Special magistrate code enforcement special magistrate hearing for Monday, August 18th to order. Hello, my name is Erikicaello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases. I'm a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida Bar and board certified in city,
county, and local government law. I have been appointed to this position in accordance with the authority set forth in chapter 162 Florida statutes and the city of St. Pete Beach code of ordinances. I am not an employee of the city of St. Pete Beach and do not represent the city here today and I do
not confer with the city's code enforcement officers outside of the hearing process about your cases. It is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters presented. As such, I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings. Today's matters will be heard in order 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 will 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. The respondant then will be given an opportunity to refute the city's allegations. Formal rules of evidence do not apply to this proceeding. However, I will make
every effort to ensure that fundamental fairness and due process is afforded to all parties. After hearing all relevant evidence, I will issue an order. The order will be reduced to writing and all parties will be provided with a copy. So, please ensure that we have your current address or email address
provided. Additionally, you're 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 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 stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? So, sworn. Um, do we have any changes to the agenda this morning? Good morning, special administrative agenda. Pete Der on behalf of code enforcement. The changes to the agenda is case number
20250299 which is 4A on the new cases. We'd like to move that case to October, please. And there's no objection from the respondent on that one for continuence. No, they um requested
um I think the representative for the owner has COVID. Okay. Or is ill. Yeah. Okay. Okay. No worries. And that was that Mr. Simmons. Is he? Yes. Simmons. Yeah. Okay.
Is that October 13? Jenny, I think we set it for the Was it 20th? October 13th. It is the 13th. Yes. Oh, okay. 10.
I thought we moved it right. It is. It is October 6th. Thank you. That's what I Okay. So, I will do that for October 6th. Thank you. And any other changes? The one that's listed on the agenda 2A,
case number 20250339. We would like an order to dismiss that case, please. To dismiss? Yes, please. Thank you. Has it come into compliance or just choosing not to prosecute? We're not prosecuting at this time. Thank you. Okay, no problems. And any other changes or everything moving forward?
Everything moving forward. Then we will move on to the first item on our agenda today. Uh agenda item 3a, case number 20240529, city of St. Pete Beach versus Richard Allen Long Revokable Trust. Richard Allen Long as trustee.
Good morning, Special Matter Street. This is a continuation case for 2024529 St. Pete Beach versus Richard Long Trust. Um, as of July 31st, Mr. Bowie um met with code
compliance, the zoning department planning, and the building department, and he's decided not to pursue uh the permit any further. Okay. So, if he's choosing not to pursue the permit, I see Mr. Bowie's here, so I'll ask him that. Or probably better
question for him. Um, but is the property otherwise in compliance? Well, he was requested that he remove all the structure that he had created back there. Um, and as of this morning, there was still some of the the bar visible and tables and chairs and such. So, um,
he hasn't quite removed that yet. Okay. All right. I do have pictures of that if you'd like to see that. Um, yes, if you could, if that's part of the city's case, of course. So, that's just the entrance into that back area. still remains
blank. Whole bar setup is still there. Tables in the back. Part of the work that had to be done was that the electrical that they had uh created back there needs to be closed off or secure.
[Music] table ladders and such. These look like some sort of smokers or something in the back. That's the pictures that I have of it this morning. From this morning. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Bowie.
