Call the Special Magistrate Code Enforcement Meeting of the City of St. Pete Beach to order on Monday, April 13, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. My name is Erikica Aello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases. I am a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida Bar and board certified in city,
county, and local government law. I have been appointed to this position in accordance with the authorities set forth in chapter 162 Florida statutes and the city of St. Pete Beach code of ordinances. I'm not an employee of the city of St. Pete Beach, and I do not represent the city here today. I do not
confer with the city's code enforcement officers outside of the hearing process about your cases. It is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters as presented. As such, I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings. Today's matters 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 so under oath. In all cases, since the city has the burden of proof, the city will present its case first, and 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 a copy. So, please ensure that we have your current address or email address. Additionally, you are advised that I do not have the authority to
grant you a variance, permit, or special exception of any kind. My role is solely to determine whether a city code has been violated and under some circumstances to provide a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever means are available to you. Please be advised that you may be subject to a fine and a lean may be
recorded on your property if the violation is not corrected by the compliance deadline, if one is provided. If you wish to present any evidence today, please sign in at the podium before you speak. And it will be necessary that you swear or affirm to tell the truth. Therefore, at this time, I will swear in any witnesses. Anyone
wishing to speak today, please rise and raise your right hand to be sworn in. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, ma'am. >> So sworn. Are there any changes to the agenda this morning?
Yes, madam special master Pete Der code enforcement manager for the city of code enforcement manager for the city of St. Pete Beach. Case number 5A, repeat violations. On the third page, 20260047
requesting a continuence to May. >> I have that as the May 11th hearing. >> Yes. So that will be continued to May 11th at 10 a.m. >> Does the property owner here or do you have any have you had any communication with the property owner on that one?
>> Madam Magen, he sent me an email. He said he has >> Okay. >> So he said he wasn't. >> Okay, perfect. We'll go ahead and continue that until May 11th to uh at 10 a.m. >> Yes. and the repeat violation 5B
2026166. Um, Mr. Myers, who is in attendance, is visually impaired and would like the case heard um earlier rather than later. Maybe the first case. >> Okay. >> If everyone is agreeable to that. Um, so
you can get out of here. The lights effect is >> absolutely we can certainly move Mr. Myers to the first case we're hearing today. Any other changes to the agenda? >> No ma'am. Thank you. >> 3A 3A. >> No. Okay. Sorry.
>> No worries. >> Okay. So with the first change to the agenda, I will hear uh agenda item 5B first, which is case number 20261 or 0166, City of St. P Beach versus Jeffrey Meyers. >> Me, please. I've got to advance the
PowerPoint. Is there a quick way to Good way to do this. Here we go. This one. So close. So close. How do you do this? Do you just click on it?
Does anybody know how to do this? Here it is. 12 >> 129 >> 12 >> no >> two two 122 >> there you go. >> Thank you, Stephen. >> All right. Apologies, special
magistrate. Good morning, Ayaka Rock Shell representing the city of St. Pete Beach. This is case number 2026166. The respondent is um Jeffrey Meyers. The violation address is 19173rd Avenue. Violation description. The property
isn't is a repeat violations of sections 46-33 enumeration 12 and 13. Section 9865 unsightly conditions 2 3 4 and six. Section 9866 residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of
ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial inspection was on March 23rd, 2026. Notice of repeat violation was dated and mailed certified on March 30th of 26. Notice of nuisance dated and mailed certified on the same
day, March 30th, 2026. And the notice of hearing dated and posted on the property, March 30th, 2026. This is the uh true and accurate description of what I've witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at the
property address 1973rd Avenue. Um, as you are well aware, this is a property that has um continuously had a lot of debris, outdoor storage. Um, these pictures demonstrate
that again, once again, all the storage items in the garage have made their way out onto the driveway and are permanently out there on a daily basis. They have a dumpster on site as well
that is full. Um they have a trailer and in the front yard with a golf cart that was installed and in it. Lots of items up on the second storage balcony. Um there's the boats trailer with the golf cart on it.
There's the items up on the second storage, second level, their secondary driveway next to the dumpster. All the furniture and equipment is out on the yard on the driveway.
Another date on March 30th. Here again, you can see all the boxes and everything. The items just left out on the driveway. Close visible. And in the next shot, I think you will also see the um
dumpster overflowing and more debris. So, the problem with this property is the continual movement of items in the garage that make their way out on the driveway back in out way drive back in again. Um the the property repeats code
violations per per your final order 2021 0494 on January 12th of 22. Also number 2023 0539 on January 11th of 2024 and the
last one that we had on number 20240504 on July 17th of 2025. This is a pattern of chronic nuisance activity persists and no written action plan has been received. However, I must update you that on Friday I did receive a form of
some form of a action plan. It's more of an ADA request from Mr. Meyers. Um the city wishes to abate the chronic nuisance. Again, the recommended fine is $500 per day from the date of your order because this is a repeat violation plus
330 in administrative costs. Additionally, the actual cost of abatement services will be build to the property owner plus any recording fees that may be associated with this case. I would like to submit to you his request
for >> well is there a request for accommodation or is an action plan under the abatement statute on the abatement code? >> Mixture says it's a request for accommodation and he needs more time to address the the cleanup effort.
>> Okay. So, this is this is a request for accommodation and that's not before me today. So, I'm not going to entertain that into any evidence here today. >> Okay. >> Um but thank you. Um I do have a couple of questions. This is being brought forth as a repeat violation. However,
there is still an active nuis chronic nuisance abatement order on the property and I have jurisdiction until July of 2026. >> Um, you said the city has already gone in and abated the property. >> No, it has not. We've just bringing it back forward to you as as a repeat and
asking for permission if we were to need to abate it again. So I guess my question is why my order gave the city permission to bait the property within 14 days of the date of the order and with and you had all you had to do is give 48 hours notice to the
property owner >> had to update what's the status of data. >> So this morning we went over to check the property and they have cleaned up again as they did last time. Overhead please you. So they have tidied up the yard. All the boxes are removed from the
balcony. It's reasonable and all the shoes removed from the second story. So as far as trying to abate this property for the second time, they have come into compliance again. However, this is a continuing problem like I said of the
volume going in and out in and out in and out. >> Why which is why there's a chronic nuisance abatement order on the property which is valid for one year. So >> again my my question is so the property is now in in compliance >> as of this morning. Yes. >> This morning. >> Okay. Um anything further from the city?
>> Yes. The city is requesting position of fines from what date please >> on the first day of the pictures which is January March 20 23rd pictures
have to go back. Oh, no. >> It was slide number one. >> How do I get >> Slide number 122? Well, I don't know how you get there. Looks like the initial inspection was March 23rd to 2026.
>> So from March 23rd until this morning. Anything further from the city? >> That's our request. And Mr. Myers is here and he would like to say something. >> Absolutely. Mr. Myers, if you >> need assistance or whatnot getting your
way to the front, but if you could please come up to the podium. into there. Okay. >> My name is uh Jeff Meyers, 191 73rd Avenue, St. Pete Beach. >> Good morning, Mr. Myers. And I know you've appeared before me before and
we've talked about your property in the past. >> My understanding is the last time we had a conversation, you were trying to clean up the property. You were getting people to help you out and then you were attempting to sell the property. Was that correct? >> It's still the same. >> Okay. So, you are still trying to keep the property clean and you were attempting to sell the property. Is that
correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And so, my understanding is that you have received the notice that the property was in violation of the chronic nuisance order and then you received additional help to bring the property into compliance. Correct. >> Okay. Do you have anything else that you'd like to say today?
>> Um, last things I'd like to say. specific to this this case in your home. >> I understand. I I did want to say the current officer that's been working with me since the last time
>> is really she's a very good at being able to keep me in the loop and keep me informed. >> Perfect. My request was more so because I was struggling with again cleaning up after I after the last time that that we were in trouble after the hurricanes.
We we got I paid people and we got everything done and taken care of, but it didn't address the problem in my first floor that had six feet of water in it. I still had bins in there that were full of water and I was afraid to do anything till just recently I started
doing things again and I I thought things were kind of picked up and everything but I again I I start to go through things. I'm trying to save some of the pottery collection I had that was in storage down there and and stuff and it
just it I just it becomes so quickly overwhelming for me I can't do anything with it and and it's just it's I I feel stuck that I can't even do anything without being in trouble again. >> Okay. >> So, I know I I have other ideas and
plans. I was recently referred to uh ADA. They not only have other services like um to help me in a situation like this, but they have volunteers, they have uh funds that they can help me with to be able to help me get to the place where I need to be, which is to be moved closer
to where my family is. I only came here because of medical and those reasons are my cancer in remission and all of that. So I it happened all during COVID and all that. I I didn't want to have to move away from my family to begin with. But
ever since then this has been going on. It's just I've constantly been trying to keep the property cleaned up and and that and I'm not really able to focus on getting myself together, getting the things that need to be thrown away thrown away without throwing away some of the stuff that's worth money.
some of the collections and things are part of my family. It's just been really hard and I tried again to do it and I we just put everything back in the garage again and we'll wait till we I can afford to have more help. >> Okay. >> I've been cut off of my my my savings
and my resources and my the trust that I've had most of my life, but I'm being I'm going to be connected to it hopefully again soon. >> Okay. >> I I feel terrible. I don't want my neighbors to have to look at something bad like that. I'd be upset, too. I've
never I've not done anything intentionally. I'm just having a hard time adjusting to being blind. I just lost my eyesight when I purchased the home as a result of the treatments I was receiving. I I can only work at nighttime
because I can't be out in the daytime. I'm pretty much 100% blind from the light. Um, I I I just think that I would like to be able to have some time for to be able to take stuff out and to continue
getting things dried out, but I understand if I'm not able to do that. We we talked about some ideas of things that I might be able to do once I have the financing in place, which is to have a container brought to the property, have everything moved from the downstairs into the container, and then
I can go to another area to be sorted out and >> Okay. >> Saving what can be saved. >> Okay. And so my understanding is uh your plan while the property is is significantly cleaned up now or substantially cleaned up now and and the
city has determined that you are in compliance with the chronic nuisance order that order is going to maintain and and and stay in place until July of this year. >> Right. >> So um the idea is to to get a plan in place >> um and let the city know what that plan is so that they don't come back again
with these types of violations for you. Um, so your plan right now is to you have you were you submitted it here today. My I can't suggest anything to you, but perhaps you want to submit it directly to the city with regard to your request for an accommodation. Um, and
then you are telling me that you have um you might be getting a container or at least you're looking into that to see about drying out some of your stuff, but your intent is still to clean up the interior of the house so that you can prepare to sell the home. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. and you are you are working on funding to be able to do that
and you've reached out to other people for resources to move >> to move the property forward. >> Okay. Um All right. Anything else you need for me to know with regard to this case before uh I move on and make my ruling here today? >> Just that I I think that the code enforcement officer that's been working
with me is just made a huge improvement with my my being able to know what's going on. The last time that the binds were happening, I didn't even know that I was being fined. I hadn't heard from anybody in over a year. And it wasn't until I made a I started to pull stuff out of the garage again and and it
became a mess that I even knew when I came to court that those fines were there. I had trouble with the my property taxes. Of course, it I I went from having a fairly good income to no income. And um I couldn't return to work and then it took me five years to get my
social security in place. That happened the last time when I actually began getting stuff done was when I had got my social security approved. I had the funds. I got the dumpster and then like a week later I was being told to come back to court again. And I'm like I'm
finally make cleaning it up and and I and I came back and then we did that whole thing but then we just did the same thing. We just put everything back in the garage, sealed it all up and kept it there, you know, and just not dealt with it. So we have to have a better plan I know to clean it up. I don't blame the neighbors if it's what I'm
told. It's not fair to them. I just had a hard time adjusting to my my eyesight and being cut off my resources. My father died and and I wasn't able to reconnect anything until just recently in August, my stepmother passed away and she was
kind of the barrier. Um so I my property taxes are all paid now. I need to come forward with I guess some other hearing regarding the fines. So, at this point, um I don't I don't know about that. The only thing that's before me here today is a repeat violation, um for the
property, >> right? >> Um and I will make a determination on that today one way or the other. And you will get written notification obviously. Do you have somebody that's able to help you with
>> I I have somebody that's that I've been with for a long time, but they're they're not able to read very well. >> Okay. Okay. >> But I do there's um the ADA from what they've just told me a little bit, they do have those kind of services available
to people. I also had services through the lighthouse, but when I received my first denial on my social security, I lost those services and I've not been able to reconnect. >> Okay. Um, well, when I do make my order here today, I will do it verbally so at least if you have any questions, you can ask them of me here today. I don't
typically do that, but I understand your situation and then you will also get a copy that will be mailed to you, right? >> Um, and so, >> um, if there is somebody that can help you with that, at least you have something for recordeping, right? >> Um, all right. Thank you so much, Mr. Myers. I appreciate your time here
today. Anything else from the city? Yes, the city is asking for, you know, repeat violation fines from se uh March 23rd until yesterday. So, at $500 a date, I that's asking for $10,500. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Um I am going to find that there is no repeat violation. This property owner and the property is under a chronic nuisance abatement order. Um, I I find that requesting a a repeat violation on something that is under my current jurisdiction for chronic abatement is improper. So, I'm not going to find that
