to determine whether or not it happened or if there's been a good faith effort or if you needed to secure a new contractor. Hopefully he's better and he can get back to work. But I hope he's get better too.
Yeah, thank you very much. Um so I will allow 30 days from the date of my order. just make sure I have your contact information or whoever's contact information I need to send the order to. Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you so much and thank you for again for your patience.
All right. We are getting towards the end, guys. I see a light at the end of the tunnel. Okay, moving on. 5N. Case number 20250339, city of St. Pete Beach versus Ronda Schroeder.
Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Lewis Cruz, representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is code enforcement case number 2025 0339. Respondent Rhonda H. Schroeder. Violation address 64059th Avenue. Violation description. The property is
in violation of sections 46-33 enumeration 1A and 2. 98-65 unsightly conditions 4 98-66 residential and commercial property maintenance A B 20 and 22A of the code
of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection 62 2025. Notice of violation dated 63 2025. Notice of violation compliance date 617
2025. Notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 620, 2025. These are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 64059th Avenue on June 20th, 2025.
Here is the overgrown grass and weeds. And there's also a dead tree there in the background right in front of the fence. Just different shot of the property. Overgrown grass and weeds, dead palm frrons, branches, stuff like that on the
driveway as well as a in the corners here on the left and the dead tree. And this is on the right side of the property. Corrective action. Property must clean and remove debris from the property, cut and maintain the grass and weeds on the
property, and have the dead tree cut down and removed. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 per day starting 618 2025 until compliant plus $329 for administrative costs and any lean recording fees that may be
associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Is anyone here on behalf of Rhonda Schroeder or Miss Schroeder here? Anyone here on behalf of Rhonda Schroeder?
Property address 64059th Avenue, St. Pete Beach. Have you had any contact with Miss Schroeder? No, I have not. We sent out obviously um certified mail um and try to use sometimes we have phone numbers, emails. I don't think we had too much information on her. I can't remember. Do you know if the property is being occu
if it's occupied? To my knowledge, no. And I actually drove by today when I was doing some of my reinspections that I talked about from the continued cases. Um I did see a huge trailer and some type of machine, so it might be getting demolished. Okay. So I obviously I'll keep tabs on that,
but um I didn't get a chance to check to see if they had a permit by the time I got back this morning. Um but to my knowledge, no one's living there at this point. Okay. All right. Um, I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. I'm going to allow
for um 14 days from the date of my order in order to bring the property into compliance. Um, if it's not, then we will meet at the August hearing and talk about assessing fines and fees. Thank you.
Okay, moving on. 50. Case number 20240584 is going to be continued until the August 11th code enforcement hearing and I will give an order to that effect. Thank you. Moving on to 5P. Case number 20240707,
City of St. P versus Chris Spencer. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Lewis Cruz representing the city of St. P Beach code enforcement. This is code enforcement case number 20240584. Respondent. Oh, excuse me. Got this one continued. This is code enforcement case
number 20240707. Respondent Chris Spencer. Violation address 140 Corey Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 98-123.1. Permits required of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete
Beach. Case summary. The initial inspection was 1228 2024. Amended notice of violation dated 42 2025. Notice of violation compliance date 416 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted on
the property 624, 2025. These are true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 140 Corey Avenue on June 24th, 2025. This is uh looks to be like some type of business across the street here. This is
the unpermitted posttorm drywall reinstallation as well as electrical work that was done because the outlets are pretty low as you can see there on the left side of the drywall there. Mostly they just redid the drywall in different section of this property. Corrective action. Property must obtain
the proper permits for the work done without a permit being the drywall and the electrical. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 per day starting $417 2025 until compliant plus $329 for administrative costs and
any lean recording fees that may be assoc excuse me associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Okay. Is Chris Spencer here or anyone here on behalf of Chris Spencer? Anyone here on behalf of 140 Corey
Avenue uh street uh St. beach. Nobody. Mr. Cruz, any contact with the property owner? I did talk with the property owner a little bit after. Um, I seen the unpermitted work getting done. Um, they were already finished. Um, I got to talk
to somebody that was there that said he was a friend. Um, but then the property owner came in to get the information that was needed to pull the permit. So, he actually came in and talked to a permit technician. Um, but he never fulfilled the permit nor applied for it either. So, um, I haven't heard from him. I'm not sure why
he's not here today. Um, but there has been no permit applied for at this time. Okay. All right. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the state of code sections. I am going to allow for 14 days from the date of my order and to in order to apply for the after the fact
permits. Um, and if they do so, then great. We won't see them in August. If they don't, then we will see them in August. Thank you, madam magistrate. And we've already taken care of Q. Yes.