Good morning. How are you? Um, so what's going on? Just working on the progress. Um, got all the other stuff out, the fridges and things like that. Okay. Um, as you see, I started already dismantling the bar area. Um, it's just kind of discarding kind of be able to
have it removed. Okay. I don't have a vehicle that is able to do so. And um, that's basically it. The smokers were approved, right? That's the reason why they are still there. And there was only two tables, not four tables. And pretty much they're
not in use. They're kind of broken. Um the ladder is so um I have a small leak up front. I mean up on the roof. So I trying to fix that. I squeeze I squeegee that off when it's it's been raining. But um other than that um yes, I'm shuffing the idea. And um the only thing
that I was uh the electrician signed on to the permit. That's the same electrician that signed on the permit. So I didn't I just figured that they were just going to come over and just check the electrical. um that was that I paid for the fine for that was already there. Okay. So, how long
knock it off? Like what you said, right? Well, I mean, and that's something that you'll have to figure out and talk to the the building department and see how you would be able to shut that off and get with code information. I turned off I turned off one I turned off the breakers to the back area. Okay. So, they can't be like used by somebody
if they walk back there. Okay. Other than that, I don't know if I'm supposed to buy by locks or I don't know. Okay. I would suggest getting with code enforcement to see how they would consider it um compliant uh for the electrical part for the remainder. How
long do you think it will take you to remove the bar like the the physical bar area and kind of all the other things back there to come into compliance? So, um I mean it shouldn't take long. I was just waiting for somebody with the right vehicle. I might just get myself a
like a U-Haul or something. I might just do it myself. Okay. Do you think two weeks would be sufficient time to to clean up the rest of it and get it into compliance? The only reason I'm asking is because I need to be able to get an order. We've kind of been pushing it off waiting for the permitting to go through. Yep. So, I'm going to I'm going to break
down the bar and get rid of it in two weeks is probably fine. I mean, I'll I'll definitely have it done by before the end of the month. I started working on it. I guess I had to get the the fridge and all the other stuff out of there first, right? That was that was easier to get done first and then Okay. Okay. I working on it. I definitely will have
it done. Okay. All right. Sounds good. All right. Anything else from the city? Okay. For two weeks to have this all I haven't made my determination yet, but I'm about to do that. Yeah. So, we have been kind of putting it off because Mr.
Bowie was trying to get permits and working with the city. Now, that's a different tract altogether. I'm going to give um two weeks, so 14 days from the date of my order for Mr. Bowie um to come into compliance. And I would suggest getting with the code enforcement and building department to figure out the electrical side of that,
what it would take to come into compliance. Um, and then when it when the property is in compliance, you'll need to contact code enforcement, just let them know so they can come out and inspect it and make sure everything is good. So, um, two weeks and then or 14
days from the date of my order. Um we have Yeah, we'll just have to come back for another hearing in in the event that we need to impose fines. Um so two weeks and then we'll check back at the Sorry, is that
uh the September hearing I think is set for the 8th. The 8th. Yeah. And Labor Day is the first. So that's the week after. Yeah. So it'll be September 8th. will come back if it's in compliance. I won't need to see you, Mr. Barry. If not, then
I will assess fines and fees at that time and I will get you a written order. I've got your email address, so go ahead and send that off. All right. And moving on, case 3B 20250312, City of St. Pete Beach versus Sunold
LLC. I'm pretty sure we combined all these cases. So, I'm going to take 3B, 3 C, 3D D, which are case numbers 20250312, 20250417, 20250418, all city of St. Pete Beach versus Sunold
LLC. Good morning, Madam Magistrate. Steer on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach. Uh, I got an email from Mr. Lorat Laro. Laro, I'm sorry. You're good. Explaining he wasn't going to be able to make it today. Okay. Okay. Uh he did send me an email. So we're asking this is this is continued to October.
Okay. Um I will go ahead and continue these by agreement of the parties until the October 8th magistrate or 6th magistrate hearing. By chance, do you know if the property owner has made any headway on the
fencing on that? He did. Okay. Um if he wanted to be present for the hearing, but there there's been progress. Okay. Good. All right. Then moving on to item 3E. Case number 20240699, City of St. Pete Beach versus Jennifer
Franco. Full disclosure, I received a letter in the mail from Miss Franco with regards to um asking that fines not be assessed, etc., etc. I did send that to the city attorney and copied Mr. Der. So, I do hope that you all were in
receipt of that. I did not respond to Miss Franco on that. Um, but I just wanted to make sure you guys all got that and there's no exparte communications. So, uh, good morning Rockell representing city of St. Pete Beach. Uh,
case 2024699 city versus Miss Jennifer Franco. I believe she is here to have the opportunity to speak. Um, she was issued or worked for that permit for uh, drywall. Okay.
