Order the special magistrate code enforcement hearing for the city of St. Pete Beach for Monday, February 9th, 2026. Um, hello, my name is Erikica Oello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases. I am a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida Bar and
board certified in city, county, and local government law. I have been appointed to this position in accordance with the authority set forth in chapter 162 Florida statutes and the city of St. Pete Beach code of ordinances. I am not an employee of the city of St. Pete Beach and do not represent the city here
today and I do not confer with the city's code enforcement officers outside of the hearing process about your cases. It is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters presented. As such, I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings. Today's matters will be heard in the
order on which they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed. Every effort will be made to hear all persons having relevant evidence, arguments, or comments related to the specific case that is being heard. If you wish to speak today, it is necessary that you be be sworn in, which I will do momentarily. All testimony given will be
done so under oath. In all cases, since the city has the burden of proof, the city will present its case first, and then the respondent will get 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 other
special exception of any kind. My role is solely to determine whether a city code has been violated and under some circumstances to provide a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever means are available to you. Please be advised that you may be subject to fine and a lean may may be recorded on your property if the
violation is not corrected by the compliance deadline if one is provided. If you wish to present any evidence today, please sign in at the podium before you speak and it will be necessary that you swear or affirm to tell the truth. Therefore, at this time, I will swear in any witnesses. So, anyone wishing to speak today, if you
could please stand up and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> So, sworn. Great. Are there any changes to the agenda today? >> Good morning, Madam Special Ministry.
Yes, there is a change. Pete Der on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. Uh, case number 2025 01 0, which is case 5A. We'd like a an order to continue the
case to March 9th. >> Okay. And is there any objection from the property owner on this one? >> Do you know Mr. Der? >> Stephen, >> I I spoke to the property owner. I did inform him on Thursday that we were continuing to March 9th. >> Okay. All right. Perfect. Um just in
case anyone here on behalf of Miss uh Mr. Quantero. Okay. All right. That will be continued to March 9th at 10 a.m. and I will get an order out to that effect. Any other changes to the agenda today? >> No, ma'am. Thank you. >> Okay. Then moving on to agenda item 3A,
case number 202507, City of St. Pete Beach versus Kouche Beckettinarian. >> Good morning, Mad Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status hearing for uh the short-term rental. We were able to get his paperwork processed,
reviewed. He was eligible for grandfathering. So, the city's requesting that we just get an order of dismissal. >> Okay. I will go ahead and get the order of dismissal to you. Uh, and then moving on to item 3B, case
number 20250220, City of St. Pete Beach versus Mr. Starkis. >> Good morning again. Stea, city of St. P Beach code enforcement. Uh this was a status hearing for the compliance for repairs of the property. Uh Mr. Sarcus stated that he was splitting the lots
and was going to demo. Um the demo permit still on hold. It looks like the other lot was sold. Uh there's no changes with the property. Uh at this point, the city's requesting that as of today, we start the 250 a day fines until compliant. >> Okay. Has the demo permit been applied
for? It was applied for and then it was requested to be put on hold based on the sale of splitting of the property sale. The rear lot uh and property appraiser is showing that the property has sold. The front lot he still owns. Um and there's been no no changes since then.
>> Okay. All right. Mr. Sarcis, >> why don't you come up and tell me what's what's going on with the property. So situation is that uh I own two two properties over there and uh uh
because this one I I got I got you know a lot of damages and uh I applied for permit but uh uh situation is that few weeks ago another property people uh they bought already and we signed contract on this one too because
we want to split those and they've been here like few times. already uh and zoning probably department they approved already that they can split the way those lots and uh and they have uh signed uh uh contract
already only closing is going to be we I'm expecting in the merch last time I talked with them and they already did a lot uh a lot uh like uh they did so test uh pay deposit uh they did survey
And I I've been here I came explain that I have that situation. Maybe we can put on the hold that permit and uh uh uh when we will have closing maybe we can transfer or they going to take uh their own permit and uh so okay the easiest
way to resolve that uh >> so at this point you are working towards there's a contract for sale you anticipate the closing on this property this lot will be sold in March. Do you have a >> I have contract that uh actually it is for uh uh longer time. >> Okay.