So we have a lean reduction. I think there was one more case that we wanted to add. Is that correct? Yes, it is. Okay. Is it something other than a lean reduction? It is something other than a lean reduction. Just the final order. This property um was sold after the hearing.
So we would like an order basically outlining the administrative cost. Okay. Let's go ahead and do the lean reduction. and then I'll get all the case information on that one and get you guys the order administratively. Um, so lean reduction is 8A case number 20240081,
City of St. Pete Beach versus 4401 Gulf Boulevard LLC. Madame Special Man Trait Pete Der, code enforcement manager for the city of St. Pete Beach. Uh, case number 20240081441 Gulf Boulevard. Um, if you recall, this
case came to you um with a challenge to the fine amount. I just want to bring that to your attention. as you consider the request for the fines to be reduced to 5,000.
Um, so that and for the record so that you know and for the record the fines total $8,98.50 which includes administrative costs and filing fees. So, the total lean is $79,750 and the city will request that full
amount. Okay. Can you put my order back up there, please? So, I can refresh my recollection a bit. Okay. And this is the order um imposing those fines. Okay, I recall that. Okay.
All right. Is the respondent or anyone on behalf of the respondent here? 4401 G Boulevard LLC. You could please state your name and affiliation with the property owner for the record. Hello. Uh Wesley Shaw, district manager
for Walgreens St. Pete. And I'm assuming since you are the district manager, you are responsible for the tenant in this location. That's correct. Okay. The store, not the landlord. Okay. Understood. All right. Um and um since you are the applicant, can you
please go ahead and just tell me what is uh your reasonings for the the request for the lean reduction? Sure. Um, basically at Walgreens, we've uh got two processes for uh damage and and maintenance repair. One is regular,
you know, just everyday stuff, and then there's an an escalated process for urgent or legal citation um things such such as this. So, initially when this happened, we were unaware that the city even knew about it. we had our in the
regular process um and we were until the the notice was posted on the door of the store um that that fines were beginning. We were unaware that this was even something that was being looked at, right? Um so I I I escalated that immediately. Um so initially it wasn't
fored through the company's appropriate parties for handling that in a timely manner. Uh permits took an unusually uh long time uh to receive because of the hurricanes uh inspection delays and permit closeout timing. Um we had to endure two hurricanes over this last
year which caused a tremendous amount of construction related delays from drawings needed contractor scheduling. I can't tell you how many times these these the contractor changed the date that they're going to do the work. Um and then the permits as well. Um the
entire cost of the fix was less than $5,000. The fines currently 18 times that and the store this damage was initially caused by a customer's car um and not noticed right away. So it was not a something that's
you can see from the parking lot. You have to go to to the other side and inspect it from the other side. So it wasn't like it was a negligent thing. It was more of a um you know we were the victim of of this happening and we were
in the process of fixing it but it did take a long time. We've never been in violation like this before in St. Pete in my tenure 23 years St. Pete Beach. Um so first offense a request for leniency there. So, I do have a question because
you all are the tenant at that property and understanding you didn't get notification because the property owner was the one who was cited for the violation. Um, is there a term within your lease with them that you would be responsible for all code in vi code violation fines?