there's a repeat violation. I am going to find that the property is now in compliance with the chronic nuisance abatement order. The city does have rights underneath that order if there is anything else that needs to be done. I do retain jurisdiction until July 2026. Um, it sounds like Mr. Myers does have a plan. I understand that that's not a
written plan. That's what my order required was a written plan of action. That's what the ordinance requires. I'm going to ask Mr. Myers if he has the ability to um to help someone have someone help him write that plan down for the city so that everyone knows what's going on um in the event that the
property runs into disre not disrepair but accumulation. Again, I understand Mr. Myers is using his garage as storage at this point. He's airing out the items and he's trying to filter through them so that he can get the property ready to sell. the the point of the special
magistrate process is to garner compliance. He's currently compliant. I've heard credible testimony here today that even if I were to assess a fine, which I'm not willing to do, he wouldn't be able to pay it. Um, so at this point, I am going to find that there's not a repeat violation. The city can continue
underneath the chronic nuisance abatement order and any rights that it has underneath that. Um, and Mr. Myers, I'm just going to ask that underneath underneath that chronic nuisance abatement order that's already been issued. Um, please do your best. I'm going to ask within 15 days, um, I will amend that order, it can be re-recorded,
but within 15 days, if you can please get a written plan to the city about what you plan, how you plan on keeping the property in in this the state that it's currently in. Um, and I will get you a copy of that order, of course. Um,
and it'll be 15 days from the date of my order to get that written plan to the city. It doesn't have to be formal. It just needs to be something in writing so that both parties understand what your plan is moving forward. And again, I lose jurisdiction underneath that abatement order in July. So, let's try
and make some good progress into keeping the property in its current state. And Mr. Myers trying to get moving the property forward. >> Thank you. So there so just so everyone knows there will be two orders. There will be one that says I don't find a repeat violation and then there will be one amending the chronic nuisance order
which will then be recorded as amended order. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Myers. I appreciate your time today. Okay. Moving on to the top of the agenda. Moving to agenda item 3A, case number
2025010, city of St. Pete Beach versus Armando Quantero. >> Uh, good morning, Madam Magistrator. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Um, case uh 20250
0. Uh, continuence. At this point, um, the city is asking that we just get an order to dismiss. The property is compliant. Uh, there was some issues with the permitting where it was in the wrong spot. Uh, I did talk to Mr. Quantero. I do have a fence permit. It is active. So, we're just going to go
ahead and ask for an order to dismiss. >> Okay. So, there's no finding a fact that there's a violation. The prop the violation will be dismissed. >> Yes, ma'am. I I never had a chance to present uh and we just went back and forth with it. So, I'm just asking for an order of dismissal. >> Okay. I will go ahead and get an order for dismissal out to you and the
property owner. >> Thank you. >> All right. Moving on to 3B. Case number 20250731. City of St. Pete Beach versus Dolphin Watch II. >> Thank you, Madam Mag. See Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Uh,
I believe we are waiting for your determination based on the two letters that were sent. Um, the city is standing fast on the $1,000 per violation. Um, so I I think the ball is kind of
out of my hands at this point. So, um, and correct me if I'm wrong, there's been no evidentiary submissions in this case. The last time that you all were before me, there was a motion to dismiss from Mr. Laro, I had asked for some additional legal briefing, which I did receive. Thank you both very much. And
response from the city. Those two issues or the several issues that were briefed were whether or not I had jurisdiction to hear the challenge as far as the uh constitutionality of of the ordinance. Um, it I Mr. Laro's arguments are well taken. or Miss Superes. I do find that
while I don't specifically have jurisdiction to make the determination whether or not um it is a uh an unconstitutional ordinance, um those arguments will be preserved for appeal. Um
with that being said, the arguments are and I do have some additional questions based on the briefing. The argument seemed to be twofold and the city's briefing brought up that um the motion to dismiss kind of alleged two things. While it was an as applied uh challenge
to the ordinance, the basis for the as applied challenge had to do with the notice requirement for um the original ordinance which would have been the 2004 ordinance. Is that correct? >> Your memor is impeccable. Yeah. >> Okay. Don't don't give me too much
credit. Um, I reread the briefings yesterday. Um, so with that being said, Miss Superich had brought up that that in fact then would be a facial challenge which is barred otherwise barred by the statute of limitations. I find that to be a very credible argument. Do you have any retort to that? Well, I think I
think that what we raised was that if there's some kind of an adoption flaw, if you were originally entitled to notice, then when you ultimately become the target of the enforcement of an an ordinance that has not been adopted properly, you can raise those same
arguments as an asapplied argument. That the ordinance used against you, when it is used against you, if it was never adopted properly, you then could make an asapplied argument in that respect. Okay, understood. And then the second argument that we heard was the inadmissible
hearsay. I do find that Miss Dupert's arguments as to the fact that we haven't heard any substantiating evidence in addition to just the fact that the packet is the packet. So, I'll reserve my ruling on the in the admissibility of the reviews until such time as any other
evidence is is taken and submitted um to uh to consider your inadmissible hearsay argument um and and the city's response. As far as my jurisdiction, again, I do this is a quise judicial administrative proceeding. I do understand that constitutional challenges are typically brought up in this type of a scenario in
order to preserve a record for appeal. >> Yes. >> Um I do not find This is a tricky situation. I'm going to get challenged either way, I'm sure. Um, I do find uh that the statute I do
understand, Mr. Lo, your arguments with regard that you can raise a fa almost a facial challenge on an as applied challenge with regard to notice. When did your your um the property owners purchase the property? >> Before the ordinance was adopted. >> Okay. And and >> understood. Just just to sort of
interject, we had raised that argument previously with a number of other property owners >> that purchased their property after the ordinance was adopted. So we thought it was void abonio. And in that case, it was found that if you didn't have standing and you didn't have the right
to receive proper notice, if you weren't around and didn't own the property prior to the adoption of the ordinance, you couldn't raise that argument. >> Right. This is different. This is >> right. And we we attached the deed, I think, >> the time. Yeah, I know there's a mistake and I wanted to correct that for the record. In our in our actual briefing,
we say it was purchased in 2023. We tried to correct that. It was purchased in 2003 and we attached the deed to the property to show that. >> I did see that. Um, okay. And then the other argument as with regard to the if the underlying ordinance is a void
abinio then that would make the 2016 what you're considering an amendment to an otherwise void right >> ordinance and the city is saying it is >> continuation >> continuation of the ordinance because it was just a reenactment
>> not necessarily an amendment to the underlying ordinance there too. There's one other argument that we made and that was based on the statutory preeemption after >> in 2011. >> Right? So the the the first ordinance was, you know, for all practical
purposes in regards to that specific statute, it was not preempted. After the statute went into effect, that's when the amendment came to bring this property into the list of of of zoning districts that would not allow for short-term rentals. And our position
was that the state statute would have preempted that and made that unavailable as an option for the city. >> And it's the city's position that that wasn't uh an amendment to the underlying ordinance. It was a clarification to the underlying ordinance and it didn't change the zoning distinctions within
that district that would otherwise >> That is correct, your honor. >> Okay. >> So that the preeemption doesn't apply because it it wasn't and there there's substantial case law on that. Well, substantial. There is case law on that mostly out of Miami with regard to clarifying ordinances um not violating
the preeemption specific to 509. Um and do you have any response to the statute of limitations challenge with regard to the consistency with a comprehensive plan argument that the city raised in its response? at at this point that would be the same argument and you know consistency with the comp
plan I think would be subsumed into the requirement that that ordinance be adopted in compliance with chapter 166. So I don't I don't know that the comp plan actually is a consideration when it comes to those adoption requirements. >> Okay. And so this you find that the
city's argument with regard to the one-year statute of limitations under chapter 163 is irrelevant to your analysis because you are saying it's an as applied challenge wherein you are raising a facial challenge within it because of actual notice >> correct >> to the property owner >> and and candidly I I think that the
adoption procedures 166 is the one that has the long list. 163 is kind of subsumed in that that it it's a requirement of the adoption process. So, we're not arguing that it is or is not consistent with the comp plan, just that in the adoption process, that
consistency was never announced on the record. >> So, it still goes back to the the notice requirement under chapter 166. >> That is our position. >> As opposed to the consistency challenge, this is not a true consistency challenge under 163. So, the one-year statute limitations would apply.
>> It it it's I'll just call it a checklist challenge. Nobody found it to be consistent. We're not saying it is inconsistent, but the absence of the finding goes to chapter 166. >> Okay. And then goes to the notice requirements that it wasn't properly advertised and therefore your client did not have
the the procedure to adopt the ordinance was flawed and therefore the ordinances void abonio. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Does the city have any additional response to that based on anything that was brought up from Mr. Laro today? >> No. the city. Basically, we've set forth
our arguments um in our uh response that was filed. Um the absence of the finding, we don't find that that constitutes a procedural flaw. Um and we just disagree with his arguments. >> Okay.
For purposes of today's hearing, um I am going to find that the um if there if there is an argument to be made, I do not believe that I believe that the statute of limitations 5-year argument applies to notice requirement for 2000 for the ordinance 2004-11,
I believe it was, or 2004-18. Um and while I understand Mr. Filo's argument that they are s seeking to use that as an as applied challenge. Um I do agree with the city in that the procedural challenge is not enough to void the
uh ordinance as it so stands. >> Right. >> So now you have a ruling. Um and and I appreciate the um the briefing on both. It was it was uh it was very well done on both sides. So, um, with that being said, I do want to
hear the, uh, city's, um, presentation and your rebuttal from Mr. Laro, and then I can rule on the admissibility of the hearsay evidence that you are challenging. >> Very good. >> Thank you, Mr. Laro. All right. Does he like to make his presentation? >> Uh, so this case was presented already.
This was uh I presented this case the last hearing, I believe we were at. >> Did you get through the full presentation? >> I did. >> Okay. >> Uh, for the It was for the short-term rental. um three reviews that were in violation. >> Okay. In that case, does the city have any additional information that would
like to submit any additional testimony in uh in support of its case? >> Uh no, ma'am. >> Okay. >> And you did submit the Airbnb uh policy last time. >> I did.
>> Okay. And that in conjunction with the reviews is what is giving you the ability to say that this has become this is a used as a short term? >> Yes ma'am. I believe the Airbnb policy states that the reviews are supposed to be left within two weeks of the stay. Uh
based on the dates that the the reviews were left would put them all at least three of them in violation that we can pretty solidly say. So >> okay. And also in addition to that the Airbnb policy, does it also discuss who has the capability to leave the reviews?
>> I off the top of my head I don't >> Do you have a copy of that with you here today? >> Not with me. I can we can grab it. >> I think this Yes, I would like to see that. >> And I apologize. I didn't know it was going to come back into question for the >> only reason is is because it's coming
back on the question because of the city's argument with regard to the briefing. So my my understanding was that the city was going to present additional evidence to combat the the legal argument that Mr. Laro had made. >> Is there anything from the city on that?
>> Um your honor, our briefing basically was that um hearsay is admissible because it is a quasi judicial hearing. um the weight of the evidence and in the uh spirit of fairness, we actually defer to the
magistrate's um discretion in assigning that um the credibility um of that evidence which is alleged to be hearsay and I appreciated that in your briefing. The the other part of your briefing was that the argument that was to be made was that there was additional testimony
or there could be additional testimony that was be would be made because there wasn't um an evidentiary that your honor that was in the event that you chose to um rule in favor of
the motion to deny >> or to dismiss I'm sorry. So the the insufficient insufficient or inadmissible evidence is not a proper basis to dismiss. Understood that. Um but then you went into the uh >> we just wanted the opportunity to present the evidence to you. >> Okay.
>> And that is the extent of our evidence at this time. >> Okay. >> All right. And you do have a copy of the policy. >> Get the overhead, please. >> Uh I believe it's right here in the top. Uh host and guest and leave reviews for stays that have been booked and paid for. And then the next line down, it
shows the 14-day stay after 14 days. >> Anywhere in that does it define who a guest is? My understanding from having seen this before, it's not a guest of the the person renting the property. It's a the guest is the person >> and and that's what I'm understanding.
hosting I mean hosting guests um to leave reviews for stuff that was paid for for stays that were paid I would assume would be um >> is there anything else within that policy that might >> and that's what I'm I'm looking at here for you
>> and the reason I asked as part of Mr. Lero's argument was we don't know who's leaving the reviews if there are multiple reviews being left on a single property and I'm not seeing anything in the bullet points as far as I mean the first there is a first line here uh is this
the right one yeah the first line here where it says uh same thing hosting guest other. >> Okay. So, under finding reviews, it says once you're signed into your Airbnb account, you'll be able to find both
reviews written about you and by you on your public profile. If a reservation has more than one confirmed guest, the host review will appear on the profiles of all other confirmed guests. So, it does have to be a confirmed guest. So, that's the person that they are in privity of contract with. Okay. Thank
you. Okay, Mr. Laro, any additional evidence you'd like to or argument that you'd like to present? I don't have any additional evidence and obviously I I completely agree with the fact that as a quai judicial tribunal hearsay is admissible but I think the case that I
relied on more than anything was on page 10 of our supplemental brief and it was here evidence may be used for the purposes of supplementing or explaining other evidence in administrative proceedings but shall not be sufficient
in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible. over the objection in civil action. So that takes it up a notch relative to formality. And it's still our position that any of these responses from a guest or whoever filled this in that it's still hearsay. And if
that's all that the city has, then they don't quite get above that threshold. Even though hearsay is admissible, it can't be the only evidence that the city uses. And from our perspective, that is all that the city has is hearsay evidence from the Airbnb site. nobody to
authenticate that and I think I'm pleased Mr. Rivera put the regulations for every be into the record. So I appreciate that. But that was basically our position. >> And is your client here? Can I inquire of your client? >> I do not have my client is not here today. >> Okay.