Yes. Um, as of today, there's no permit that's been applied for. Um, so, okay. So, my order did say that she needed to uh have 14 days to get an after the fact permit for the work that was done, and you're saying as of today,
there's no permit that's been applied for. Correct. Okay. Anything else? Nope. That's all right. Um, and Miss Franco is appearing via Zoom. Miss Franco, did you hear what the uh what the city has said that as of today's date, there's been no
permit that's been applied for? Okay, I can hear what you were saying. It was hard for me to hear what she was saying. Okay. She had said that there as of today's date, my last order on this case said that you had to get an after the-act permit within 14 days of the order. And as of this morning, there's been no permit that's been applied for.
So, what is your response to the city? So, I tried to update the city via email last week. I did secure a contractor. He's finalizing the documents. He texted me yesterday that he's going to try to get it submitted, I believe, by Tuesday.
Um I have received the roof permit, uh the final on that as well as I believe a final on the on plumbing work that was done, um which should be I guess uploading the city's permit. But I have secured a contractor that we've worked everything out that he said he's
submitting in the next couple days and has already started all the paperwork. Okay. As of last week. Can you shared his license number with the people on the email with the city? Okay. Thank you. Can you share with me what the reasoning was that you didn't secure a permit before the work was done
on the property? Um, I've had well in the letter it said I had a lot of challenges getting a contractor. Um, full transparency, I have no idea how I'm even going to pay for this work. Um, the property is secured by a mortgage that will not give
me any type of hardship. It cost three times the amount of my monthly mortgage that I live in. And I had gotten like a deferment with them and paid it back. They reported as two months late to my credit. So right now my credit is in the
low 600s, maybe 500s. So I can't even get a loan for this work. So there's been a hardship after the hardship. Um the reason I was at the last hearing is they I don't know a week before they found a 2inch mass on my liver. So I
came back to that lots. Sorry, I get emotional when I think about it. There's that's okay. I understand. Okay. So, um Okay. And I can understand why you didn't come to Well, the other thing too
is this is your primary home. I have your mailing address in Las Vegas. Okay. No, no, no. My primary is in Las Vegas. The work that I had done cuz like I said in the letter, FEMA said that it was 80% damaged. The mortgager would not work with me. Um a lot of personal loss. I
lost my mom. I lost really everything that I cared about. Um, so it's just me, but I have tried. Sorry, I don't know why I get emotional with this place every time, but I am trying. Um, but my primary is in Vegas. So, I appreciate you guys accommodating because I really
don't have the money to fly out there and deal with this, but I'm I'm working on this. I've secured the guy. I'm going to secure the financing. I'm going to take care of it. I just have to I'm getting a pass. So, I'm working on it. Okay. All right. Anything else, Miss Franco, that you think I should know that's
relevant to this? I'm sorry. I It does sound like you've had a hard time. No, no, no. Yeah, I'm sorry. I I hate that I get so easily stretched out when it comes to talking about this stuff, but no, I'm I'm Yeah, I'm actively trying uh and I just I did want to see if the court would work with me on
whatever the violation fines are and also like the timeline because I while I have the person, I have to figure out how I'm going to pay the person. But it is that I've gotten is secured against my primary. So, I'm trying not to lose my primary in working on this house
because I do actively have this house for sale for what I owe. Um, is it and I just haven't been able to sell it. Okay. Thank you, Miss Franco. I appreciate that. Um, anything else from the city? Okay. And was I know I'd given um, Miss Franco
two weeks. Did the city have a request for any amount of fines that you wanted to have assessed? Well, um, and let me ask you this, too. In in between, um, aside from the letter that I received and sent to you guys, had you had any conversations or had you had
any, um, uh, I believe our administrator had spoken to Miss Franco. Okay. She advised her that she had secured a contract but hadn't quite applied for the permit yet. Okay. The last conversation. Okay. Had with her. All right. Um Okay. So, any
recommendation from the city or any request from the city on fines? Well, due to the hardship, I guess I'm willing to work with her if she can secure gets the application in within a short period