I'm unaware if you if you can disclose it or even if you know I don't know. Okay. The only reason I ask is because if I say that there's no fine reduction amount, this is going to go as a lean on the property against the property owners. And understanding that you are telling me now that you guys as the
tenant didn't even know, but you're responsible for fixing it, that does kind of change my analysis a little bit. Um because if there's a trigger in your lease or something that says, "Great, you're now responsible for any fines on the property." I want to make sure that
you're not getting hit with something that wouldn't have ordinarily been your responsibility. Yeah. Especially when you were given, according to your testimony, you were given notification. So later. So when the when something happens at a store that's whether it's landlord, when
it's a landlordowned operation, right? From my level down, the responsibility is noticing it, opening a ticket to have it fixed. Okay. And then beyond that, they make the the decision whether or not it's something that's above your pay grade, I guess. So, yeah.
Yeah. You know, and we did that. Um, but I I don't know if the landlord was getting notifications from the city and so the landlord was here when we had the first hearing. They appeared and they were the ones who said that they were
they were responsible for getting it fixed within the time frame before the fines started to run. So that's why I'm having you know the question is this is coming from the property owner but you're here as a representative of the tenant asking for the lean reduction. So that's it. I mean if you don't know you
don't know but I'm just trying to figure out who's who's actually being assessed and going to be responsible legally for whatever the lean amount is because that does make a a difference in my determination. Um it would be helpful to know that information. Okay.
Right. Anything else Mr. Shaw that you'd like to you'd like for me to know? No, just that you know anything that has ever come up from the city, you know, we've fixed in a timely manner. This is
one aspect that took a long time for some extenduating circumstances. I can understand that. All right. Thank you very much. Anything further from the city, Mr. Der? No madam special master other than the fact as you mentioned um property owners were here at the last hearing. Thank
you. Sorry, I'm looking at the city's code. I haven't just shut down altogether. Thought you were ordering lunch. Yeah. So criteria for reduction. All right. So
I am going to kind of use and I think I've done this in the past. The same criteria as the fine and position is the same kind of criteria I'm going to use for the reduction of the lean. This one's a little bit different because the violator in this case who is the one who is I guess the
violator quote unquote is the one who is requesting the lean reduction is not the property owner and the property owner was the one who asserted that it would be completed within a specific period of time. I do not know what the lease looks like. that would be helpful for me from an equitable standpoint in determining
whether or not a lean reduction was to take place because it sounds like to me the credible testimony I heard today is that this would have been taken care of sooner if there had been notification made to the tenant to escalate this as a legal matter through their their
processes and it could have potentially been avoided altogether. So, um I am going to uh grant a lean reduction reduction request, but not to the $5,000 as requested. I am going to
um well, let's see. The original lean imposition was8750. So, I'll reduce that to $8,750 for the lean and keeping the $368 in
administrative costs. Um, and then that needs to be paid within 30 days. If it's not paid within 30 days of the date of my order, then it will go back up to the full $88,750. Um
I wish I had more information with regarding who would be responsible for this but that's reduction to 10% of correction madam special master rate. Um I know you just mentioned 89,000 is that correct or $88,000 $8,750.
It totaled $79,750 plus the admin and filing fees. Interestingly enough, that's not what the paperwork that my pack says. You are. Okay. So, what is the total? The lean
amount was 79 750. 79750. But you can still keep it at at your No, that changes my Thank you for bringing that to my attention. That changes my math. So then I am going to reduce that then to $7,975 and then with the 36850
for the cost because I do not reduce the cost and I will get the appropriate order to the appropriate parties. Mr. Shaw, I need to please make sure I have your contact information. Um and uh Madam Magistrate, that was to be paid within
within 30 days of the date of my order. 30 days. Thank you. And I that will be included in that order. Um and I am going to send a copy of that order to the bases as well since they are the property owners. I think they need to be made aware of that. Do you just need name and uh
if you have an email address or something that would be Yeah. Do you want me to put Yeah, if you could put that on there. That way I can go ahead and send it directly to you and it doesn't get lost in the mail or whatever else happens nowadays. Uh we have no cases complied, no old cases. We've done their lean
reduction. Okay. So the additional case is we need an order. Please give me the case number. Mr. Der. 2020. Case number 20250035 3111 South the Basin Avenue.