>> So >> because that would clear it up, right? If they could definitively say they did not rent the property on a short-term basis, that would certainly clear up your client's >> liability in this. would um since this was primarily an evidentiary challenge
to the city's evidence uh and not our burden so to speak uh you know we we were just taking that approach. >> Okay and I can understand that. Um all right thank you Mr. Lo. I appreciate >> you for the privilege >> and thank you for the time and consideration. I know that this has probably been more extensive than
anything and I appreciate my colleague putting in all the extra work to put this in a a a procedural fashion where you've got more than enough to consider. Uh, I'll say this isn't the first time. It probably won't be the last. So, probably appreciate it, but thank you. >> My privilege. >> Um,
okay. I will say that this is a quasi judicial hearing. The the burden of proof is competent substantial evidence. Um, I do find that the um the evidence that the city presented presented does meet that standard. I do find that in
the um even within Mr. Laro's briefing in the supplemental briefing that says that the court one where he's citing it says the court found that while quas judicial proceedings are not controlled by strict rules of evidence and procedure they must adhere to the standards of basic fairness in order to afford due process. I do believe due
process was afforded in this scenario. Obviously notice and an opportunity to be heard um has been afforded to the property owner. Um the property owner understanding Miss Larose said he's not here or the representative of the property owner is not here today. the property has had a chance to come um and
uh put forth evidence and testimony. Um based on everything that I've heard here today, I do find that the property is in violation um of the city's code. Um I do find that these violations are and Mr. Low, you didn't have any argument as
to irreparable or irreversible. Correct. >> I'm sorry to hear you. >> You did not have any uh rebuttal as to the nature of irreparable or irreversible of the violations. Correct. >> I think that's the city's position on this. I mean, it it obviously can be repaired and reversed instantaneously.
So, >> and and how how so if the if the if the rentals have already been made, money's already exchanged hands, and the the guests have already left, how could it not be irreparable or irreversible? >> Well, our our position was which three? I guess there was there's there are six,
and we don't know the the actual income or duration of any of those six. um randomly you know if the limitation is three then three were circled but we don't know which ones though those were or how to quantify that and I would
think that there would be some level of uh I'll say unbridled discretion in picking three just randomly that would be the evidence of irreparable or irreversible uh that that requirement >> okay thank you miss
um and while I can appreciate that argument I do find that because The there are dates on the individual reviews that the they are in chronological order. The city and I understand picked randomly for a one-year period. Understood. Of the six
that are there, three of them clearly are are indicated that they're short-term rentals and that they are permissible. Three of them um uh are are short-term rentals based on time and abuing reviews. And so those are impermissible under the city's code.
So I do find that they are irre irreparable or irreversible. Um and the city is asking for a thousand for each one. >> Thousand per violation. Correct. >> Okay. I do not have any evidence as to how much each of
those. Mr. Rivera, do you recall what the average rental on each of those was? >> I do not. Not off the top of my head. No, ma'am. >> Okay. I don't have any idea as to how much was um collected on each of those rentals to equitably balance what that would be. Um in those cases, I typically
go ahead and cut that in half. So, I will say $500 for each of the three rentals um for a total of $1,500 for that fine plus the reasonable administrative cost to the city. >> Okay. >> Thank you, ma'am. and I will get that
order in writing um with all of my other findings in it as well um and get that to the parties. That one might take me a little bit longer, so I would expect a couple days on that one. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, moving on to item 3C. Case number 20240563, City of St. Pete Beach versus Dolphin
Watch the Third LLC. >> Morning, specialist Lucid Knight, code enforcement officer. Uh this is a continued case for the uh mini splits. Uh where
>> there can 471st Avenue violation. The property is in violation of 98-123.1 where permits were required. Uh they applied for after the fact permit. Uh
we're asking for 250 a day until the permit is open plus the 330 for admin fees. This is case 20240563. >> From which date are you asking? and go to it
from the um from the date that she's she uh requests for it. >> I'm sorry. >> The um what the date most? >> The date you make your final judgement. Yeah. Okay.
And I apologize. It's been some time. I've had a lot of other things come up like dolphin watch 2. So, um, can you explain to me they had the mini splits installed without a permit? >> Yes, ma'am. The city submitted gave them a notice of
violation that they needed to get an after- the-act permit. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Remind me why the substantial damage letter was put in. >> Why it was put in >> into evidence? >> Uh because they was like uh 64%.
And they applied they um changed the minute splits out without having a permit and I think they didn't have a hurricane hurricane. Okay. And I have not issued anything except for orders of continuence on this
case. >> Yes, that's all. >> Okay. And you're telling me that the after the fact permit has already been applied for. It just has not been secured. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Do you know how long or where in the peritting process that permit is? >> No, I do not.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything from the property owner? Good morning again, Luke Lao. on behalf of the respondent. We have taken issue with the substantial damage notice and I believe if I didn't
enter it into evidence last time, these mini splits were purchased and I'm trying to find my evidence here just in case I need to put a new copy on, but they were purchased before either hurricane and they were placed in I think I've got
the invoice here. They were purchased in it looks like I'm trying to find this here uh August 30th of 2024 which predates either hurricane by weeks and or at
least a month. Uh the first one was September 24th. The next one was Milton on first one obviously Helen September 24th 2024. Milton October 9th, 2024 and the invoice is from August of 2024. Um
the application for a permit was submitted back in January, but because of this confusion over the substantial damage issue, the permit hasn't been issued. And I think we've provided all of the evidence, the photographs, everything we could in response to the
substantial damage, but the substantial damage issue just does not implicate itself in this particular matter. the permits have been applied for. It's for, you know, work that was done and and items that were purchased before the hurricane. So, we just like to get our
permits and finish this up without going into that, I'll say, bureaucratic challenge of the substantial damage issues because it just predates those things. >> So, it predates the purchase, but it doesn't predate the installation. Is that correct? >> I believe the installation was was already done before then.
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> Uh but without a permit. without a permit. And and in speaking for my client, apparently the mini splits, you just plug them in. You put them in your window, you plug them in, and they go. And apparently there was no belief that that minimal
adjustment would need a permit. Apparently, the city thinks it does. My client certainly agreed that if that's the city's position, we'd be happy to apply for the permit, and they did back in January. >> Okay. And so the mini splits were installed prior to the two storms. So the issue, the holdup with getting the after the fact permit at this point is
whether or not it exceeds the substantial damage determination. >> Correct. >> Your client's position is it it's irrelevant because this was done prior to the storm. So this would have been >> That's correct. >> If it was properly permitted, it'd be a non-issue. >> It would be a non-issue. It's just the non-permitting. It's not a substantial
damage issue that we'd like to overcome. >> And is that your understanding of why the city has yet to issue the permits? >> That's exactly what we've been told. >> Okay. And I see that Mr. Curtis is here. Does do you have any information that you could share with us on the status of this? >> Good morning. Luke Curtis, building
official for the city of St. Pete Beach. Um, so bear with me just a moment. The question was asked about the status of the permit. I'm just trying to pull it up real quick here.
Okay. So, the after the fact uh permit for the mini splits and for the record, minits are not plug-in appliances. they are fully required to uh have permits applied for and approved prior to installation.
Uh that permit is in a status of additional documentation. So the permit techs uh didn't even send the permit into review because they were lacking documentation. And I'm getting to those comments.
Uh, okay. So, it looks like they were requesting uh there are some documents that were requested, but sorry, I'm trying to get up to speed with this one. >> I kind of put you on the spot, so sorry about that.
>> No, it's all good. It's all good. So the initial request was for a specific document, an AHRI certificate for the equipment that was received on so the permit application came in
on January 10th, I'm sorry, January 9th, 2026. And then the requested documentation came in on March 5th of 2026. Um,
and then I think it looks like the the only other thing that was notated here is that because we didn't have an appeal or an approved appeal of the SISD
uh I'm sorry, substantial damage substantial improvement that it was being held for that. So for that determination, the um pulling up the other permit here that we
used to track the the damages. Sorry, my computer's slow. Okay. Yeah. So, and keep in mind this, we have an estimate on the suspected damages. That's it's just that. And unless we get
um looking at unless we get complete photos or proof showing that it was not damaged, then we don't know. And sometimes that what that looks like is uh property owner allowing us inside the house to look to see that there was no
work done or if they have uh if they're just arguing the um fact that it was less damaged then they we can receive a quote from a contractor. Uh we did receive two photos but it didn't prove anything. It was
just a couple photos of the outside of the structure. Um and that's it. Does it make a difference that this is for an after-the-act permit for equipment that was installed prior to either of the storms and would not have impacted an SDSI
um an SDSI determination would never not have necessarily need to have been made prior to >> so technically speaking if it if that was in fact installed prior to the storms and a permit was pulled and it
was inspected and everything was good that permit would have been closed. It would not have counted towards them. Uh how the regulations work is though we look at damages and improvements that are done. So because there was no
permits take uh no permits applied for even if they had applied for a permit and that permit was still open, it would be counted towards that substantial damage substantial improvement determination. But because it is has been applied for, we've got to look at
all the numbers and to make sure that it's uh complying with the substantial damage, substantial improvement regulations. >> Do you have a timeline of when that would be completed if they were to get you your appeal or determination or or necessary
documents? >> So, um >> say say they turned them all in today and it was sufficient. Do you have any idea how long it would take to run that review and say, "Okay, you're good with your after the fact permit." >> I could potentially Well, with my schedule today, probably not today, but
w within within a matter of days, not weeks, but within a matter of days, I could make that determination. >> Okay. And do you know how long the SDSI appeal process is running? >> Um, right. We're we're we're doing it as they come in. So, I mean, some some of
them might not be immediate, but yeah, they're they're being addressed right away. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. I appreciate it. Um, Mr. Loro, do you have any questions for Mr. Curtis while he's here? >> Yes, I do, if I may. I know that when we looked at this, when we first got the
notice about the substantial damage, we looked at that and obviously just the timing of this was really what created the issue. I mean, the the you know, the August purchase and installation, then the September and October hurricanes, the city was out doing its job and doing
all the inspections that it needed. I can understand how this fell within the cracks, so to speak, or was overlooked or whatever. But long story short, the appeal process and everything else to go through that, you have to hire a number of professionals and it looked financially daunting to the property
owner because you need all kinds of people that you'd have to pay a lot of money to. If we can get an agreement that all we have to do is is maybe get an affidavit from the people that put it in or some photographs from the that period of time. I think that we did try
to send in a few. Uh there aren't a lot of photographs from that point. uh there was not a lot of substantial damage after the fact and it certainly had nothing to do with this permitting process, but I'm just trying to limit the expenses to my client as much as I can so that we don't need any, you know,
any additional professional architects or contractors or people like that. If we can just, you know, provide the evidence to address the concerns the city has, I would be much relieved and I'm sure my client would be much relieved. >> Okay. Okay. Um I do not have the ability
to control that SDSI appeal process or um make any determinations on that front. The only thing I am here to look at to see is if there is a violation and give a time frame to cure the violation. Clearly there is a violation. Those were installed prior to um obtaining a
permit. I'm trying to figure out how long is is acceptable to give your client time to go through whatever the processes are with the city. If you and the city want to talk to see if there's some sort of alternative process or what what relief is available to your client in order to get that after the fact
permit, obviously you can do that. I can't control that. >> Nobody wants me to control that. So that's good. >> Understood. >> Um so I am going to find that there is a violation of the stated code section. I am going to require that your client secure an after the-act permit um in
order to come into compliance. I am going to give What is today? The 13th, 45 days from the date of my order, which will put us at the May or the June hearing um
for compliance. The reason I'm giving 45 days is because it's unclear if you can work it out with the city. It's unclear if you're going to have to go through the appeal process, and it's unclear what that's going to look like for you. Um, if I give you 30 days, then we'll still be in the June hearing. So, I'll
give you an extra 15 and good as there's been good faith uh argument here today. So, 45 days from the date of my order. We will be back at on June 8th for a status hearing. Determine what the status of the property is. >> Very good. Thank you very much for the
privilege and I appreciate it to my my colleagues. >> Thank you very much and we'll see you next time. >> Thank you, Mr. Laro. Okay, moving on to case 3D. Case number 20250220, City of St. Pete Beach versus Mr.