of time here. I mean, she's had plenty of times two weeks maybe to actually get the application in. Okay. Um Okay, I think that's fair. So, what I'll go ahead and do is Miss Franco, just so you know, you'll get um a written order on this. Um and I I will
go ahead and continue my order for another 14 days from the date of the next order and I will send you a copy of it. So, you have 14 days from the date of my order to apply for a permit. Um if you can't, contact the city, try to work with them. They can maybe see about extending that time if you need it. If
not, we will be back here again in September. Um, you can probably appear via Zoom if needed. Um, if we need to, if you've already applied for the permits, I won't need to see you. If you don't apply for the permits within that twoe time frame, um, then I will go ahead and assess a fine. Um, and in
doing so, I will take into account um, what you've told me here today. But I think that's, you know, this has been going on for a little bit. you're and and I don't want to sound crass, but you're not the only person in this community that has had to go through something like this. And for a lot of these people, it's their primary home. So, I I do understand that. I also
understand that the the property is actively up for sale. So, again, 14 days from the date of my order to get the permits applied for. Um, and I I mean, my previous order said to apply for, not to secure the after the
fact permits. So, I I think that's fair. Um, and I will get that out to you as soon as I can. Okay. Um, and Miss Franco, do we have I don't need you to do it at a public hearing, but does the city have your email? I have your email address. I think I think you sent it in the letter. Okay. I will go ahead and email you a copy of the
order so that you have that. Okay. Thank you, Miss Franco. Have a good day. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to case uh 2024707, city of St. Pete Beach versus Chris Spencer.
Ayaka Rockell representing the city of St. Pete Beach. Uh case 20240707, St. Pete Beach versus Chris Spencer. This was a continuation for unauthorized no permit had been applied for and as of
this morning still no application. Okie dokie. Is Mr. Spencer here? Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Spencer? Chris Spencer. Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Spencer or is Chris Spencer here?
Okay. Seeing as no one here on behalf of Mr. Spencer, I'm going to find that the property still remains in non-compliance. Uh, does the city have a recommended daily fine? Yes. $250 per day plus administrative costs. And what are the amount of administrative costs? $330.
330. Okay. Okay, I am going to go ahead and assess $250 per day from We'll do it from July 7. Excuse me. What was the initial date of the violation? Do you know? I'd have to look that. I don't have an
official date, though. If you don't have it readily available, I can look it up. I'll just put it in my order. What was the question, please? The initial date of the violation, so I can start my $250 from the date after the date of the violation. So, that's
going to be my order. Alice says $250 a day starting the date after the date on the violation, which was in the the last uh set of evidence that was presented to me. I can look that up. That will be written in my order, plus $330 in the reasonable administrative cost of the city. Until the property comes into
compliance, the property owner is responsible for notifying the city once the property comes into compliance. Okay, moving on to case number 202500069. City of St. Pete Beach versus Annie Wyn and Jimmy Trong. Yes, I correct. Shell representing City
of St. Pete Beach code enforcement, St. Pete Beach versus Annie Trung. I did speak with a respondent this morning. She's out in California. Um, she has requested an extension and a continuation because she has got contractors to work on the weekends to
help clean up the property. Okay. She was going to send me some pictures this morning and an email to have that put in writing. Um, however, she was down to 15 20 minutes before magistrate this morning. So, I don't have that in writing, but I did speak with her verbally. Okay. And considering it's 3 hours
earlier in California, she might be getting it her morning, just not your morning. Okay. Um and does this is the city exposed to any type of an extension or continuation of this? This is the first um sort of effort I think she has to
actually come to compliance. So um our goal is to have her come to compliance. So I'd be willing to work with her for a short term to get this maybe 30 days 30-day extension. Work work on weekends. Yes.
And how about let's see. All right. I will do uh grant a 30-day extension. Well, just to make sure, is anyone here on behalf of Andy Nuin or Jimmy Trong? Didn't think so, but just for the record. All right. I will grant a 30-day
extension um from the date of my order. Um that will put us Where are we? October 6th. for a case status check to make sure the property is in compliance. Okay.