Case number 20250035 3111 South De Basin Avenue. Okay. And we need an order for the admin costs. Just for admin costs. The property is in compliance. Property is now compliant. Yes. And what date do you know the property came into compliance?
It was in compliance before the date of your order. Before the day order. Okay. Uh and then it sold literally the day after uh it came to magistrate and sold the next day. Okay. All right. And then in addition to the city, is there a new property owner that
I need to send this to? Uh I'm in contact with the real estate agent. So if you send it to me, I can Okay. I'm also going to send it to the property address that way for whatever's on on the property appraisers website. Okay.
June 9th, June 10th. the dates in came in compliance before that date. I can put that it just came in compliance before the date of the hearing. If you go to the overhead, you will see your order. Yeah. But yeah, perfect. All right. I can do that. All
right. I will get that uh order out. I will send it to the property address as well as to the city. Um, one thing I did want to bring up because I did mention the October hearing. I may very well looking like I will not be
available for that October hearing. So I don't know if you guys want to look at changing the date to a different Tuesday or if you want to see if Mr. Thanis is available in order to Mr. is available to handle that hearing. Yes ma'am. We will consider it and uh
keep in touch with you. Okay. I did have one order that I s I put the October date. I'm going to make a caveat on that order to say October 14th and um or unless it's amended or something to that effect. That way it's already included in the order and you guys don't have to worry about advertising on that case.
Very good. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Anything else that we need to discuss while I am here and while it's not raining? Well, oh, good. Oh, we need to make a break. Um, your case was heard as I mentioned to you. It's too bad. I was never notified of it.
I've already made my ruling on that case. Um, give me a second. What case was it? How come you were not notified? Um, was a nor a notice not sent in? I mean, I sent it and it wasn't returned to me. Yep. And you were at the last hearing, so you
would have known that it was a hearing for today, right, Mr. Donovan? Correct. It's in the beginning. Oh, yeah. I was under the Yeah, Mr. Donovan, I I heard that case at the almost at the beginning of the hearing. I The fact that you weren't
notified is uh disingenuous to me considering you were at the last hearing when I told you it would be heard today. So, you knew the date that this was going to be heard. I had no idea when it was supposed to be as it was. I asked for the the the thing
was so confusing. These two people were going back and forth as to how many ordinances I was breaking. And then uh they were also supposed to look for a building permit for my pad for my motor home. No, because that wasn't included in my
order. And I I mailed my office mailed you the order that had all the details in it. That wasn't even included. All it was was the outdoor storage was the only thing that was left besides I think some of the other stuff. Regardless, correct? And that was taken care of.
And they've all been gone and and has been repaired. Then the outdoor storage of all of the things that were sitting in front of your home. That's a that's a motorcycle. That is not registration because I had it had nothing to do with the motorcycle, the RV. It had to do with
the other automotive equipment that was sitting out front. That's behind the motorcycle is that the table that I use to work on and right now the only thing that's on it is a uh weird because I got to cut the weeds. I can just cut the grass but I can't do the weeds.