Straus. >> Uh, good morning, Madam Magistrate. C Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Uh, this is a status hearing for 11:04 Passic Rowway uh to determine fines, assess any fines if need be. Um, as of right now, there's
there's been no changes to the property itself. Uh, I know that the property was split, so he did sell a portion of the property off. Um, but because there's no change, the city is seeking to begin fines at $250 a day starting today. Uh, I know Mr. Starkus
is here, >> so maybe he can speak on what's going on with the property. >> Okay. Mr. Starkis, >> I know the last time we spoke that you said that there was going to be a contract for sale. You were looking towards the end of March. >> Yes. Yes, ma'am. That's right. And
everything is uh in the situation that uh uh we have uh property on on the contract and buyers they are uh dealing with the lender to get uh uh final approval.
>> Uh and we already said the the day of closing uh uh June 1st. >> Okay. >> And uh buyers also here to to you know if uh if uh we need to you prove them that they are serious and they are
finalizing that uh I trust that transaction and >> yeah I trust your credibility >> that's where I am in the moment and uh >> I appreciate that. Okay, so everything kind of moved on as planned. You were thinking that end of March you would have you would have a contract in place and a closing date. You do have a
closing date of June 1st. >> Yes, we have >> waiting on final approval of funds in order to sell the property. >> Yes, that that's right. >> Okay, she can see that. Yes, it is. >> Okay. >> Okay. And can you flip it around so I
can see if it's executed? >> Okay. Okay. All right. So then at this point, I know the city is requesting fines. In my last order, I just ask that you stay in touch. And I know the property is changing hands. We're just trying to get compliance at this time. So, since the closing date is June 1st, I am going to
go ahead and just set a status hearing for the June 8th meeting um to see if the property is closed. If it hasn't, I and if there's anything else that comes up, we'll talk about that at that time. I know you're working towards
it. I don't want to assess any fines on the property in any way, shape, or form in order to interfere with Mr. Starkus' ability to sell the property, especially since there's a closing date out there. So, um I will just go ahead and continue this until the June 8th uh hearing and
we will set a status conference if we need to. If we need to see you, great. If not, it's changed hands and we need to move forward in another manner, we can do that at that time. >> Okay. >> And good luck to you, Mr. Sher. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Okay, moving on to 3E. Case number 20250705,
City of St. Beach versus Mark Lawyer. >> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Stea, city of St. Pete Beach, code enforcement. Uh, this is a status hearing to assess any fines for the property 2782 West Vina. I believe you gave them
14 days to come into compliance. Have pictures put on the overhead. So, these pictures were taken March 24th. You can see that the tags are still out of date on the pickup truck.
trailer tag. Same thing. Sure. Some of the weeds sprouting out across the property there. Another picture of the overgrown vegetation. More of the overgrown. So, the order was for them to have the
vehicles either registered or removed. Um, and to remove the, you know, the overgrowth um property failed to do so. So, the city's asking that we start fines on March 25th >> until compliant. >> And you're requesting $250 a day. >> Yes, ma'am. Plus admin.
>> And what are the admin costs? $325 >> uh 330 >> $330 ad uh administrative fees. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Um, anyone here on behalf of Mark Lawyer or is Mr. Lawyer here? Lawya, Mr. River, have you had any
communication with the property owner? >> Uh, no, ma'am. Uh, I know there was previous cases. It seems like it was a similar thing. Uh, just no response. So, this wasn't a repeat violation or something. The previous cases, I believe, was a a dock violation if I'm not mistaken. It came few years before I
got here. But, I have no I've had no communication. And I know going past the house I see the trash can moving, but I don't know who's moving the trash can. I can't speak on >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um I will find that the property is in violation of the state of code section and my order. I am going to
assess a fine of $250 a day beginning on March 25th until the property comes into compliance. Um as well as a $330 in reasonable administrative fines of the city. >> Thank you. >> Right. Moving on to 3F, case number 202500079, City of St. Pete Beach versus Pette
Bosellac. >> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Uh status hearing for 20250079, 1706 passway. Um we're requesting this to be continued to July. I did speak with um planning and zoning. So the
permits were applied for um they had to go through the historic board. The property is historic. Um, now there's I guess some back and forth with uh they need a variance. They're not going to be able to get a variance or even be heard until uh I believe it's June if I'm not
mistaken. Okay. >> Um so no sense on bringing the property owner back before the variance could be heard. So we'd like to just continue it to July. Hopefully by then we'll be able to put this to bed. >> Okay. Um is Miss Bosella here?
Do you have any problem with continuing this until July? Miss Bosella, >> Mr. River has everything under control. I will not be able to be present, but I spoke with this morning. >> Okay. >> The I in July. >> Yeah. I don't know if we can do the hearing over the phone.
>> Well, just >> Okay. Well, we can figure that out at the time. Um but Okay. So, there's no objection to the continuence then. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Miss Pell. All right. I will go ahead and order the case be continued until July until the July 13th hearing.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Bella. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> All right, moving on to 3G. Case number 20250218, City of St. Pete Beach versus Robert Putnham. >> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. See Rivera again, City of St. Pete Beach code
enforcement. Uh this is a status hearing to determine compliance with the property. This was the one that the uh back porch area had collapsed due to the storm. Uh the real estate agent represented the property owner. Uh I believe that they have a a buyer lined
up. Um yeah, I I'm not sure where they're at as far as the purchase goes. I I received an email saying that they had somebody interested in the property, but I'm not sure where they're at with the status of the property. >> Okay. All right. Is anyone here on behalf of Mr. Putnham?
Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Putnham? I don't see his agent here. And you said you talked to them and they had a buyer interested, but you don't know if there's a contract. >> An email um asking, you know, where we were going with it, that they had someone lined up. Um I I received one
email from her since the last hearing. Um asked me what they what could they do to close out the case. I unfortunately I can't close out the case until the property is compliant, >> right? Um, and you know, it's that was her concern >> and they've done no steps to >> they there's no permit application for
demo or anything like that. Um, and there was another email that came in from I believe it was planning and zoning asking what the options that they had. Um, I guess the buyer the potential buyer emailed planning and zoning, but again, it doesn't give me a clear determination on what the plans are with
the property. >> Okay. >> So, I I mean, at this point, I feel maybe we can start fines as of today. Um since there's been, you know, lack of communication and no effort moving forward. >> Okay.
>> All right. Um I am going to find um that the property is still in violation of the state of code sections and my order. I am going um when did you when does the city requesting the fines to start? >> I would uh probably today. Let's I would say today would be a fair enough uh starting point. We did give them an
opportunity since they were trying to sell the property. So nothing was There was nothing in the order that said they had to come in compliance by a certain date. Um so I would I would feel fair would be today. Um or maybe a date certain from today.
>> Yeah. Hold on. Let me read my order one more time. Okay. Okay. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the state of code sections. Um I am going to um assess a $250 fine per day starting
today's date until the property is brought into compliance. Um and the reasonable administrative cost of the city is over 330 >> $330. Yes, ma'am. >> And the reasonable administrative cost of the city. Um and I'm doing that just for purposes of the record. My order
stated that the respondent needed to make every effort to communicate with the city's code enforcement department on the status of the property and to make a good faith effort to move towards compliance which um we don't have any evidence here today to support that they've done that. Um
because we have no information from them and there's nobody here to to uh fill us in. So um $250 a day started >> a status hearing to determine compliance and assess any fines. Um I I didn't hear from Mr. Seaison. However, on my own
accord, I did come across he had a permit for the sewer line. Okay. That uh so he was able to obtain the permit for that. That permit was issued 43. >> And I do have photos showing he so when he was here the last time he stated that most of the stuff had already been taken care of. I was hoping to get a phone
call so I can come out and it's on the property including the front. Um they it he does have it appears to have a u a tenant in there that's working on I think they're turning it into an art studio if I'm not mistaken. Um so the scaffolding and stuff that's out there is them trying to do the little
touch-ups here and there. So I'm not going to hold them for that. Just what I brought into uh when I presented the case. Um at this time I find the property to be in compliance with the order. Um and we're just asking for administrative
cost. >> Okay. Right. And is there anyone here on behalf of Mr. Saison? >> Seeing no one. Okay. I am going to find that the property is now in compliance. >> Special man. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Your honor. Um, unfortunately, I think
there's a small typo in the um, final administrative order um, saying that today's hearing was scheduled for the 12th rather than the 13th. We would like to bring that to your attention. If you want to continue it, we're okay with that.
>> Have you had any conversations with Mr. Saison? >> Uh, not particularly about this case. There's been um, we have a group email chat about some other properties. I so I do know he is in the city. I know he travels a lot. I do know he's in the
city, but we have haven't had any conversation about 4105 Golf Boulevard. No, ma'am. >> Okay. Um Yeah. Well, I can understand that April 12th is a Sunday. >> Yeah. >> So, that would be just continue it
>> kind of impossible to do that. Um, I mean the property is in compliance. I, you know, I think it would, since the property is in compliance, I am not going to continue it. I think that's too much time, too much money. What I am
going to do, um, is go ahead and say the property is in compliance and I'm not going to assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. Um because then then there's nothing for him to combat. Um
unless the city has an argument against that. >> No, your honor, that's that's very fair. >> Okay. So, I will find that the property is now in compliance and um >> no, >> I will there will be no fines or administrative costs assessed on that
one. >> Um just out of curiosity, there was this I'm going to call it a sinkhole. the depression that was there. Did the Has he been able to work that out with today? No, that was not kind of >> I I did see it this morning, but um based on your ruling at the last hearing
because we couldn't provide an actual answer, I didn't >> seem to to bring it up. I kind of left it on the owner to do what they needed to do. >> Sounds good to me. Okay, moving on to three I case number 2023060, City of St. Pete Beach versus Mark Brick
and Lynn Brick. >> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera again, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Um it's a status hearing for the unpermitted auxiliary structure that was built behind the property. Uh I know they were um
and to my understanding they were applying for a variance to to kind of keep it. Um I haven't heard from I know they had retained counsel at the time. I hadn't heard from councel. Um and to also my understanding there is a lot of incomplete documents that haven't been
submitted for the auxiliary structure. Um this the application from I understand it has been incomplete. Um so at this time based on how much time has gone on with this case city is requesting that we begin fines starting
today of $250 a day. >> Okay. Um I don't see Miss Moore here, but is there anyone here on behalf of Mr. Mrs. Brick? >> Yes. Good morning. I've also got Mr. Broadick with me as well. Good morning. >> Martha Bolton. I'm with Ms. Moore's uh
former office. she's left the firm and I'm the new attorney assigned to the file. Uh I have been in communication uh with the city planning office uh with regard to the status of the variance application. Ms. Moore did submit an application and um it needed a new
survey and a new survey was done March 26th. So now we're doing a new variance application um which I expect to have submitted this week uh for compliance review and in the hopes of getting it on
the schedule for the um or completeness review rather to get it on the schedule for the board of adjustment at their May meeting ideally. Um Mr. >> Are there reasonable deadlines that you can meet to get it on the agenda for the May meeting from your side of things? I
understand you can't control >> in communication with um uh the planning office at the end of last week. Um I I was led to believe that that was possible if we get it in this week. Um that if it doesn't make the cut off for
the May meeting, we would at least be on the June schedule. >> Okay. >> And we do have all the pieces for the uh the amended variance application. Okay. So, it is at the as soon as it's submitted by the remainder of this week, um if it's heard at the May meeting,
whether or not it's granted, it would at least be be able to Okay. Yes. >> All right. >> Anything else that you'd like to present? >> Uh well, uh Mr. Brick who is here has taken great steps to um meet all of the conditions um that were outlined in the
communication from the uh planning office um from January of this year, end of January. He's um he's gotten the new survey now um and has addressed the um items um with regard to
the structure having plumbing. It no longer has plumbing. There was a wall taken out so that there's not an enclosed space that's in excess of 80 feet. There's no need for a height variance and the only variance at this point that's going to be sought would be
with regard to setback. Um, and it's a reasonable uh variance request. We we optimistic about it. Uh, Mr. products pool has a a retaining wall that um cannot be moved and the um maximum
setback would be about 17 feet and then the um requirement is 20 feet seeking a three feet variance there and approximately three feet on the side for the same reason. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um anything else from the city?
>> No, ma'am. We just I mean if you're looking to continue it, we just ask that uh communication just stay strong. There's been no communication since the last year. >> Okay. Well, and it does make sense that if Miss Moore is no longer with their firm and she was the point of contact. >> Yeah.
>> That that probably had a little bit to do with it. >> Just state that to make sure that we keep the communication ongoing. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. Well, I will go ahead and we will come back for a status hearing on June 8th. Um hopefully it will have gone through the variance process and then we can determine if it
meets the variance if it doesn't what what the options are after that. Um and I would just I will put in the uh the order just to please make sure that you stay communicating in communications with the code enforcement department as well as the planning department so they know where they are in the process.