Do you have a good email address for them? I don't have an email. I have a phone number. Okay, that's okay. I'll just mail the order to them. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Moving on. Case number 20250275,
City of St. Pete Beach versus Hurricane Lounge, Inc. Madam Magistrate. River on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status hearing for the light compliance 809 Golf Way.
I do have pictures. The property is compliant. You can see the lights on the roof are off now. Upper deck's off. And then the glow is coming from below the dune. It's not their violation, but the lights that were over by the stairwell have been addressed as well.
Addressed as well. Okay, perfect. City's not asking for anything. Just the $330 uh administrative cost, please. Okay. Is anyone here on behalf of the property under Hurricane Lounge, Inc.? Good morning. Brett Faulenstein, 809
Golfway, St. P Beach, Florida. Good m. Good morning, Mr. Falenstein. Um, you understand that the city says you're now in compliance. They're not looking to associate any fines, but they are looking for the $330 in administrative cost to bring this before the magistrate. Do you have any response to that? I'm I'm sorry. I Sure. They're not assessing. They're not
asking for any fines. They've said that you've come into compliance, but they are asking for $330 in reasonable administrative costs for having to bring the issue before the magistrate. That's a reason. Okay, ma'am. That's your reason. So, no objection to that. Okay. No, ma'am. All right. Well, I will get you an order to that effect and uh then you are good
here. Thank you very much, sir. Yes, ma'am. Have a good day. All right. So, no fines will be assessed, $330 administrative costs. Okay. Moving on to case number 20250279, City of St. Pete Beach versus Coconut
Inn. Good morning. Steamer River again on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach. Um this was another lighting violation for Total Lighting. Uh the property is compliant. The two lights that were in question, you can actually see one that's here.
There's another one behind the tree. They're now uh turtle light compliant lighting. Okay. Uh city's not asking for any fines, just a $330 administrative cost. All right. Is anyone here on behalf of Coconut in LLC?
Good morning. Hi, Maggie Leblanc. Hi, Miss Lebon. And do you understand that the city's not asking for any fines, but is asking for $330 in administrative costs? Okay. Do you have any response to that? Uh, no. Okay. Well, then I find that the property is in compliance. I will not assess any fines. I am going to assess
the $330 in administrative costs. You will get an order to that effect. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Moving on to case number 20250388. City of St. Pete Beach versus Gulf G West Properties LLC.
Hayaka Ruckshell representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status hearing. Again, they the respondent has asked for continuations to the September um magistrate. They were available on 811 when we originally had this scheduled,
but because of the the roofing issue, they they're not able to make it today. So, all right. And does the city have any objection to that continuence? Nope. Okay. So, I will go ahead and get an order to continue by agreement of the parties and reset this for the September
8th hearing at 10:00 a.m. All right. Uh, case number 20250189, City of St. Pete Beach versus Marilyn L. Nolan uh, revocable living trust with Marilyn L. Nolan as trustee.
Good morning again. Steer on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach. Uh this is a status hearing uh to bring the property in compliance. It was uh 60 days per your order. The property is not compers but it shows a wall that's still in
disrepair. some scattered debris on the property that remains. [Music] This was another building that's on the property that's missing an entire wall. Another building on the property here and some miscellaneous items that are
still stored outside. There's no permits that's been applied for the property as of yet. Uh there's been no communication from the property owner. I actually sent them another notice for another violation. I have heard back from them on that one as well. Um
said the city is seeking uh $250 a day beginning 7:16, which was the day after the compliance date that you gave them plus the $330 administrative costs and any uh fees associated with leans the recording. Okay. Is anyone here on
behalf of the Marilyn L Nolan Trust? Anyone here on behalf of the Marilyn L Nolan Trust? I think the last time that you came before me, Mr. River, on this one, there was um you had said that maybe there were people that had been out at the property. You had observed that.