So I got that fixed. All right. Um I have already heard this Miss Supker. You are the city attorney. So I am going to defer to you whether or not you are object objecting to opening up the hearing again and hearing additional testimony. I would prefer I I hate to do it. But I
know it's late in the day, but I would prefer to go ahead and give him the opportunity then. Okay, Mr. Donovan, we'll go ahead and um I did already rule on that. Well, we are going to open up the hearing again to make sure that you have an opportunity to speak in your defense. Um the city presented evidence uh
demonstrating well testimony demonstrating that the property was in compliance with the fence. We didn't have an issue last time with the concrete pad or the RV or the motorcycle because you brought the registrations. So, the only issue was the outdoor storage of the table and I think some
the lawn mower equipment, some of the other stuff that was there. So, before you have an opportunity to speak, can I get you to raise your right hand so I can swear you in? Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you, Mr. Von. You can come up here and you can um please on on the record
tell me um that the your point on if the property is in compliance or not. The tractor has been repaired. The trailer there was a that was originally there was a tractor there because I was doing the tires on it and and the deck
and then I they didn't like the tractor the trailer that goes on a tractor. So, they're both in the back. Okay. And the other thing was uh the fence. And I know you were talk you were telling these fellas here to look up the
building permit for for the pad and and I think I never rule. I said, you know what? Okay. I have credible testimony. They said they couldn't find a permit. I believe that you had it. So that I didn't even find you in violation of that one. But as far as I know, that's all I had to do. And and it there's a uh there's a
table that goes up and down. Mhm. So that I can work on things. And right now I just put it uh my weed ear there because I got to take that apart because that's seized up. That was that was just put there yesterday. But before that that's the table is
behind the motorcycle and the motorcycle is underneath the tarp. Okay. So what you're saying is you can't see the table from from the street. on the street. Okay. And I have the motorcycle raised up for
two reasons. One, another flood, which I might not have a rear. The other is it makes it more difficult for somebody to decide to take. And then you also said that table is incredibly heavy. So you don't move that inside and out. But now you've moved it. So it's behind something. Well, it's it was behind before. before it was just
what it is is it's heavy, but it also has the ability to lift things up so that I can work on it and lower them back down to the ground. If it's lower, you can't see it. If it's lifted up and has stuff on it, you could see it. You still can't see it. Unless I put something really tall on and there's nothing on it except the
weed eater. Okay. And all that other stuff, all the other automotive stuff has been cleared from your front area. The only automotive stuff that I know of was the tractor and the trailer with the Okay. Okay. All right. Um, Mr. Mr. Cruz, this was your case. Yes.
Okay. Do you have any photographs or Okay. Just wasn't able to print them out earlier. Our printing was active because it's still warm. Okay. So, I do have one here. Excuse me. Okay. And when did you do your last inspection? Just this morning. This morning. That's okay. I got 65059 screwed up with
the one over there on 64th, too, but on on the pictures up there, which they're not mine. I just noticed them while I was going through the Can you put on the screen please? Thank you.
And it's my lawn mower. So that was this morning. I can turn my head. It's okay. Yeah, sorry. Sorry about that. Guess that's okay. You got a 1920 Dodge coming at you there. Okay. So, it's the
You're talking about the lawn mower, the tires there. Okay. The fence is good. We said, right? Yes. And then the other picture is That's my garage. Yeah. So, is this this? Oh, that that little thing there that's
on the right of the red thing that that's my garbage can for local. I just rolled that out of the garage so that I get out this morning. And the table I can't go upside down, so you can't be doing that. Um, and the table that you're talking about is over here behind your truck behind the motorcycles to the left,
right? Yeah. Okay. I don't really The thing with the two orange things on it, I had to pull out a post and to get the for the fence in the back. Okay. and uh the storm deteriorated those. But it's on a little cart that I rolled out. I had had it
inside the garage door. Okay. I took it out this morning. So, and I left the house about 8:30. Okay. So, the the two dollies, the little trash receptacle, and then the other little t table on wheels, those are not typically there. Those you wheel
in and wheel out. Correct. Mostly. Yeah. But the the red one on the right is for move moving the chlorine jugs around the backyard. And the one on the left is when I go to the grocery store, I put groceries on that because it's a flat one. Okay. And then over to the right, that
cylindrical, that's my filter for the pool. For the pool. And you were working on that. So that's not typically there. No. Well, I alternate them every couple of days because the pool is such a mess. I can't can't keep up with it. I change the filter about every two, three days and bring it out in front and rinse it off.