>> Because they collecting uh collecting finances to for the second uh property the second one >> of uh this issue. But uh uh when I talked last time with them they they they said probably they're going to be ready in the March. >> In March >> in March. Yes. So >> okay. So, you are working towards
selling this property. The demolition permits on hold because you're hoping that they will purchase it and then they will take over the demo permit from you. Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am. I
>> uh we just I haven't heard from him. Uh the last conversation I remember having was that he was splitting the lots. Um and at this point, I'm not sure which direction we're going with it. So, that's why we're putting in a request. >> Okay. Um said that he >> all right because Mr. Circus I mean
we've been going through this for a while. It was trying to be insurance and then whatnot he is making a good faith effort to get the property sold to have it demolished whatever the new owners are going to do with it. Um so since we have an um anticipated closing date in
March, I will sit this again for a status conference on April 13th. Um, obviously we can look then to see um if the property is going to be sold or if there's any delays in that. Um, I don't want to issue any orders putting daily
running fines on a property that might actually hold Mr. Starkus up from getting it sold and then the city being able to garner compliance because it will be >> demoed. So, can can we request that he send us a status email at least so that this way we can update our notes to know what's going on with the property? >> Yeah, I'll go ahead and include that in
my order. Are you okay with that, Mr. Sarcus? That as soon as you know, like every two weeks or so, you can send an email over to Mr. Rivera and just let him know what's going on. >> Ask March. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Madam Special Ministrate. Pete Der. >> Um, can we instead of April ask you to
do March since he would not if this >> Well, I believe the information was at the end of March they would be closing. Is that correct, Mr. Circus? Yes, that's what I uh heard from those buyers >> from the buyers >> planning for March to >> Right. So, I don't want to set it for
the beginning of March if closing is set for mid or the end of March. >> There's nothing to compel him to come back if it's sold. >> But that's correct. But also underneath chapter 162, if there's a transfer of ownership, then he notifies you anyways. And again, we are working towards
compliance. That's my goal here is to make sure it's fair and equitable. I think putting a daily running fine on this property when he is in an attempting and under contract to sell it actually puts him in a worse position and puts the city in a worse position for compliance because now you have an
obstacle that needs to be overcome. I mean, keep in mind these the what's going on in this property was subjected to the the 2024 hurricane. So, um you know, and so far Mr. Circus has done everything that's been asked of him and
he's been trying to go through. So, I I find the the testimony credible. Um, and I I'm going to set it for the April 13th because I I think if it's at the end of March, then we just come back here for no reason. >> Thank you. >> Um, and then again, in my order, Mr. Saras, it will say just to email Mr.
Rivera so that he can keep tabs on what's going on. >> Okay. And moving on to item 3 C, case number 20230606, City of St. Pete Beach versus Mark B. Brick and Lynn M. Broadick.
>> Uh, thank you, Madam Magistrate. Um, this was a status hearing. Uh, they were supposed to go to the board of adjustments. The attorney for the case had emailed us. Um, they were they're still submitting paperwork. I believe the hearing they're supposed to have their paperwork in by Friday. They're
requesting that this be continued till March. >> Okay. And does the city object to that? No, ma'am. >> No. Okay. Is there anyone here on behalf of Mr. or Mrs. Brick? >> Okay. I will go ahead and get an order out that this is continued until the
March 9th hearing at 10 a.m. All right. And moving on to item 3D, case number 20250061, City of St. Pete Beach versus Christopher Padet. >> Good morning, uh, Special Magistrate
Ayaka Ruckell, City of St. Peak Beach. This is a status hearing for uh the property at 54472nd. They had to obtain a fence permit um that was secured on January 16th. So, the property is now compliant.
>> Okay. And is the city just asking for administrative costs on this one? Okay. Mr. I don't see Mr. Padet here. Is Mr. Padet here? >> I don't think he was. >> Okay. Um All right. Then I will find that as of January 16th, 2026, the property came into compliance and I'm not going to issue any fines, but I will
assess the was it $330? >> Yes. >> $330 in the reasonable administrative costs of the city. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, moving on. There are no re repeat violations. So, agenda item 5B,
which is case number 2023 0682, City of St. Pete Beach versus Oh, >> thank you. Seaison Ventures LLC. >> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Sever again, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement.