Not at this. Not at this property. Okay. No, nobody's been there. Um nobody's attempted to clean up. There's a new violation now that I'm trying to work with, but I don't have a good phone number for him. We just have whatever they have on property appraiser. Property appraiser. Okay. I sent them a notice. Noticed that there
was a clerical error. Sent them another notice an amended notice and it's been almost a month now. So I haven't heard back. Okay. All right. Um due to the condition of the property and the repeated attempts to notify the property owner of its condition, um I am going to find that
the property is still not in compliance. I am going to order a $250 a day fine to begin on 7162025 and run until the property comes into compliance. It is the property's property owner's responsibility to notify the city once the property comes into compliance. I will also issue an
order for the $330 in the reasonable administrative cost of the city and any fees uh associated with the recording of any leans on this property. Thank you. All right. Case number 20240584, City of St. Pete Beach versus Park Shore
Investments. Can I have your head please RTell uh representing City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This case was actually on the docket for last month, but um the the respondent had requested for continuation so they could just put
in for a permit. Okay. Um, so I'm going to present it to you today and then give you the status of where it's at at the moment. Okay. 20240584. The respondent is Park Shore Investments
LLC. Violation address 523 72nd Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violation of sections 98-123.1. Permits required of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was on
October 26, 2024. An amended notice of violation was sent on April 1st, 2025. And the notice of violation compliance date was uh April 15, 2025. The notice of hearing was dated and posted on the
property on June 24th of 2025. This is an affidavit of posting on June 24th, 25. This is uh a picture of the unpermitted posttorm drywall reinstallation and electrical work back on October 26th of
24 evidence of drywall repairs. Uh the corrective action that we are seeking is a property must obtain the proper permits for the work being done with without a permit. property has applied for a permit as of uh number 25502716
on um July 24th and is currently under review. I will give you an update on that in a moment. Um we're uh recommended fine is $250 per day starting uh August 23rd until compliant plus $330 day for administrative costs
and any lean recording fees that may be associated with this case. So, as of July 24th when they submitted their application, um that was denied on the same day by the fire department um and
with further questions sent emailed to the contractor which they have we've had no response to as of today. Okay. So, they have applied. It was it denied after review by the fire department. No other reviews have been conducted on that correct permit application. Okay. same day
and no and no comments have been returned by the contractor. Correct. Okay. Okay. Um and have you had any other um conversations with the property owner at all? None. Okay. All right. Anyone here on behalf
of Parkhore Investments LLC? Anyone here on behalf of Parkhore Investments LLC for 52372nd Avenue? Seeing no one. Okay. Uh, do we know how long it's so that they is
there a stop work order on the property or is the the has the drywall work been completed. Good. That was just work without a permit. Okay. So, so my question is, have they
completed the work? So, I'm I'm trying to figure out if they need to secure an after the fact permit or if they need to if they're looking to secure a permit for they were midway through the work and are trying to get a permit for what is presently being they have to secure an after the fact. Okay.
Okay. Then that will change my order. All right. So then at this point with the testimony from the city saying that the work has been completed, they need to secure an after the fact permit. Um, I am going to give them 14 days from the date of my order to secure an after
the-act permit. Uh, understanding that they've already applied. So, it should be fairly easy for them to submit what they need to. Um, and then we will meet back here at the September 8th hearing to determine whether or not I will impose fines or fees.
Okay. Moving on to new cases. Agenda item 4 A, case number 20250299. We will be continuing till the October 6th meeting. 4 B, case number 20250185, city of St. Pete Beach versus Robert
Rman. Good morning, Madam Mag on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is case number 20250185. Respondent is Robert Rolman. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 98651B
and six unsightly conditions. 9866 A B 2 A B 3 A B 5 7 and 24 of residential and commercial property maintenance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Code uh code of
ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 41. Notice violation dated 42 2025. Notice of violation compliance date 416 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to
the property 7:30 2025. Following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 401 Golfway. Here in the picture you can see a couple of the windows that are boarded up. There's a section of siding that's
missing. We got rotted trim around a window on the back back side of the building. Here I'm peeling paint rotted door jamb and kind of outlined a couple of other areas. Hard to see in the photo. This is a trash can that was stored in
public view. It's a picture of the fence that was in disrepair. You see it's the whole side of the property there. Corrective action. Property must remove the boards off the windows, repair the rotted door and trim
uh and trim remove or repair the fence and store a trash can out of public view. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day beginning $823 plus the $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be
associated with this case. Uh I have been in communication with the property owner. Okay. The fence they have taken it down. Um some of the boards have been removed. They're still working on getting it into compliance. However, they're not in compliance as of yet.