>> And please just make sure I have your email address um since I was communicating to Miss Moore before. It's the same as Ms. Moors, but it's Martha. M A R T H A coats like multiple jackets. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. >> Okay, moving on to 3J, case number 202501, City of St. Pete Beach versus Beach House 78 LLC. >> I Aqua Ruckshell representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status hearing for the property at
51079th Avenue. Um, your your last order gave them 15 days until March 23rd to comply. I did not hear from anybody that they had cleaned up the landscape. However, I did go out this morning and the property is compliant. Overhead,
please. That's the debris that they just trimmed off and it will get collected and it's no longer overgrown. So, the city's um not asking for any fines, just administrative costs of $330. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone here on behalf of Beach House 78th LLC?
Anyone here on behalf of Beach House78th LLC? Okay, seeing no one, um I will find the property is in compliance. I'm not going to assess any fines, but I will assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. >> Okay, >> moving on to new cases. 4A, case number
20260150, city of St. Pete Beach versus JSC Group LLC. >> Hi, Aquarell St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20260150. The respondent is JSC Group. Violation
address is 51079th Avenue. description. The property is in violations of section 98-123.1 permits required of the code of ordinance for the of the city of St. Pete Beach. The case summary, the initial inspection
was on February 24th, 2026. The notice of violation dated and male certified March 17, 26 and the notice of hearing dated and posted on the same day of the property. Oh, not the same day, March 31st, 2026. This is a true and accurate
representation of uh what I witnessed the affidavit of posting on March 31st at the property address. So this sales history record here shows that the property was purchased by JSC Group back in February of 25 and it is currently listed on the market as of
February 26. This is the sale listing as of February 20th, 26 showing that the the new home that's uh for sale. A little bit of description about this home. It has luxury vinyl planking, um,
a quartz countertop, backsplash, floating shelves, herring bone LED lighting, spa inspired primary bathroom, garden tub, floating vanity, um, and a covered lenai, new new HVAC,
new water heater, and newer roof, impact resistant windows. Again, home summary of the renovations that were done to this home. As illustrated previously,
the property um owners received a letter from the building department um saying that this home was substantially damaged and that they have not receive they had not applied for a hurricane repair permit. So, they were asked to provide um the status of of the of the home and
they said that they received zero damage at the property. And so we're asked to provide us with pictures of the pre-torm to show that uh there was no damage since then. And this is the inter two interior
pictures that they provided. This is an illustration um of the picture of the home prior to the storms. Believe this is taken back in maybe 22 was the last Google picture I could find. But you can see the door um the window in the door is different to the
windows on the side as well. Compare that to um they also have an exterior lenai. This was the picture pre-torm pretorm and these are the current pictures of the new house here. So you can see that
the door has changed. Also, the windows have been updated. This is the current lenai and the backyard as well with the current lenai. This is the new interior.
Front door entryway. The new kitchen. New kitchen. The new lounge and dining area. the new master bathroom, the second bathroom that was the uh added to the property, updated bedrooms.
So they had an SD determination of substantially damaged 67% of the structure value. They also received flood insurance uh claim money of 110,000 received for the building. There was the hurricane damage letter as I said sent on January 6 requesting the
owner's response and they provided us with the pre-torrm pictures. This was their response. They selected option one that they had received no damage. So the corrective action is that the property must obtain a hurricane repair after the fact permit for both the
interior and the lenai renovations made. The property is not compliant and the recommended fine is $250 per day from the date of your order plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. The city would like to ask the
building official to come up and comment on this property. >> Before Mr. Kurs comes up, I have a question. You provided evidence um in the PowerPoint that says that the property was sold on February 13th, 2025 >> to the current owners.
>> To the current owners. Yes. Correct. >> And then you're saying that they've done these renovations after 2025 and the storms occurred in 2024. >> Correct. >> Are when you say that they've reserved NFIP flood insurance money, who res
received the NFIP flood insurance money? that that that's not clear, but that's to prove that there was substantial damage. >> Okay. And >> whether he >> requests for the permits are you're saying that you that the current property owners are the ones that did
the renovations in the house, >> correct? >> Not the private property owners. >> Correct. >> And the listings that you posted are for the new listing. Okay. >> Correct. >> Just wanted to clarify. Thank you, Mr. Curtis.
So I'm also the flood plane manager for the city. So as uh that role part of what we do is uh we receive data from NFIP. Now NFIP is very tight with that information. So I I've
got to be careful uh how much I make public knowledge of that. But there were claims. Uh the dollar amount is is sent to us. As a matter of code enforcement, uh they don't have any qualms uh with us dulging that information. But um in this
instance, there was an estimated 36 in again estimated 36 in of storm water inside the home. um when uh NFIP pays out a claim, they're looking to the municipality to enforce the regulations.
So in this case that proper repairs were done so that somebody just doesn't abandon their home and take the money and run. So that is part of the issue. The other part is uh life safety. So at 36 in there is a significant exposure of
the electrical system to the storm water. Salt water is very corrosive. We've seen numerous fires throughout the city. Um this is the my my strongest point that I try to emphasize to property owners, contractors that these
things need to be addressed. So in this case, we want to make sure that this home is safe. So if this is being sold that somebody doesn't inherit these issues that are potentially there. And to your knowledge, there has been no permit that was pulled to make any of
these renovations. Or would a permit have needed to be pulled to make any of these renovations? >> Permits would have needed to have been pulled. And I can tell you, sorry, bear with me a moment. >> Okay. So, uh, here, let me just pull this up so I can see exactly what the
status is. My apologies. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So, I I don't see any permits here. 510 79th, right? >> 510
>> 510 79th Avenue. So, I I see permits from March of 24 and before, but no permits have been applied been applied for for any work on this structure. And what were the March of 24 permits that were
>> um March 24 was >> replacing exterior front door size for size. >> That was the only one that was >> Yeah. Let me just see. Um yeah,
just looking to see when that was issued, >> but nothing for interior renovations or windows, anything like that? >> No. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And so for the record, that door was inspected on uh May 9th of 24.
>> Okay. >> And that permit is closed. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Crooks. Anything else, Mr. Director Shell? >> Nothing from the city, but I believe the there is a representative here for the owner. >> Um, and who is here for JSC Group LLC?
>> No. No. Go ahead. If you could go ahead and state your name and your affiliation with JSC for the record. >> Yes, ma'am. My name is Glenn Alexander. Uh, my affiliation with um them is um they do um they do they serve me a lot of of work far as renovations, landscaping, and things of that nature.
And uh he also gave me a um power attorney on his behalf. >> Do you have a POA for JSC? >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. If you could just submit that to the city that way they have that. >> And has Mr. Alexander been sworn? >> No. Uh yes, sir. I swore in at the beginning. >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Um Mr. Alexander, can you explain to me what what happened on this property? >> Uh I have a letter from um JSC that um kind of explains it. Um do you want me to read it? >> That and I can if you want to give it to me that way I can read it. You want me to give it to you, you ma'am? >> Yes, please. >> Do I come up?
>> Um, you can you can get show it to the city first to make sure that they Is that something that you've seen before, Miss Recto? Also, I have the um the um the the power um not the power attorney, but the um the um permit um the JC application with the affidavit and the
the GC that's in because um I guess what he's asking for is like an extension to get whatever need to be done and also he has the actual um general um general contractor information on here as well. So, whatever needs to be done for the because the I guess you only got a
13-day extension and you kind of need a little bit more time, ma'am, >> to get some of the work done, some of the renovations done as well. >> I have all the documentation from St. um that he that he had me print out for
him. Um, Mr. Supers, did you want to see this at all? you know, if there's any objections to submitting that evidence. >> And also, ma'am, attorney, he also gave me a pretty much a docu list of all the
history from the the start as well for >> So, I guess my question is, um, JSC purchased the property in February of 2025, correct? After the storms? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. and then proceeded to do renovations without having the proper permits. Is that correct?
>> Well, I'm I'm just being ref I'm just rep, you know. >> Well, you are here to represent JSC. I know it's not this is not your cup of tea, >> but if you have the information, please let me know. If you don't have it, you can just say you don't have that information. That's okay. >> No, I don't I don't have that information. And I thought I thought
what I had in front of me was pretty much everything I needed to prevent present for you all cuz according when I spoke to him it was pretty much he's already been complying with the city of um uh St. Pat Beach and he's won an extension because you got I guess he only got like a 13-day extension.
>> The notice of violation was issued and he had 13 days in order to to come into compliance. Mr. Rectell, it does say in the information that um Mr. Alexander handed me that they were in contact with you. The property owner was in contact with you. Do you recall any conversations with the property owner?
>> Sorry. >> Oh, I'm sorry, ma'am. >> This is the wrong case. But anyway, um I had spoken to the property owners to um but their argument was that they had zero damage. >> Not that they needed permits. Yes,
absolutely. That they needed permits because we we were saying you did do renovations and they were saying they didn't do renovations. So, they were then um asked to provide the pictures pre-torrm, etc. And now they're um I believe they are under the realize that
they do have to apply for a permit. However, what was received on 331, I believe, was incomplete because there was no GC signature on it. >> Okay. And plus the diagram that was submitted for the property
>> was incorrect because it only shows one bathroom when we know that there are two overheads. >> So it says the application has not been received. >> Okay. >> Okay. Anything else, Mr. Alexander, that you want me to know before I make my ruling on this? I know that they're just looking for an extension time. Do you have anything?
>> Correct. >> I mean, I didn't know. I mean um she just um I mean every I mean they had gave me a pretty much the violation the notice of violation and all the I guess the email traffic that they had that they had been uh I guess collaborating with.
>> Okay. Okay. Um I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. It's very clear from the evidence and the testimony given here today that renovations were done without a permit and that a permit is now being applied for. Um I am going to give um
45 days >> okay >> uh to come into compliance and that means to secure a permit. Um I don't know if that's based on everything that we've heard that might be reasonable. It just depends on what's submitted and what arguments are had. So 45 days from the date of my order um I will get you a
copy of the order. Make sure I have your email address. That will get sent to you since you have power of attorney. Um, and I'm just going to ask that you relay to JSC Group that whomever they send at the next hearing, which will be June 8th,
um, that they send someone that can answer questions specific to the property. So, if that's the GC or whoever was doing the renovations, while I appreciate your time here, Mr. Alexander, you don't have any more information that I need. So, they need to send somebody that actually has the information. Um otherwise things are not going to necessarily be cleared up and
they they will be subjected to fines. >> Okay. >> Madam Special Master. >> Yes. >> Before you finalize your order, could we get a status update, even an application within the next two weeks, a status update at the May 11th hearing with
the condition of an additional 30 days as you're as you you mentioned, which would total 45 for them to be in compliance. Your honor, we would like to see some movement to actually applying for the permit within a shorter period of time
and then securing the permit as you've mentioned at a later point. >> Okay. >> Bearing in mind the property is being sold. >> Understood. I think the the the point is compliance, right? Um but and you the permit has been
submitted but it's not been >> there's no completeness review. >> Correct. The application is incomplete. >> So the a permit application has been submitted already. It's just not a completed application. >> I was looking at Luke Shake. Is that No, >> it has been accepted because it's incomplete. >> But it's been submitted. It's just not
it's not it's not in review because it's not completed. email, not through. >> Oh, through the portal or anything like that. >> And do we know who is the GC already registered with the city? >> Lucas, the GC. >> Do we know if the GC is already registered with the city?
>> I mean, >> is Mark can't pronounce that last name >> here. Glasses. So, your honor, we're just looking for an interim step, >> right? Which I'm trying to figure out if
it's not if it's been submitted under understand through email. I'm just trying to figure out if it's going to take more time for them to register the GC and get the permit application submitted. They might need a little bit more. I'm just trying to figure out the timing on that. I got it. Intermediate step. >> So, who is the GC on the
>> uh his last his first name is Mark. His last name is spelled M O R >> without an update. >> Mr. Curtis, do you have any information on that? >> I don't. >> No. Okay. M O R. >> I don't know if that's a I s o t a um I
don't know what these two letters are. I can't >> Okay. He got glasses on. He might be able to help me out. >> It's written in contractor language, >> right? Doctor's handwriting. So it the the name he's trying to So we
have a plumbing contractor and an electrical contractor that has signed and notorized this >> but no GC >> but it's no GC the who is listed as the plumbing contractor is has signed on as
the general's contractor which wouldn't be allowed unless he has multiple licenses but I Oh, it does list does list the GC license. >> It could be that he does, but just >> Oh, go ahead, sir. >> I'm sorry. >> Just want to be able to speak into the
mic so that it's it's clear in the recording. Um, so for the record, a permit application has not been submitted. It is not in the permit system. Okay. If they emailed a permit application, that is not uh the
appropriate Exactly. Uh so they would need to actually apply for it, get it into the system, uh give us all the supporting documents and um uh pay the fees that are that are included with that. >> And then I if if I might if I just get
clarification, the is the contractor that is signing off on this is that the contractor that did the work? >> I I I won't want to answer that question because I'm not privy to that answer, sir. Um, I just know that he wanted me to stand in the gap because I have done some landscaping work for him and I'm
lensured to do handyman things with my company and I've done work with him in the past and you know he's in West Palm. So, he just really wanted an ext he he wants to get these things done. So, he wants this extension to be able to take care of >> I think he has some unrealistic
expectations about what is going to happen here today. So, if you could just again just let him know whoever he sends in. Well, we'll do one for May and one for June. Whoever he wants to send in May and whoever he wants to send in June needs to have concrete information. He can't send you if you don't have the information. He can send you, but it's
not going to work to his favor. >> Understood, ma'am. >> Totally understand. >> Okay. So, I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. I'm going to allow for seven days from the date of my order to apply for the permit. Just an application through the proper channels. We are going to meet back here at for status conference in May um to determine
whether or not the application has been submitted. The second part of my order is that after the application, they're going to secure a permit within 45 days of my order, and then we are going to be back here in June as a two-step process to figure out if that if the permit has been secured. So, two steps, seven days
to apply, 45 days to secure the permit, and we will have a status conference on May 11th. >> I would I get that in an email. I'm sorry. >> I am going to send an order that will have all that information. If I have your email address on the sign-in sheet, you will get a copy of that. Um, I'm
also going to just mail it to the JSC group also because I think >> they need to understand what's kind of happening and then at the June 8th hearing we will make a determination as to whether fines should be imposed. >> Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you, Mr. Alexander. I appreciate
your time today. >> Thank you, ma'am, for allowing. >> Okay, moving on to 4B. Case number 20260058, City of St. Beach versus I'm so sorry. Um, Rim Vidas and Ruda Balkus.