Case number 2023 0682. Respondent is Saison Ventures LLC. Violation address is 4105 Golf Boulevard. Violation description, the property is in violation of section 123.1. Permits required 98-3
B. Mailboxes, address signs. 9864A, General Conditions. 98651B, 3 and 4, unsightly conditions. 9866 A B 2 A B and 7 residential and commercial
property maintenance. 4633 2 and 3 enumeration of the code of ordinance of the city of St. P. Case summary. Initial inspection was 126 2023. Amended notice of violation dated
and mailed certified was 122 2025. Amended notice of violation compliance date was 1229 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 1212026. Following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 4105 G
Boulevard. This is a picture of the property. Uh was a previous commercial structure. It's a picture of where the sewer line the cleanout is. That was installed without a permit. If you see here where the red arrows
are, you can see where it goes all the way out to looks like going toward the street is where the second cleanout is up by the street. The sink hole that's on the property, this is uh toward the rear of the
property near the seaw wall. This picture here shows it looks like it was filled in, but it's starting to sink again. So, it doesn't look like it was properly repaired. Another picture. You can see where the the dirt's discolored there. A picture of the uh the uh brush pile
that's in the rear parking lot of the business. You see here there's gutter and sophets that are damaged. More damaged sophets and trim gutter here from the buildings just laying on the ground there. You got the uh siding here that's
missing. Now, this is an email. I I was speaking with Mr. Seaison. There was communication. We did an inspection back in 23 and this is part of the reason why the case is as old as it is. Uh he was working toward compliance. We did have an open line of communication. Um if you
read in the email at one point, he did have a plumber that did try to come in to get a permit. It was during the height of our permitting issues. I won't say issues, I should say delays because of the storm. Um, I did express to him in the next slide, you'll see there was another email. I wish he'd have came and
spoken to me prior to that. He did tell me that he was looking to demo the building. If you see number four this is the building will be demolished before 1231 2024. Let me know. >> I was going to say, well, this is August 23rd, 2024. So, this was right before
the two storms hit back to back. >> Okay. >> And there's another email here, uh, him saying that the goal, uh, was to have it submitted by September. He's looking at demo companies and it was going to benefit him to demo the
property before the year was out. >> And my response was uh, down there at the bottom with the communication. You know, I just wish he was communicating this with me prior to getting to that point. Mhm. >> I did send another email here. If you look, it says January 7th asking for an
update, and I did not hear back from Mr. Seaison. >> Okay. >> Corrective action. Property must obtain an after the-act permit for the sewer line that was replaced. Uh, property must repair the sink hole, properly repair the sinkhole, fix the
damaged sophets, remove the brush pile in the rear parking lot, and repair the siding and flaking paint. Property is not compliant. The recommended fine is $250 a day from the date of your order, plus a $330 administrative cost and any recording fees that may be associated
with this case. And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. And that last email that you had to Mr. Saison in January of this year, that was or last year, that was the last communication you've had with him at all. >> Looking for an update. I was kind of hoping that maybe he'd reach out. Um, ended up sending having to send an
amended notice of violation. was hoping that at that point >> would get right and >> I haven't heard anything from him since our previous conversation when he spoke about demo in a building. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. River. >> Thank you. >> Is anyone here on behalf of Saison Ventures LLC? If you could please state
your name and affiliation for the record. >> Good morning, Madame Magistrate. Matthew Baylor on behalf of Saison Ventures. Uh with me is Robert Saison. Um >> are you council, Mr. Baylor? >> Yes. >> Okay. Go ahead. Uh I believe most of
these issues have been addressed and Mr. Saison will uh do a little presentation on that for absolutely with the exception of the sewer which I'll address. >> Okay. And Mr. Seaison, you've been sworn in. >> I have not. No idea. >> Okay. If you could raise your right hand briefly. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you very much. >> Fantastic. All right. So, the pictures that were showed up there are true and actual. Uh, as of two weeks ago or last week, uh, the property has been brought into compliance with everything. We work with the city all the time. Uh, Stephen is
right. We were going to demo the building and that was the plan. We bought the building 3 years ago and have done nothing with the building. So, we had some issues when I first bought the building. We complied with all those issues. As he mentioned, I have a copy of that same email he showed you. And we were going to demo the building actually
about 3 weeks ago. We just signed a lease for someone that wants to actually open the building. So, we are going to be fixing the building up to even a better compliance. But to show, we can bring it up on the screen here. We filled in the hole that was there for the uh sewer that I have no idea about.
My attorney will address the sewer issue, but that has been filled in. There's another picture of it. The front of the building is all cleaned up as well. There's no weeds or anything. The back of the building all cleaned up. Another image here. Another
image there. Trash. We removed the sides of the trash. What we had an issue three years ago is with bums living in there and people dumping their trash. The only way to confront that was to remove the sides uh so that nobody can put anything in there. Once we redo an establishment, we
will properly enence it and close it again. But this is the only way to keep people from dumping trash on a property that they shouldn't be dumping. So it's see-through. And since we've done that, we've had no issue with people leaving trash. And then that's the painted front uh ATM where the ATM used to be. So we I
just saw the sophet pictures. So we will be taking care of the sophet. That's no issue whatsoever. As I mentioned, now that we have a lease on the property, we will bringing it to a better standard altogether. Our plan was to demolish it. So we will be putting an address on there. We will be putting a sign out there. We will make it a proper property
that the city will be proud of. Uh I did not know about that little sinkhole area in the back. We'll address that as well. I just saw that for the first time today. Uh, so no, we want to be compliant with the city and make everything obviously. >> Okay, so the gutters are up, but you the sophets and the fascia board. >> The gutters are not up yet. >> Gutters are not up.