That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Is anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Robert Rolman? If you could please come up, state your name for the record. Robert Rolman, 401 Golfway. Mr. Roman, tell me what's going on.
We uh have the windows have been taken care of. Majority of this stuff has just been finished in the last four days. Um I have a list of what's been done. I have been in communication from the very beginning of the storm that hurt everybody out here, but we also got
whacked in Asheville, North Carolina and lost a home. U and so between the two and then I had a medical emergency that kind of threw everything off course. I have talked to code enforcement. They've been helpful uh with working with me, but a lot of
the things that were seen, I have not had a chance to talk to Stephanie or Jeff or Jennifer and let them know that these things have been completed. Okay. Do you have an estimated amount of time when the remainder of the things on the punch list will be completed?
I I would say we can have that done in 14 days. The fence is down, been hauled away. The door in the back has been repaired. The windows are all uncovered again. Um, one of the things they ask about was painting. The way we were aware of of that because of weather and
this time of year, it's a little difficult to get, you know, anybody to come out. The windows took so long is nobody wanted to get on a ladder and climb up and take them down and I can't do it. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, it sounds to me like um you think 14 days will be
sufficient. So, I will allow for 14 days from the date of my order, which could be today, might be tomorrow. um for the remainder of the property to come in compliance. Please just stay in touch with the city and when everything is in compliance, let them know so they can come out and reinspect. I will set it this for a case status update on the
September 8th uh meeting. Hopefully, I don't need to see you there and the property's in compliance. If not, I will see you on September 8th and just make sure we have your proper contact information to get you a copy of the order. Ma'am, thank you very much. You're welcome. All right, moving on to agenda item 4 C.
Case number 20250368, City of St. Pete Beach versus Ronald Veno and Lauren Mones. I hope I didn't butcher anyone's name too terribly. Morning, Madam Magistrator. See Rivera again on behalf of the city of St. Pete
Beach code enforcement. Case number 20250368. respondents Ronald Walnut and Lauren Mones. If I butchered that up, I apologize. Between the two of us, maybe we got somewhere close.
Okay. Violation address is 11:09 Golf Way. Violation description, the property is in violation of section 23.4 C and J. General parking requirements of the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach.
Case summary. Initial inspection was 616 2025. Ire irreparable and irreversible notice of violation dated 7:21 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 7:30 2025.
The following is a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 11:09 Golfway. So in this picture, there's a picture of the property owner soliciting for parking. Another picture of parking solicitation.
Another picture here again on July 26. Here's an inspection email that was done by another officer over the weekend. Uh, if you look down, let's see here. I'm trying to find a section here. Could you please read it into the
record? Yeah. And I'm trying I'm trying to see it. You give me a second. I need to put my laptop up. I can't. My eyes aren't what they used to. So, this email was from officer Ruckaw and um I mean if it would please it is her email. It's her words. Would it be
okay if I had her read the email? Whatever the city wants to do. I'll take the testimony from either of you. Uh good morning, Ayaka Rockshell, City of St. Pete Beach. It's actually easier up there for me. So, I sent an email on June 14th, the
day that I observed this behavior. um sending it to our manager Pete Dir. Um I was at Pasigril all morning and did not observe any activity initially at 11:09 Gulfway. Um I attached pictures that I took basically hourly from 9:30, 10:18,
11:18 to 12:04. And so I started to head back up north towards my um other location. Uh the complainant neighbor across the street at 11312th Avenue, uh Mr. Jacob Hull House started sending
messages of um Mr. Vnalt who was in an orange shirt and Laura Laura Manise in a beige shorts and top um in the group text around 1 p.m. when I was back at Uppam Beach on the north end of St. Pete Beach. I rushed back down to Passagril
and observed customers exiting their parked vehicle which were parked in the rear of the the property in question, the 1109 Gulf Way. Um, I confirmed to them that they had just paid for parking and asked them how much and they said $40. Um, they proceeded to speak I then
proceeded then to speak with Mr. Vnalt as he was out on the Gulf way um, still pitching to other vehicles and um, advised him that he could not solicit for beach parking on his private property. Um he asked if Miss Mones could then join our conversation because
she was over at at the house and she came out from the house to speak with us. Um they wanted to know who the complainant was and what is the ordinance prohibiting this activity and what my e email was which I provided to them. They claimed to have checked with their
lawyer who said it was okay for them to solicit parking on their private property and advised them to make a public records request if they wanted to know who had made the complaint. Um, they stated that they will continue to sell their resident parking spaces until they receive a notice of a violation.