>> Yes. >> Ayaka Rockell representing City of St. View Beach Code Enforcement. Uh, this is case number 20260058. The respondent is Revitis and Ruda Balkus. Violation address 8380 Gulf
Boulevard. Violation description. the properties in violations of sections 46-33 enumeration 1B 1213 section 98-66 residential and commercial property maintenance AM 22A B2 and
section 22.12 tree removal permit required of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was February 4th, 2026. A courtesy notice was dated and mailed certified
February 5th, 2026. The notice of violation dated and mailed certified on March 9th, 2026. And a notice of hearing dated and posted on the property March 31st, 2026. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. This is the
affidavit of posting on March 31st at the property address 8380 Gulf Boulevard. Um, in the picture you'll see a large uh it's dead tree in the front yard from a few angles.
This is also the unregistered trailer that was on the property March 5th. taken from all angles showing that there is no registration plate at all to the trailer.
March 19th, the tree is still present. So, the corrective action, the property must remove the dead tree after obtaining a permit and register the trailer to remain on site or it must be relocated. The property is actually now compliant. Um, so there we're not asking
for any uh fines, just 330 and administrative costs. The tree was cut down by the owner. Um, the trailer was actually owned by somebody else and they were just you parking their trailer at the property. So that took a little bit
longer to get that moved, but that as of um last Thursday they moved the trailer. So it is now compliant. >> Perfect. Right. Any here on anyone here here on behalf of the property owner? If you'll come up, state your name and if you have anything to say, please let me
know. >> My name is Remy Des. And uh what else did you need to know? >> Any nothing unless you have anything that you want to tell me. It sounds like the property is in compliance now. >> Yes. Yes. I'm just sorry it took uh that long to uh cut down the tree.
>> Oh, we appreciate Well, I appreciate that you came into compliance. Makes my job easier. No. >> Um, so no fines then are going to be assessed, but the city is asking for $330 in administrative costs. Do you have any response to that or are you okay? >> Oh, I I of course I'd prefer not to. >> Yeah.
>> Or if I could pay half of it. No, I No, no, I understand, your honor. I understand completely. >> Well, thank you from so much, Mr. Balkas. Okay. Uh, anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. I will find that the property is in violation of the stated cosections. The property, however, is now in compliance. I'm not going to um assess
any fines, but I am going to assess the $330 in reasonable administrative cost. >> Thank you, your honor. Thank you for your patience. >> Much and you have a wonderful day. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Moving on to 4C, case number
20260112, City of St. Pete Beach versus LMP Ranch LLC. >> Okay. Aar Shield, representing the city of St. Pete Beach, code enforcement, case 020260112. The respondent is LMP Ranch LLC.
Violation address 8840 Gulf Boulevard. Description: Properties and violations of section 46-33 enumeration 2 and 12. Section 6.12 commercial accessory and temporary equipment structures, portable buildings, and trailers, dumpsters, and
commercial tents. D5 section 6.13 residential accessory structures. E 4 A and section 9865 unsightly conditions 4 of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach.
Case summary initial inspection was February 13, 2026. Notice of violation dated and mailed certified February 24th, 2026. And the notice of hearing was dated and posted on the property on March 31st, 26.
This is true and accurate representation of what I witness the affidavit of posting on March 31st at the property address. So, back on February 13th, um there were um multiple dumpsters and storage units um on the
property with building material, a sand pile like the portable storage unit. And then on March 19th there were additional new building materials
appeared. Um again additional looks like pavers now and the dumpster was still present more more building material rock or sand. So this property didn't have any valid
permits on the on the on the permit on the property. Um and when investigated it actually had an old dock permit that had expired um last year. So the owners were contacted and um they didn't realize that the permit had expired and
therefore all that building material wasn't allowed to be on the property. They then decided to form their own LLC and become their own uh contractor to complete the work. And um initially they wanted to open a landscaping company I believe but that didn't comply cuz this
is a commercial property had to be a a GC. So they opened a GC company and they had to get that permitted through the city BTR etc. So that caused a little bit of delay. So as of April 2nd they have now applied as their own owner as a
company applied for a paver permit um which is still in review. So, I wanted to call Luke Curtis up to just give you the status of that permit and review. So, just to update on the status of the
permit. So, it was applied on 4226. A review was completed on 47, five days later. uh and um comments sent out. No response has been received on those comments
and so that the permit is still in an in review status. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. And Miss Retoell, um do you happen to know um are the building materials still sitting on the site? >> Yes, they are, ma'am.
>> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner, LMY Ranch LLC? Yes. >> If you could please state your name and affiliation with the LLC for the record. >> Uh Chelsea Lumpkkey and the owner of the house. >> Okay. Hear me?
>> Yeah. If Are you the uh the principal of the LLC? >> Yes. >> Um can you tell me what's going on? >> Um yes. We're actually waiting for I believe Sorry, my husband's been dealing with this, but he's waiting to hear from a Brandon Barry from the city. I don't know who that is, but um we got I think
he got an email on Friday from the city saying that we're I don't think we're waiting to hear if we're allowed to put pavers over you could maybe you might be able to answer this. Um over an utility easement. I guess that um the
um sorry I'm trying to read his email that he just sent me. Um they said that we couldn't put the um we can't put the pavers over a utility easement. So we were waiting for Brandon to I guess the city is telling us to
differing in information. I'm not sure. So we did apply for the permit which the city made this super hard. We're business I mean our our home is in our LLC. Um and so we couldn't we were going to put the papers oursel. We didn't realize that our seaw wall uh when we
put our seaw wall in um we didn't realize that that that permit was no longer valid. So we tried to apply for a permit ourselves was told we couldn't because we our homes in our LLC. So >> it doesn't qualify for an owner. >> Yeah, >> that's a state statute. That's not really the city. So
>> Okay. Well, whoever. Yeah. Which when I I went u when we first got this letter in February came here to try to get a permit. So we've been try we have been trying since February to do this but >> Okay. So, >> and so at this point you are saying that the Brandon Barry, which my understanding is the planning department's
>> not sure that they're they're going through that process. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Anything else that you'd like me to know? >> No, just working on it. >> Appreciate Miss Lumpkey. >> Um, anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Um, Mr. Curs, I know you're not in the planning department, but do you have
any idea? You're saying that you sent out the comments were sent out from the building department or from the planning department on the permit >> from from planning and zoning. Uh they sent out the comments and um >> and so those haven't been addressed yet, but it sounds like maybe there's some communication between
>> Correct. Yeah. If if you've been in touch with Brandon Barry, he's the planning department. they may be trying to work through the issues, but uh but yeah, there were there were a couple comments that were sent out to uh address sideback uh setbacks and um
I'm just breezing through this. See if there's other things. Um yeah, looks looks Oh, yeah. And then um yeah, then there is a comment here about um the utility easement. Uh so yeah, if
if they're in communication with planning and zoning and working on this, then that that might be why we haven't received anything. But it was >> it was just uh just resulted not that long ago uh on the 7th.
>> Okay. Um and the violation is not for not having a permit. The violation is for having unsightly conditions on the property with regard to the building materials. Miss Rectell, if the permit is secured, can those materials remain there for the duration of
>> If the permit If the permit is secured. Yes. >> If the permit is secured. >> Correct. >> But if the permit is not secured, then they have as it stands, it's a violation. It can't be there unless there's an active permit. >> Correct. >> You guys have been giving me some really fun ones.
Thanks. Um Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Um I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. The remedy is going to be to come into compliance. Uh whether that is to secure a permit so that you can
have the construction materials on the property or to clear the construction materials from the property. From my position, it's irrelevant to me. It's however you can come into compliance. I will give you 30 days from the date of my order to come into compliance because that might give you some time to go back and forth with the city and get a a permit secured so that those materials
can remain there. Um that being said, 30 days will put us at the June hearing, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So 30 days from the date of my order, we will come back on June 8th if necessary to have a status hearing and figure out what's going on with the property at that time.
Um and just make sure I have your contact information. I will send you an order. It will have all that information. It just stay in contact with the city and >> you should be okay. >> Thank you. >> So clarification is you said the June >> hearing
>> because if I do 30 days from the date of my order, >> 30 days from today is May 13th. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And it's >> Yeah. >> The next hearing is May 11th. So 30 days doesn't do it. >> Correct. I was asking about the fines that you you you're saying that property
is in violation. the property is in violation and I'm allowing 30 days for the property to come into compliance. So whether that's removing all the building materials from the property or securing a permit so that those building materials can be on the property for the duration of the project doesn't matter to me. But if in 30 days those building
materials are still there and there's no permit then we can discuss fines at the June. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Moving on to 4 D. Case number 20260170.
City of St. Pete Beach versus Charisma Morasi. >> Yes. What's happened here? 179. This isn't it. How did we get out of order? It's the one right before that one.
>> It's going to go the other way. It's the one before it >> before. >> Mhm. >> Gates above it. >> The JDH is the one after the one we're on. So this is Morasi keeps ending in 170.
This is further down. Okay. >> JDH holdings. Now >> there's my link. doesn't appear to be there. So I may have to ask for a continuation until next special magistrate. >> 170.
>> I have the PowerPoint in my packet, but that doesn't do us any good. >> Okay. All right. Um, is anyone here on behalf of Charisma Rasi? >> Okay. All right, then. I will go ahead and continue this hearing until the May 11th hearing date.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Moving on to 4E case number 20260171. City of St. Pete Beach versus JDH Florida Holdings. Okay. >> I Aar Shell representing City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement case or
20260171. The respondent is JDH Florida Holdings LLC. Violation address 9111 Gulf Boulevard. Violation description of the property is in violations of section 8.2A to aid permitted principal uses and structures of the code of ordinance of
the city of St. Pete Beach. The case summary, initial inspection, March 30th, 26. Notice of violation dated and mailed as certified March 31st, 26. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property, March 31st, 26.
This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. The affidavit of posting on March 31st at 911 Golf Boulevard. This is a short-term rental Airbnb posting for the property.
Um, this illustration here shows that you are able to book for short-term five night reservation. This is the home as advertised on Airbnb entry. the pool.
There were three reviews as of March 31st, 2026. And this screenshot was taken March 31st, 2026. You can see that um one review
um was one week ago before the end of March. Then another one two weeks ago stayed about a week and another one one week ago also. So here are the three short-term rentals in March of 26.
This is the Airbnb review policy that we've included. The corrective action is the property can only be rented monthly. the property is not compliant, then the recommended fine is $1,000 per violation. There's three reviews plus $330 administrative
cost and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. Thank you. Anyone here from JDH Florida Holdings LLC? Okay. If you can come, please state your name and your affiliation with the corporation for the record.
>> My name is James House. I'm the owner. >> Okay. And you are the principal of the LLC? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, can you explain to me what's going on with the property? >> Uh, guilty is charged. I I just took some bad advice, was unaware, and I've uh just plead ignorance and willing to
accept my fine and uh I've taken the listing down and now I know that it's longterm and I'll be in compliance. >> Okay. Um, and let me ask you on those three rentals, do you know what your average nightly rental rate was? To be honest with you, I don't. But I believe
it was $300 >> for the for each night. >> Per night? Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Anything else you'd like for me to know? >> No, I just I I did buy the property for uh I have business partners up north. I actually lived down here in the winter
and uh just kind of bought it for all of our families and things like that. So, we were just trying to make an income when uh it wasn't being used, but I'll correct it and >> Okay. >> only do long-term rentals. >> Okay. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate your honesty. >> Thanks, sir. Did you sign it? >> No. Okay.
>> Anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. I do find that the property is in violation of the state of code sections. I do find that all three rentals were in violation. Do find that they are irreparable, irreversible, and I will assess $1,000 for each rental plus the $330 in reasonable administrative costs
of the city. >> And any recording fees, I'll build that into my order. >> Okay. Moving on to 4F, case number 20260133, City of St. Pete Beach versus Mark Griffy and Shannon Griffy, the revocable
trust of Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach, code enforcement. Case number 2026133. Respondent is Mark and Shannon Griffy, revocable trust. Mark S. Griffy trustee
violation address is 21101 East Vina Delmare Boulevard violation description the property is in violation of section 8.2 permitted uses and structures of the land development code of the city of St. Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 33
2026. Irreparable or irreversible notice of violation dated mil certified 310 2026. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property. 310 2026. Following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 21101
East Vina Delmore Boulevard. This is the uh VBO advertisement. Property had one review uh that did not meet the standard. Uh as you can see, it says, it might be hard for you to see it or not, but it says stayed 21 nights. There was no other the other two reviews
that are on there. I they were third party reviews. So VBO doesn't have the ability to show how many nights those were. Uh this one clearly says 21 nights. It's the VRBO review policy. Corrective action. Property can only be
rented monthly. Property is I haven't seen any more reviews, so I'm going to change this to compliant. Uh recommended fine is the $1,000 per violation for the one review plus the $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation.
>> Hey, anyone here on behalf of um the Mark and Shannon Griffy Revocable Trust? >> Yeah, right here. >> Okay. If you could please come up, state your name and your affiliation with the trust for the record. >> Um I'm Mark Griffy, the owner of the property. Mr. Griffy, what would you
like for me to know today? >> Well, that property has been rented for the last four to five years, and we've had the monthly rentals, you know, which I'm aware of, and I have a a rental company managing it. So, I would need to find out from them what happened. I
didn't know. We had no information at all. I don't know if, you know, somebody was complaining, you know, a neighbor or whatever. And so, we had no evidence at all. So, this is the first time I've seen that that's what the problem is and I need to talk to my rental company to
find out what the situation was. >> Okay. So, just so for clarity sake, you are saying that this property you've had it rented but it's always been a 30-day rental. >> Yes. >> Or 30 or more? >> Well, that's 30 or more. Yes. >> Okay. And then so this one review, this outlier 21 days because you have a
property management company, you're unclear as to what exactly happened. >> Yes. Exactly. That's that's what I'm saying. I do find that 21 days is weird stay time but that's neither here nor there. Um okay. Um and so you have not because you're of the presentation of evidence that you when you got the
notification you didn't contact the city at all to find out what was going on. >> Um did did we or not? >> If you want me to stand I will swear you in like I was not expecting to do this today. >> Do you swear from the testimony you're
about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Okay. if you could come south. I'm Mark's broken. We've been together six years. I help him manage the property. >> Okay. So, >> Shannon has passed away. His wife, he's widowed for eight years now. So, >> okay. Uh, can you tell me what happened
with the rental? >> I don't know. That's what we were going to ask for. Continuence because we came we flew from we live in California. I don't live here. So, we flew in to be here today. I thought we would receive an evidence package or something so that we could address the issues, but we didn't. the property manager wasn't
aware of when we asked them what what had gone on. They aren't able to be here today. So, we were thinking if I don't know if you're available if we're allowed to appear by Zoom or some other >> That's up to the city. I don't have any control. >> Okay. I didn't know if that was even available to us if we have to go back to
California, but we could come back in May and give us the chance to investigate. We do rent it for 30 days or more. Most of the people have been coming back for four years and they rent it for last guy was there for three months, two months, three months. So, I mean, we don't we don't envision this as
short-term rental. We have really good relations with our neighbors and if there's any problem, you know, or anything, they come to us. So, we didn't know how this happened. Okay. So, >> does the city have any objection to uh a continuence on this to determine whether or not? The only reason I I wouldn't
ordinarily even entertain the request, but it's 21 days, which seems a little odd to me. >> Uh I think it's a fair request. Um this wasn't a complaint driven um >> just came through the the scans >> when doing our our everyday uh you know, research came across it. Yeah, it was a
proactive uh opening of the case. Okay. >> So, I don't and Nancy, you don't have any objections with continue it, do you? >> No, the the city's goal is really to bring people into compliance. Today, they're now aware of what's transpired. >> It's just a glitch. I don't know. You
know, we may have been in we're aware of it. >> There may be an actual reason why. You're right. 21 days is odd. So, >> um maybe there's it could be a glitch. I mean, I have no issues with continuing it. >> Okay. Then I will go to I will not make a ruling here today. I'm going to
continue this case until the May 11th hearing. That way I'll give you guys time to look and see what happened and perhaps you can even work that out with the city and maybe I won't see you again. If not, I will see you or if you want if we have the information I'll provide it. >> And so we'll I'll just get you in order to make sure I have your contact
information. >> Um and then we'll set a status hearing for May 11th. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um moving on to case 4G. Case number 2026012. City of St. P Beach versus LVD Homes
LLC. >> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Severa, City of St. P Beach, code enforcement. Case number 2026125. Respondent is LVD Homes LLC. Violation address is 2962 East Vina Delmare Boulevard. Violation description and
property is in violation of section 8.2 permitted uses and structures of the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 227 20226. Irreparable irreversible notice of violation dated and mailed certified 312
2026. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 312 2026. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I've witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting 2962 East Venina Delmare Boulevard.
This is the Airbnb advertisement. This is the host information. Uh property had one stay. Uh says stayed about a week. Property is only permitted to have monthly stays as well. It's the Airbnb review policy.
Corrective action. The property can only be rented monthly. The property is compliant. Recommended fine is $1,000 per violation for the one review plus a 330 administrative cost and any recording fees that may be associated with the property. I did I did speak to
um well there was a note our admin did speak with the property owner. She realized that that she couldn't do it. She did take the ad down. I'm sorry. She did stop the short-term rentals. uh from what I understand a couple days before we posted the property. However, the
case was already open. So, we had already uh decided to bring the property in for the INI. >> Okay. >> Um anyone here on behalf of LVD Homes LLC? >> Okay. All right. Seeing no one, I will
go ahead and find the property is in violation of the state of code sections. It is irreversible, irreparable. We'll go ahead and assess the $1,000 for the short-term stay plus the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city and any recording costs that are there so related.
>> Thank you. >> Moving on to 4 H case number 20260096, City of St. Pete Beach versus Michelle Crook and Jamie Crook. >> Hello Knight. Uh case number 202600046. Respondent Robert,
violation 3593 Bel Vista Drive, violation. >> Night, I think we're on uh the Michelle Crook and Jamie Crook case before the Partardo case. >> That's the next one. >> 4 is the Crook case that's continued to May.
>> Yeah, >> I was asking that one be continued to May 11th. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the crooks? >> No, they're not here. Um, I will go ahead and grant a continuance then till the May 11th hearing. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Then moving on to 4 I case number
20260046, City of St. Pete Beach versus Robert Partardo. >> Lucy Knight, code enforcement case 20260046. Respondent Robert E. Partardo. Violation address 3593 Bel Vista Drive. Violations
description. The property is in violation of section 4633 immigration 1A B 2313 section 9865
unslightly condition 1 ABC 246 section 9866 resident and commercial property maintenance AB 2022 AE of the Beach code ordinance of the
city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was on 12726. Notice of violation dated and male certified 22726. Notice of hearing dated and posted on
the property 31926. Affidate of posting. This picture is true and accurate representation of what I observed on the day it was taken. The fence is in disrepair.
The weeds and the grass. Debris in the palm tree. Debris on the side of the house. Property must repair fence and remove debris. Property is not in compliance.
Recommended fine is 250 per day from the date of your order plus 330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Knight. There are a couple of citation or sections that were cited that I didn't see any
evidence of. That one was um subsection 13 on 4633, which is the storage of any vehicles or motorized or non-motorized vehicles. Was there anything on the property that was >> That's the next case. >> I'm on Robert Partardo. That's the case
that we're on. >> Oh, yeah. I don't have that on. >> Go back to the slide. Um violation section. >> Subsection 13 says the storage of vehicles whether motorized or non-motorized.
>> Yes. 313. It's a trailer on the property. >> Can you show me the or >> It's in the corner right there. I'm sorry. >> Can't see it that way. >> Not at all. >> Yeah, >> it's a green on the right hand side. It's a trailer that's been parked there
for a moment. >> Okay. And then you've also cited for trees, hazardous or dead or drying trees. I see that there in that picture. Yes, ma'am. >> And then outdoor storage. Is that >> It's a boat. Oh my goodness. It's a boat on the side
and then >> the orange >> blue tarp. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> All right. Is there anyone here on behalf of Mr. Partardo? Mr. Part, can you please come up >> and let me know what's going on with the property? >> Can you swear me in or anything? >> Have you not been sworn in?
>> And that was the first thing I was going to do approaching y'all. I apologize for being a moments late. I just got off the phone uh phone meeting with my employer out of New York. So, >> no worries. Go ahead and raise your right hand. >> Okay. >> Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Perfect. Okay. Mr. Part, go ahead.
>> Great. Thank you. >> And I would and just to take the proper channels given what uh Mr. Meyers earlier this morning had mentioned, I'd like to just share. I know my hands are full, but if he needs assistance in any kind of way, um I just want to offer my
contact number for him. >> Pardon me. >> Your information? >> No. Um if you can give it to Mr. Rivera and he'll >> Oh, okay. There we go. >> Thanks, sir. >> You're welcome. >> Uh thanks for allowing me to speak. It's just been um you know since the
hurricanes, it's been just a lot of things that have taken place. Uh about two weeks before um Helen, we lost my dad and him and mom were living in Venice and so since then she's had a mini stroke. Go down there quite often. Uh so I would suggest that's been an
obstacle as well. um the funds from the insurance claims have been tied up over TD Bank and you know as they the claims come in there the endorsement is required but yes by me but also by the bank we had an inspection done it came
in at 52% that the that the bank uh sent in the inspector um things are coming together but I'm still not really I haven't passed the inspections here by city of St. beach. My understanding is the electrical now needs to be taken care of. Plumbing passed. Um and then the the trailer that she was kind enough
to to share. There was a trailer there just living there. And so uh since the time came to an end through FEMA of me staying in whatever other AC accommodations, I've been living there at the uh in the trailer and showering
in the house and preparing myself for the day for work day. Um, I would like to add that I have retained as of uh more than a week ago, a couple of weeks ago, well, let me preface it a little bit with with the certification or
certified mail. I had been calling that phone number that's on the the the item that's certified mail and there's no answer. I didn't know what it was, I guess. So, I just wanted to have you all recognize that the I guess February 27th
date. Uh I didn't get that piece for weeks later. Just want to share that. Um I did retain the services of York Landscapes. So there has been I would suggest improvements on the property quite a bit. Um but York um York
Landscapes and his his name is Jason York out of Gulfport. He has been to the property in the last actually he was at the property maybe two three months ago but I'm trying to deal with the bank and getting funds as well as my contractor still not finished and there's equipment
there still at the maintain at the house but I have retained Jason York to work on the house he came by yesterday I mean not yesterday on Friday do some measurements he's got a plan I think he's going to do the heavy work this week is when he's going to start I had mentioned maybe a bobcat that he's going
to work with and he actually said no I'm going to use a dingo So, I think a dingo is larger than a bobcat. I'm really not too sure, but it's just it's just a lot of work and shame on me, but I take this as a as a learning experience, but I would like to ask for leniency of
whatever you would would offer in days, but I think it's going to be geared up and you know, I've got to get back in touch with uh TD Bank. I actually sent them a mail, an email on Saturday morning because I work for a bank for City Bank and I have quite a bit of
banking experience. They're just not following the guidelines that I see. But uh when I'm working for the bank five days a week, Monday through Friday, I'm not allowed to send emails or anything like that on the bank portal. You'll probably understand. Try to use my phone, but it's not so smart. It's a smartphone, but it's not so smart. And
um let's see, what else can I share to you? I did have a property. There's been a prop a water leak on the property that's been there for years and workers come out there about every two years um to repair it. So, it's never repaired 100%. I did notify the city. They sent
someone out there at least they got in touch with the county and they came to repair it. So, I just want to go ahead and share to you all that the grass was really really overwhelmed in an area because that's where that water kept leaking. So, to try and and maintain the property that was challenging. I did do
a lot of the digging up of the trees. They're gone except for one that I just brought down. The one that was tilted. That's now down. And Jason's going to haul that away. Um I did get a sickle to try and cut the grass with so it's maintained a lot
more, but I just got that sickle off of I don't know if you all are familiar with a sickle, but I got that on Amazon. I said, you know, let's get cracking. So I've just been busting my backside, but going down to Venice to take care of mom whenever I can. >> So then Mr. part, you said you need just needed some time. You've got Mr. York who's kind of coming in and helping you
out. How much time do you think it would take to get the property, not the interior, I understand with the trailer, but the exterior as far as the overgrown vegetation cleared out? >> You know, I'm hoping, but as you all probably have experienced by others, you know, you kind of hope that it's going to be done in 30 days. I didn't think
I'd still wouldn't have, you know, have my my inspections passed already with all the time that's gone by. Uh, I would suggest 30 days. Okay. um hoping if he gets gets there with the dingo this week or next week. Yeah, let's get this thing done. So that I' I'd like to look at 30
days within that time frame. >> Okay. All right. Well then, um anything else that you would like me to know >> relevant to this property? >> No, I can understand. No, not that I can think of. I just jotted down some notes and I wanted to let you know I do have
um I do have dates of emails and things of that nature, text messages so I can offer that to you all if you'd like to have that, but I have just made no >> I appreciate that. Um you said the trailer that's on the property, you are living in that currently until such time
as you can get the permits for the interior of the home. Is that correct? >> Well, the passing of the inspections. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. and I've just been sleeping in there. But then I've been just staying, you know, the showers I can use in the house, that kind of thing. And not say all the showers are complete and done. I still have my contractor who
I'll give a low low grade to. He's not here to defend himself on that. But yeah, it's just been a crazy experience. I'm sure I'm not the only one, but that's how this was my first rodeo with hurricanes. I was raised in Oklahoma. Tornadoes I can deal with. Hurricanes, it's just a different flavor.