>> The gutters and sophet are not up now. So the debris has been cleared. >> Yeah, we just did a maintenance cleanup of the property, so it looks a lot better, but we'll get the m we'll get the gutter and sophet up because obviously we need that for our tenant as well. >> So then let me ask you a question. I know you said your attorney will be addressing the sewer line issues, but for the remainder, um, how long do you
think it would take for you to uh, remedy those issues? >> Uh, 30 days. I mean, >> 30 days. >> What do we need to know? >> Okay. Okay. Anything else you'd like me to know, Mr. Saison? >> Nope. I'll let the uh, my attorney address the >> Thank you very much, sir. >> Thank you,
>> Mr. Baylor. >> Uh, thank you, Matthew Baylor for uh, Saison Ventures. Uh when my client purchased this property, the sewer was not something that was known to be a problem. I believe there was some type of other ADA permit that was open on the
property at that time uh that the city notified us of and that was closed out. Um whoever had done this sewer work was not Saison Ventures. Um so we don't really know anything about it. we uh if the city requires some type of
compliance that can be done but we believe that whoever previously owned this property is ultimately the party that was responsible and it should have been addressed whenever this work was done. >> Okay. And you're saying there was an open permit to your knowledge that for the previous owner
>> for yes for a ADA compliance or something to that effect. >> Yeah, it was an ADA comp ADA permit that was open and closed. Okay. We have no record of anything on this property. When I bought the property, that's how I bought the property. So, when I when my plumber went through the records trying to find a open permit, there was no open
permit. There's nothing. So, there's nothing to close because nothing was ever open. Even when we rean a title search, everything when I bought the property, everything showed closed. So, I bought the property exactly how it is. I nothing about the property >> with those with the asphalt in the same manner that it is. >> Three and a half years ago, I've done
nothing to the property with the sewer. >> Okay. That was how I bought the property and and per that email that I shed. I did try to bring a plumber out there to get an app in the back permit per the email. So I he went out there like, "Bro, this is not my problem. It's not my job." He's like, "They want me to run sewers. They want me to run cameras."
He's like, he worked with the city. I think he just gave up. He said it was just so much red tape working with the city that he gave up. So I'm like, "All right, it's not my problem either." I mean, it's nothing. I bought it like that, so I know nothing about it. >> Okay. And so I guess the information is you bought it like that. You tried to
comply. So you did you had a plumber who went to the city and tried to pull an after the fact permit for that work >> messages on my phone that says that the city are idiots basically like I'm not working with them. So he gave up. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. I
appreciate the information. Um anything else from the city? >> Uh no ma'am. Like I stated about the property being in disrepair and that's what I stated. Mr. Saison did meet me out there. We did a full property inspection. the ball was rolling forward and that's when we discussed the sewer
line. We're not stating that he did it, but we said it had to be addressed and that was what was laid out in the email to get an after the-act permit for the sewer line that was replaced. >> Well, and does the city actually have proof that it was replaced? I know I can see the new PVC pipe and I can see the asphalt.
>> Yeah, and I have the building official here that can probably better answer that question looking at those photos. Uh >> I I would think too if someone was doing work like that, they'd have to dig up the asphalt. there would probably be a couple day project and nobody noticed that. >> And I can't speak for that. Um that was
right around the time that I started. It was just something that I noticed during my inspection that the PVC pipe in 23 looked new. Uh you the pictures that I have today compared to 23 the asphalt looked fresh like it was cold patch that somebody put down recently. It it was
and I agree prior to him purchasing the property, but there was never a permit for it. >> There's no record that the city has for a permit on that. Okay. All right. Yeah. If I if you could get the building official. Sorry, Mr. Curtis. >> Good morning. Luke Curtis, building
official. >> Um, yeah. So, the the a permit to replace that section of uh sanitary line is pretty straightforward and easy. Uh there is no record in our system for the permit. Just looking at it, you can tell
that it was recent, and I use that term broadly. >> It's clearly wasn't the original. So, sometime in the recent past, it was replaced. The uh if part of that pipe is uncovered, all pipe manufactured has a
date on it. So, that could narrow it down as far as when that was done. But without seeing specifics or looking at a historical historical pictures over time, there's no way of telling exactly when it was done. But it is work that would be recovered. The permit itself is
fairly easy. No review would even be required. If somebody came in applying for a permit to replace a section of sewer line and saying going from the building to the city tap, uh it wouldn't even require review. we could issue it over the counter potentially if they
were here. Um there are elements to that that require inspections. So we would need to make sure that it's you know the minimum set of construction standards that are set forth in the building code and that's to protect property owners
that whoever's doing the work and we don't know who did it. Was it a licensed plumber or was it a handyman or the property owner themselves at the time? Um, and just to reinforce what uh Stephen was saying is, yeah, we don't uh
whether it was done by this property owner or the previous property owner or property owner before that, we we don't know who who did it. We just know that no permit was ever pulled for it. So, we just want to make sure that that work meets a minimum set of standards, which is the Florida building code. >> Okay?