Rinse it off. And then you leave it there to dry and then you put it I leave this I hope the sun does does a good job of killing the algae, too. Yeah. Okay. So, the red the orange the red thing like a waste basket. Yep. It was It was a vacuum cleaner.
Oh. Oh, yeah. Like a wet dry vac. I see what you're saying. That's it. And then you just took the top off. Yeah, the top is gone. Garbage man took that. Hope the garbage man took that one tire that I forgot to roll out there, but there were two more out there for him to get. Okay. So, the things that your testimony here today is the things that are
presently sitting out here in this picture that are from this morning are not things that are typically there. Those are transient things. Yes. And so, they're not outdoor storage. It was just an unfortunate happen stance that the picture got taken when it did. Okay. All right. Anything else, Mr. Cruz or Mr. Der? Yes,
Madam Special Master, we've had a history on this property and because of that history, um, listen, I know Mr. Donovan likes to tinker and he's well within his rights to do that, but this is a continuation, almost a recurrence.
Um, and is why we brought this case. So, the neighbors find this an isore. Um, as much as he can put it in and out of the garage, the issue is it continues to remain on the driveway. and I can appreciate that. But keep in mind under chapter 162, if you catch him with a
violation, he wheels it in the next day, violation is cured if he keeps it in there until the hearing. Right. So, while I can understand that there might be other legal mechanisms that the city can look to to try and enforce its code as it has in other properties, but um I find Mr. Donovan's testimony to be
credible. Um I don't have any reason not to believe him. uh the things that were demonstrated in the first round of pictures from when we had the hearing where I found the violation are no longer there. Um and so I'm going to find that the property it did come into compliance. I am not going to issue the
administ or I'm not going to issue the fines but I will assess the $329 in administrative costs. So um thank you Mr. Donovan for coming here today. I will get you an order to that effect. So, um, you're very lucky this went very long and you caught me and that the city
allowed us to reopen the the hearing for the heck of it. How did you mail it to me if I haven't got it in the mailbox? I I don't know how I never got anything returned to my office. I sent it to the the address that's in here. What is the address that you have right there if you don't mind? Your property address 82059th Avenue,
St. Pete Beach, Florida 3376. The mailman comes by there every day almost 4:00. So, the city mailed certain notices. I mailed my order. If there's a better way to get it to you, a better address, please let me know. If not, I we've not had problems with the mail carrier. Two letters that are gone.
Yeah, I I sent the order came from Yeah, one came from my office. Yeah, I've never ever gotten anything. Those are two letters and most of the stuff is thrown right in the garbage can as I go by. Well, you might have thrown my letter away then. No, I usually usually if it's got something that said pre
No, mine will say my law firm. It will have my law firm's um logo on it will say trust do. So, it might have been something that you threw away because I don't like getting stuff from us either. So, I didn't see anything law firm and I didn't see anything from St. Pete Beach because they got that colored thing, right? Well, just understand I am going
to send another order. It will have that. All it's going to say is you came into compliance, but we are assessing the $329 in costs for the administrative cost of the city and that's it. But I also noticed that somebody a lot of people are changing my address to St. Petersburg. I did not. That was St. Pete Beach. I
made sure I got it. So, because I checked the property appraisers website before I mail anything out. It does duplicate to St. Pete. Oh, that's funny. I had a brother-in-law that worked in that post office up there and he used to send us little notes as it would go up there. Yeah. The little stamp there. Got to love the
postal service. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Donovan. I appreciate your time today. And if there's nothing else from the city, basically just, you know, when we get complaints, it's just be mindful. That's all. Just, you know, wheel your stuff in and out and we won't be anywhere near you, you know. Well, once I roll that in, then I then I
can't go all the way through. It's a lot of equipment. All right, guys. It's been real. It's been fun. It's been real fun. And it's not raining. Make make your escape again.
And we are adjourned at 2:47.