>> Yep. Okay. Okay, great. Then I will allow for um 30 days to bring the property into compliance and then we will meet back here at the June 8th hearing if 30 days. Yeah. >> Okay. Great. >> If if we need to um hopefully the property will be cleaned up by then.
>> Okay. >> If not, we'll have a status hearing and then I can determine if the property is in compliance or if we need to assess any fines at that time. >> I too appreciate appreciate that. Thank you. >> Yes. Could we amend that notice to read 21 days a status update May 11th as a show of good faith from the property
owner? We understand his circumstances, but this has been weeks in the making. And it's it affects the neighboring properties. >> Okay. Um I mean that's Do you think you could get it done in 21 days?
>> So we're looking at May 11th >> and May 11th coming back. Yeah. And and when you say get it done, do you want just open communication? I've already emailed the city manager and Joanne Boland here at the cities kind of let them know what's been going on in the last few weeks. >> If you could also go ahead and loop in a
code enforcement with that as well so that they know what's going on as far as that way they can be kept apprised. I know it's the city but sometimes one hand doesn't know what the other hand is. >> I understand information. So communication by May 11th. Is that what you'd like or to have it completed?
>> 20 21 days for compliance. So, to clear the property. Um, and then we'll have a status hearing on May 11th. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> That sounds great. Thank you. >> It wasn't raised, but I have a question.
Maybe Miss Super's the right one to ask on this. There is or was, and I I know the emergency orders are still being extended, extended, extended. the trailer on the property if he is living in it as a result of hurricane damage.
Is that something? >> I will have to look into that. Um I know in other jurisdictions they have local prohibitions. Um probably in the zoning code as well. I think our building official knows the answer.
>> Probably should have addressed my comments to Mr. Curtis. >> Oh, forgive me. So, our city code does prohibit living in a trailer or a motor home, but post storm, we did approve the use of a temporary uh living accommodations for
those trailers and RVs. So, with an application that's sent in, it can be approved. It's merely just to document that, hey, somebody's living in here during the repairs. So, it's perfectly acceptable for this scenario. Okay. Um, so they did that purposely to help
accommodate property owners. >> Mr. Partardo could do if he needs to continue to to have that trailer on the property while undergoing repairs in his home. >> Yep. For temporary occupancy. >> Okay, great. >> So, I'm going to suggest I'm finding that there's a violation. You have 21
days to clear the property and remove the trailer. But if you get application to the city and you're allowed to have that there, then the trailer can stay. >> Okay. Outstanding. Thank you. And I did have uh another question if you don't mind because I don't know what Jason York's landscape or what he has in mind but if he's going to clear out he's
actually going to tear out all the grass and weeds and everything out of there. I'm looking that crush shell for instance it'll be cleared out I envision but I don't know what he's going to have as working equipment there or something like that. You're going to need to get with the city and stay in communication with code enforcement to see if that's
okay. >> Time so that you are one found to be in compliance by that date or two that you're not in violation of something else. >> Okay. Yeah, that sounds great. >> And I will get you an order. Just make sure I have your contact information and it will detail all those dates and information in it. >> Okay. And one last item I hope you don't
mind with I heard uh something about relocation of a trailer with another individual here. Can I relocate the that um with the trailer I'm staying in? If it's collapsed, it's a Coleman. Can I relocate it onto the other side of the
of the property? >> I don't know about that. You're going to have to get with the city on that and see if that's on the property. It's on the property. It's on the property. You can't be living in it unless you have approval to do so. >> Okay. I'll check it out. I'll take care of it. >> Um Okay. Thank you, Mr. Part. >> Thanks very much, y'all.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. And we are at >> J >> or J. Case number 20260119, City of St. Pete Beach versus Ty Jacob Leaf. >> Lucy Knight. Uh, case number 20260119.
Ty Jacob Leaf, 41 11 Miller Drive. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 46-33 enumeration 2313 section 98-66
residential and commercial property maintenance A204E section 9867 junk vehicle junk vessels and abandoned property E and section 996 maintenance
requirement ment A of the C I meant code of ordinance of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection 22726. Notice of violation dated and mailed certified. 31326. Notice of hearing dated and posted on
the property. 33126. Affidated of posting. This picture is true and accurate representation of what I seen on that date. Uh the fence in disrepair. The other side, both sides was this in
repair. The weeds in the grass, the construction materials, unregistered trailer tag, debris in the yard. Property must repair fence, remove construction blocks, weeds, debris, and
have tag registered. Property is not in compliant. Uh recommended fine is 250 per day from the date of your order plus 330 administrator cost and recording fees that may be associated with this case. I
went by it this morning and it is now in compliance. That's the gate on the left hand side and the trailer and the construction material is going there. Just asking for admin fees of 330. Okay.
Is anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Leaf? Anyone here behalf of Mr. Leaf? Okay. Seeing none, um I'm going to find that the property was in violation of states code stated code sections, however, is now compliant. I'm not going to associate any fines with the property, but I am going to assess the $330 in
reasonable administrative costs of the city. >> Thank you. >> We have uh continued 5A. We have handled 5B. There is nothing under agenda item six. Agenda item seven, nuisance abatement cases. A case number 202600080,
city of St. Pete Beach versus 5411 Paliway Land Trust. And it's trustee Christopher McMillan. Lucy Knight, case 20260080. Respondent land trust McMillan Christopher trust trustee violation
address 5411 pally violation description the property is in violation of section 46-142 A4 and B4 uh pattern of nuisance activity of the chronic nuisance property code for the
city of St. Pete Beach. Final order imposing fines and costs was case number 20250056 on 71425 violation of sections 46-33
enumeration 98-64 general maintenance 98-65 unsightly conditions and 98-66 residential and Commercial property maintenance case summary. Initial inspection was
11525. Notice of nuisance dated and ma certified 3926. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property. 3926. Affidate posting. This picture is true
and accurate representation of what I seen on that day. recorded lean on December 9th, 2025. This is the second half of I couldn't fit all in one page.
St. Pete Beach unsafe structure 21026 that was posted. nuisance inspection where the pool is unsafe and the screen enclosure have fallen in.
Same picture. Uh this is another nuisance inspection of the bay window where it's cracked at the bottom. Nuisance inspection. This is a further distance from the
pool. This is on the side of the house where all the debris is. This is the opposite side of the house. The window is all broken up.
This is on the back patio. This is a uh side gate that's missing. Property is not compliant. Section 46-143B. No written action plan provided. City would like to board up the property for
safety reasons, environment conditions, health hazards. Recommended billing costs of services to abate the nuisance plus 330 administrator cost and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case.
>> Thank you. Is anyone here on behalf of 5411 Pyway? Anyone here on behalf of 5411 Pleyway? I know there's nobody here, but I have to say it for the record. >> It's okay. >> Um, Miss Knight, have you had any conversations with the property owner or
any of the representatives? >> No, ma'am. Um and I do understand that the city's chronic nuisance abatement definition of pattern of nuisance activity. Um nuisance activity means any activities related to the following violations
whenever engaged by the property owner, agent, tenant or inviteee. The one that is cited as junked wrecked abandoned property as defined in chapter 46 of the code. um which is a little cyclical but talks about
determination of abandoned or unclaimed property. Um so either miss or miss can you explain to me that specific section of the code? I see the pattern of nuisance activity is defined as just not complying with
the code enforcement order. I don't particularly have an issue with that. Um but what I see here is an unsafe structure which there's evidence of saying I don't see that there is there
is a single code violation for failing to uh bring the property in compliance. The reason I'm asking is n chronic nuisance abatement is is quite heavily litigated. Um, and I don't see that it fits within the
definition. There's not it's not been multiple times of coming up with new the debris on the property or something that's happened. It is definitely an unsafe building. Um, but I don't know that I would qualify this as an a chronic nuisance as per
your code. So again, because your code defines junct property as abandoned or unclaimed property. >> You also mentioned not adhering to the order. >> Yeah, there are two separate things.
First, you have to have a nuisance activity, right? And then you have to have a pattern of nuisance activity. you lack the nuisance activity as it's been cited. The pattern of nuisance activity is failure to comply with the order. I don't have a problem with the pattern part. The issue that I have a problem
with and I don't have a problem with it. I just need some more clarification as to it's been cited under 46142A4 as the um as what the chronic nuisance is,
which is junked wrecked abandoned property as defined in chapter 46. But when I look at what that definition is, it looks like it's abandoned property. So, are we saying that the the property itself is abandoned? >> Um, we could because of the fact that
there really hasn't been any um remedial activity since the date of your last order. And the >> we know is anyone living in the house? Is it has it been abandoned? Is someone paying the taxes on it? Is somebody paying the mortgage on it? So perhaps some testimony to that
effect. >> I don't know if this helps to clarify. I have visited the site. Pardon me. I have visited the site and it appears as though nothing has been been done with the property since the
storm hit. Uh there's literally clothing and personal belongings that are throughout the house that it's not fit for habitation, but there's no appearance of anybody inhabiting the house, but it appears as though it would
have day one after the storms. So, nothing has been done there >> and nobody's had any communication with the property owner at all? >> No, ma'am. >> As Mr. Curtis mentioned that I as well visited the property. The property
appears to be vacant. There has been no communication. There's been no contact. Um but from all appearances, it does appear that the property has been left away is currently since the storm.
Problem is underneath article three of chapter 46 junk or abandoned property. which is what your cited section relies on. It relies on it talks about personal property. It does not talk about real property.
Um perhaps there is another section that can be cited under. >> But what I see here is you have cited the property owner in violation of 46142 A4. >> Madam Special Master Street. >> Yes. Excuse me. Could we please continue
this case? >> We recognize the the difficulty >> be a different section you can site under, but if we're proce if you if the city is going to proceed under these this I I don't see >> we would like to um ask for a continuence so we can take a a closer
look at it and um if we have cited the incorrect section, we'll um bring it back correctly. >> Okay. So, I will go ahead and continue this case until the May 11th hearing. >> Yes, please. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to 7B, case number 202500069,
City of St. Pete Beach versus Annie Nuin and Jimmy Trong. >> Correct. Shell, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. >> It's a pattern. >> This case is going to be similar in
nature. Uh co case number 20250069. The respondent Annie Yugen and Jimmy Trung. Violation address 2055th Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violation of sections 46-142
A4 and B4 pattern of nuisance activity of the chronic nuisance property code for the city of St. Pete Beach. >> Dr. Shelle, excuse us. >> We're contemplating this could be the same situation as >> it is. >> So >> same situation.
>> Ask for a continuence. Okay. >> With this same situation, could I ask for continues to the next special? >> Continue this to the May 11th. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Right. Moving on to lean reductions 8A
case number 20250711. City of St. Pete Beach versus Brendan Doyle and Courtney Doyle. >> How you doing, Madam May? Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach, uh, code enforcement. Um, before we even get into this, I had a gentleman stop me in the
hallway. I guess was coming to represent this. He did not have power of attorney and decided to leave. So, I don't know if we should go. >> It's his application. It's not the city's application. >> Well, he he Yeah. And he's not any of the property owners. I asked him if he was the property owner. He said, "No, I'm just a neighbor trying to help out,
but he didn't have any power of attorney POA to speak." So, he left. And this is a petition, not it's not coming from the city. It's coming from the property owners. Since the property owners aren't here, I'm >> I'm >> just going to deny it. I mean, there's there's no one
here on behalf of them. >> Yeah. >> So, >> okay. >> There's no one here to petition it. It's denied. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to 8B, case number 20250712, City of St. Pete Beach versus Team B equities. Before we begin, is there
anyone here on behalf of team B equities? >> Seeing none. >> No. >> Have you had any conversations with them? >> No. And in fact, they've just gone ahead and paid the lean. So there they were not even a request. >> So I'm not even going to That's withdrawn then. I'm not going to consider that one.
>> All right. All right. The next hearing is set for May 11th at 10:00 a.m. >> We are adjourned. Uh, wait. Before we are journed, is there anything else that the city needs to discuss while we're on the record? >> Um, no, your honor. Thank you for your
endurance today because we had quite a long agenda. We appreciate it. >> Of course. Well, thank you very much. We are journed. All right. >> Thank you.