>> And it would be a city permit. It's not a county doesn't tie into county lines or anything. >> City city permit. Um, and so what an after the-act permit when you're talking about inspections, are you talking about that they're going to have to dig up asphalt to show anything? What kind of inspection are you talking about?
>> So, and I try not to beat people up too much about the, you know, in a scenario like this. So, for example, if um if a portion by the building can be dug up so that we can see the depth of the pipe and another portion closer towards the
road cuz I think there's uh I don't think it was paved out there. We might be able to see enough to be able to pass an inspection. Um part of it would be plugging it, make sure it's it's holding water. Uh there's a series of things that we can do without necessarily
having to dig up the whole section of pipe. Uh ultimately when we do these inspections, that is what we're doing is they they excavate, they lay the pipe, we come do an inspection uh to make sure everything is tight and then they back fill it. But at this point, yeah, we can
work with uh an applicant. >> Can that be done based on an affidavit of an an engineer of any kind, anything like that? >> So that that comes up periodically. Well, if I provide you an a sign seal
affidavit from an engineer, my concern there is they can't see through the ground to see exactly the depth and the pitch of that pipe. So, it's just basically somebody being paid to say it's okay. So, >> yeah. And from my perspective, you're
saying, you know, I'm trying to balance. >> We've got testimony that says this is not the property owner and I'm also with the buyer. Beware. You take the property subject to what was ever done. It was permitted unpermitted. I also understand protecting the property owner and following the building code. Is there a legally recognized? I'm trying to find
the the the path of least resistance. Um uh so if there is a way to do it by affidavit, you're saying that that that's not for this particular scenario that's not a legally co cognizable way to do this. I I don't typically accept
an affidavit from an engineer unless they have actually done an inspection on it. >> Uh you know seen it when it was. So part of the building code says that uh all work shall remain accessible for for the
inspection. So it's not accessible. Uh so in order to make it accessible, I'm willing to work with people to clean messes up like this. Um, and there are there is the potential where it could be uncovered to a certain point. Make sure it has that minimum depth at the one end
and make sure that it has at least from appearances enough fall so that it's going to drain properly. >> Okay. >> Um, but >> okay, >> it would have to be we would document it just to say, you know, the whole length of the pipe hasn't been seen, but if
there's enough to to hang the hang our hat on to say, yeah, it's >> meets the minimum. It appears to meet the minimum standards. >> And if that were to be done, how long do you think it would take to secure an after the fact permit in that type of
situation? >> Honestly, >> I know I'm asking you to >> No. So, like I said, with with a scenario like that, that type of permit, there isn't a review that's required. No other departments would have to sign off on it. So, technically, if I had somebody at the counter, it could be
released, right? Then, >> okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. I appreciate your time. Anything else from the property owner? >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Shaison, if has if he has to open and close out a permit,
that's fine. The the challenge here, I think, would be finding a licensed individual to come out and sign off on this work after the fact when nobody knows when it was done or what was actually done. All that's been presented is there's a pipe that looks new, but nobody can tell us when when that
happened and or my client says he didn't do it, so we just don't know and think it's going to be an issue having somebody sign off on it. >> Okay. And I can understand that. Um I will say that, you know, it appears your client is a sophisticated property owner. Uh when you purchase a property,
you do so subject to whatever the previous owner did on it. And I understand that you guys did title reports and due diligence and whatnot, but um if there was no permit pulled for it, that's something that I would suggest that might be between between your client and the previous property owner. Um hopefully this can be resolved
by an over-thecounter after the fact permit. Um I based on the testimony here today, is there anything else from the city? Sorry, before I >> uh No, ma'am. >> Okay. Based on the testimony here today, I do appreciate that Mr. Saison has made
efforts to clean up the property understanding that the property has gone through a couple different iterations as far as what was going to be done on the property over the years. Um, so I am going to find that the property I I I guess I have a question. Mr. River, you
cited underneath 98-3 for mailboxes address signs. I didn't see any >> 3B should be 3B for uh numbers >> that there's no numbers on the property. >> There's no numbers. Uh, no. Oh, and then the first picture that was kind of just a shot of the property. You can also see
that there was no numbers on the property as well. I can bring the slide back up. >> No, that's that's not necessary. Okay. Um Okay, then I am going to find that the um property owner is in violation of the stated code sections. Uh I do understand that there were efforts to bring it to compliance, but there are
still some outstanding things. One of those is the sinkhole. Mr. Rivera, how is that supposed to be remedied? >> And again, I'm I'm not even sure how that would be fixed. that the property owner is just it keeps opening. Um it's not the first that was the initial inspection. Um there was an inspection
on the property uh that December was for a call about a sinkhole. I did a full inspection of the property. Like I said, Mr. Seaison had addressed the other issues that were in the original notice of violation. There was an issue I think with the fence, the dumpster enclosure. He did rectify all those issues, started
working toward compliance. Um, but this hole seems to keep coming back. >> So, I do have an issue with that. If the city can't articulate what compliance means, I can't necessarily force the property owner to comply when there's no standards with which the property owner
is supposed to meet. So, what that's why I'm asking >> as far as the hole, you mean? >> As far as a sinkhole, right? If there if the city cannot articulate this is what compliance means, then I can't say you're in violation of a code section >> because there's no way that you can comply.
>> Yeah. And the concern that close to the property line and the seaw wall, I don't know if there's an issue. I know there was a permit pulled for the neighboring property. They did have a fresh seaw wall installed. Um, this property has the original seaw wall that that was there when I did the inspection. So, I
don't know if it's seaw wall related. It just seems to it's safety issue is what I'm concerned about and then it being so close to the property line >> and and again that all might be true but if there's no way to articulate what the property owner has to do to comply then
you can't arbitrarily en enforce that against them. So, >> your honor, um if I may, I'm speaking with um with Pete um perhaps one, if it's agreeable to our officer um to require a sinkhole expert to go out and
um assess the situation and come up with a possible repair uh with an affidavit saying that it has been repaired. If there is um damage to the seaw wall, which is I think what the city's concern is, we could address that subsequent to
a licensed professional on sinkholes telling us how to repair it. I where where and I guess my question is. So, you're asking the property owner to expend money to find a sinkhole expert
to determine how it's going to be repaired or the city would send out a sinkhole expert with the consent of the property owner. >> I I believe that it's really the property owner's uh responsibility to have it repaired. I don't think that the city has the expertise regarding the the
preparation of of how to repair a sink. >> Right. And then we go back to my first initial concern is that if you can't articulate what repairing the sinkhole entails and the standards by which it needs to be done, that's arbitrary enforcement. So now we're putting the onus on the property owner to come up
with what compliance means. And I am a little concerned with that. Mr. on did you have something that you wanted to >> if you would I said this is the first time I'm seeing that over there allow me to take get put get put get put get put get put get put get put get put get put get put some eyes on it and see exactly what it is let me dig the rocks up see
what it is it could just be erosion that's happening somewhere so I don't know what it is but >> I want to make it right so at the end of the day I want to make it right >> is that acceptable to the city that >> give me the opportunity to take a look at it and whatever it is we are going to make it right there's no question about it I mean it's it's my property I want
to make it right so I got no issue with that whatsoever so give me >> your honor possibly go ahead and um perhaps the city would continue to request that an violation be found and then within that 30-day period if there is compliance then you'll have the
information at that point >> within 30 days I'll have the gutters up to soft it up I'll have my eyes on that and fix that whatever it is so I have no issue with that like I want to be compliant I don't want to have to be coming here >> okay um well let's let me do this I am
>> what about the plumbing so that's that's my >> so that yeah that's my next thing that I wanted to address I I'm going to find that the the property is in violation of the stated code sections. And I understand that that wasn't your work that was done and I do understand um the concerns that Mr. Baylor has with trying to find a licensed professional that's
willing to put their mark on something that they didn't do. Um I think we all have those concerns. I am going to continue to I'm going to find that that is a violation. However, I'm going to allow for 30 days for the property to come into compliance, but then I'm going to say, "Let's come back at the next code hearing and address if you could
find something what the what the issues are." Um, and that way because it sounds to me like it can be an over-the-counter permit if it's acceptable. If you can find somebody that's willing to just say, "Okay, it just needs to be an inspection." I understand the concerns on both ends. I only, unfortunately, I
only have so much authorization in my position. Um, and I have to base it off of the evidence that's presented here today. So, >> this is just a paperwork procedure. I have no problem getting a licensed plumber in here. He'll put his name on it, he'll sign it, and then as long as they close it out, he's fine with it. But, like I said, I don't want to have him go through the scrutiny of being
scrutinized for something he didn't. If this is just a paperwork procedure, if they just want paperwork like government always does, no problem. We'll get a stamp on it. >> Open closed within five minutes. He'll walk in. >> Yeah. And I think that there was an inspection process that needed to be done, too. So, I'm going to suggest that you guys get with the building department in the interim to find out
exactly what needs to be done. And hopefully it is that easy. Um, if it isn't, then we'll meet back here at the next code hearing, which will be on March 9th. Oh, I did say 30 days. >> Seven days, right? >> Yeah, man. >> I'm going to be out of town March 9th as well.
>> So, then April 13th, um, we'll come back here. I am still going to put my order for the 30-day deadline, but we will come back on April 13th for a status hearing. Um, and that way we can figure out where you are. If that's all been remedied. If it's all been remedied, I won't see you here. But if it's still outstanding, then you can come back and
tell me where we are in the process. Okay? And I will get you in order. Just make sure Mr. Baylor, I have your email or Mr. Says on yours, then I can send you a copy of the order with the information in it. Okay? All right. Thank you very much. And then moving on to the next code case. Uh,
>> case number 20250746, City of St. Pete Beach versus Michael Martin. Okay. >> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steam Rivera, behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach, code enforcement. Case number 20250746.
Respondent is Michael Martin. Violation address is 2 Alahham Street. Violation description, the property is in violation of section 9.2A, permitted principal uses and structures of the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach.
Case summary. The initial inspection was 1219 2025 irreparable and irreversible notice of violation dated and milt certified on 121 2026 notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 121 2026.
The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at two Alhamra Street. This is the Airbnb uh advertisement. This is your do you have
>> this is the one review that states that it was a weekend stay corrective action. The property can only be rented monthly. The property is compliant. Recommended fine is $1,000 per violation. one review totaling
uh 1,000 plus the $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Did you want to put in the review P policies for
>> I do actually. Uh >> I I I'll tell you what, I will take notice that of the review policies >> and I am going to take full responsibility for because I grabbed it and did not bring it with me. >> That's okay. I I I will >> a second though >> accept the Airbnb policies as the review
policies into evidence. Um and we will put those in >> the >> the print out. I will accept those into evidence. Is there anyone here on behalf of Mr. Martin or is Mr. Martin here? Mr. Martin, if you could please come up
and plead your case. >> Um, I was approached by a management company um over the course of some time and then I agreed to do business with them and I asked if I'd be compliant and uh so I mean I get ultimately I know it's respons my responsibility, but they
told me I would be. So based on that I let them run the show. So >> Okay. Can I ask the city's asking for $1,000 for the violation? It was for a girls weekend. What's the average price per night that you rented it for? Or if you can recall what you got for that, >> like four or 500 bucks >> for for the whole weekend for them.
Okay. All right. Um, thank you very much. Anything else from the city? >> Bes the Airbnb review policy. >> That was your opportunity. >> He said he'd like to mention that I've
never had any any other Okay. Thank you very much, Miss River. >> Okay. I am going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code section. I am going to find that the property had in was the nature of the violation is irreparable and irreversible. I am going to assess a
$500 violation or fine for the violation plus the $330 in reasonable administrative cost to the city and any recording fees that might be associated with effectuating a lean in this case. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> Thank you. And Mr. Martin, make sure I have your email. I'll send you a copy of that order.
>> All right, moving on to the last case of the day. Case number 20260019, City of St. Pete Beach versus JSC Group LLC. Okay, good morning, Special Magistrate. Ayaka Ruck Shell representing City of St. Pete Beach. This is case number
20260019. The respondent is JSC Group LLC. Violation address is 51079th Avenue. Violation description the properties in violations of section 9.2A permitted principal uses and structures and 9.5
prohibited uses and structures of the land development code city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary the initial inspection was on January 15 26 and a reparable and irreversible notice of violation dated and mailed certified on the same day
January 15 26. Notices of hearing dated and posted on the property January 15 26. This is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting on the property on January 15th.
This is the Airbnb advertisement for the property. Um, this screenshot here shows the ability to do a six night rental. This is a map the mapped location for the property aerial view.
And these are the three reviews that were found for November, December of 2025, and January of 26, which is three weeks ago from the date at the lower right hand corner there, which is January 29th of 26.
Okay. So, you're saying the December review, >> sorry, back >> because it looks to me like each one was posted in November, stayed for a few nights. I see that the stayed with a pet, you're saying in the stayed with kids are within three weeks of each other.
>> Well, the one that's three weeks ago is three weeks as of the end of January. So, that would have been in the beginning of January. >> Okay. And then the December one >> stayed with a pet there. Okay. And how how are we sure that the stayed with the pet is a short-term rental?
>> Well, November would have been a few nights. >> And if they stayed on November 1st, >> so few nights there then December. >> Is there anything in the else in the review? >> There was no more just location was great.
>> And then the one three weeks ago you're saying is three weeks ago from January 29th. >> Correct. So that's the beginning of January, >> which would have been beginning of January, correct? So it is >> that would put two in December is what you're saying.
>> No, the one in November, one in December, and then the one in the beginning of January. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Picture of the backyard. So, the corrective action would be the property can only be rented for a
minimum 30 days. The property is not compliant. The recommended fine is $1,000 per violation. There's three reviews totaling $3,000 plus $330 in administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. And if you'd like to see the
Airbnb policy, >> actually, yes, please. I think it's 14 days after checkout. You're doing the math. >> Yeah, I am doing the math. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Albeit I'm not great at math, but I am
doing the math. Uh, okay. Is there anything else from the city? >> Nothing from the city, ma'am. But I do believe there is someone here from the JSC group. >> Anyone here from JSC Group LLC? if you could please come up and state your affiliation with the corporation for the record.
>> Um my name is Sabarora and I am the uh um manager for GSC group and owner. >> Okay. Can you tell me um are those three short-term rentals? >> Um yes, I believe they are. Um short-term rentals. Um today we would
like to uh plead for compliance uh with not uh and we want to notify this is our first awareness of this. This is our first warning first notification of any type. Uh as you can see from the date the property was launched for any rental business in November. Um we have uh you
know been informed by businesses here in St. repeat and also phone numbers we try to call through the city that there are certain areas in Penllis that are permitted to have short-term rentals and that is why we pursued this license. I can show it to you here.
>> Mhm. >> Sure. >> Oh, sorry. And so I'm showing you this um just to emphasize um our intent was to comply. You know, we thought we were doing the right thing. Um, now that the city has informed us that I I called the magistrate number, so it was nice to
have a contact number who could actually explain the situation. After I spoke with them, they explained that the particular address uh is not permitted because it's panel it's not panel uninccorporated. So this is all new information. Um, if you look here, there
are two companies who are property management companies working here in St. Pete Beach and they have both re they both initially recommend that we could proceed. So again, we were ill informed by the people who were supposed to be experts in this space. So again, I want to emphasize our goal has always been
compliance. We invest into this property with the hope that we were following all the rules that we would bring value to the city of St. Pete. But you know, if we cannot do it, we will stop. And so our goal today is to present to you a plea for compliance, a plea for relief of all the fees due to our intention,
due to our attempts to be uh fair and compliant. And if you would be so kind, we would like to consider if there is if it's possible to request a temporary reasonable windown period so we can shut down uh this business. Um you know, we
come with the with we hope for good faith reliance. We emphasize that there's a lack of harm um and that the bookings that were made uh will cause some disproportionate hardship. You know, if it was possible to have a few months to transition and and close this down, we'd really appreciate that.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time today. Anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. I did have one question. What was the what's the average nightly rental there? Or how much did you can you um tell me that you made off of each of those rentals? Um, so far there's uh no net profit with operating costs, but the
typical uh charge rate per night is $200 per night. >> $200 per night. Okay. And how and on those, what was the average night stay? I know it said a couple of days on one of them, but >> I think probably like three nights. >> Three nights. Okay. >> Okay. Anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am.
>> Okay. Okay. I am going to find that the property owner is in violation of the stated code section. I am going to find that for all three of the reviews that were there. Um I am going to assess a
fine of $500 per rental for a maximum of for the $1,500 um plus the $330 in administrative costs of the city. um and any recording fees that are associated with the recording
of a lean on that. I will say I cannot offer you a windown period. That would allow that would be putting me to allow you to violate the law for a specific period of time until such time as you choose not to violate the law. Um, what will go into my order, which I will get you a copy of, will be that within 10
business or 10 days, 10 business days, you will have to provide to the code enforcement department that you don't have any short-term rentals booked um for the future. If that means you have to cancel them, then that is what you have to do. I don't have any control over that. Um, I would suggest, you know, I can't give you any advice, but
you might want to contact those property management companies and just let them know that in St. Pete Beach, that's that's not you can't have those types of short-term rentals. I'm sure they're very much aware. Um, I'm going to tell you, I'm not trying to be, uh, inequitable here. I appreciate you falling on your sword, but, uh, buyer
beware, when you purchase a property in any jurisdiction, you are required to know the laws of that jurisdiction in order to operate that property. So, um, I appreciate your honesty here today. I appreciate you showing up today. Um, and I will >> small request. >> Sure. Um, from my understanding here as
well, the city does allow transit occupancy of less than 30 days up to three times per 12-month period, >> depending upon what zoning district that you're located in, and from what is stated here, you do not that property is not in a zoning district to where you can do that. It is a strictly 30-day rental period. Is that correct, Mr.
Reto? >> Okay, sounds good. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Yeah, it was worth a shot. I mean, yeah. >> Is there any financial relief you could provide? You know, >> uh, I have made my order. If you uh want to seek the advice of council or get with the city to see if there's any options on that, I will tell you that if
you come back for any type of a reduction in fines, I've already given concessions for the reduction in fines. If you want a lean request, that's a different a ball of a different wax. You got to go through the city to figure out how to apply for that. >> Sure. >> All right. Thank you very much for your time. >> All right. Uh anything else that we need
to discuss today before I adjourn the hearing? >> No, ma'am. >> All right. I will see you all back here then on March 9th. >> Thank you. Thank you.