Um, and I left and and and they started again selling at 1:34 p.m. Thank you. I'm continuing on. This is a screenshot of my notes that I put in my respect inspection report. Um, I have the same one here that I'm going to read from.
It's a little easier for me. Uh, on 713, I inspected the property for sales of parking. I was approached by the property owner, Laura Moes, who is Mones, who offered me parking. I asked if she was selling parking and stated that she had stated in fact that she was
selling parking. I identified myself as a city employee and I stated that she should not be selling parking as she is not permitted to do so. She asked for identification and simply said okay when advised to stop. Corrective action. Property must discontinue the sales of parking.
Property is compliant. Recommended fine is $3,000 for irreparable and irreversible violation, plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees associated with this case. Uh that concludes my presentation. Madame Magistrate, uh if you would allow, we do
have a witness um complainant himself uh who also has screenshots of the cash app transfers showing parking to the owner. uh if you would allow whatever whatever evidence that you all are willing to present in your case and
chief. Good morning. And uh I was a few minutes late, so do I need to be sworn in? Yes. Okay. Could you please raise your hand? Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Could you please state your name for the record? Uh Jacob House, uh 10913th Avenue North,
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701. And your last name is spelled uh H O L E H O A U S E. Okay. Just like it sounds. Yeah. Perfect. Okay. And Mr. Whole House, um go ahead and let me know what you observed or uh what your testimony is today. Yeah. So, we we lived in the uh a home
across the street. Um noticed in February that uh they started selling parking there. Um and at first it was like, "Hey, once a week, this is cute." Then turned into spring break three times a week. Um, we said something to them as to like, hey, you know, could we
not, you know, do this? It adds 40 to 50 people, you know, onto our street there. Um, they came over to our house and approached us, called me a California communist. And, uh, for taking away their property rights and then, um, upon, uh, you know, walking my dogs that
night, came back and, uh, in walking in uh, so we actually just moved, we're planning to rent that house. They said, uh, I will use every legal right to make your life hell of having a tenant if you turn us into city code enforcement. So, we sat on it for about 60 days, did not turn it in. Um, and then it just
continued to escalate to the point of uh the city issues uh parking passes uh for uh street parking for residents to where they were even selling that city uh like street pass as well for the $40 that's designed for residents only. Um and so
that's when we uh basically you know turned the case in uh to code enforcement. Um and then you know one of the other things that we found is uh Vinmo which is public payments was being used for many of the transactions. Um and so we uh did turn uh that into the
city um where you can see that you know people were basically paying for uh parking on Vinmo. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Anything further from the city?
Uh, no, ma'am. Okay. Is there anyone here on behalf of the property owners? Mr. and I'm going to butcher your names again. Ronald Venol or Veno and Miss Lauren Mones. Hi, good morning. If you guys could please state your names and sound them out correctly for the rest of us, I would
appreciate that. Lauren Mones. Yeah. Ronald Vinho. Vin. Okay. Vin. Got it. Okay. You guys have heard what has been alleged against you. What information would you like to present? Yeah. So, I have three points that I'd like to present to you. The first is the
Florida statute 715.075 075 and the right to use private property. I want to clarify that all my actions regarding the use of my private driveway for parking have been based on a sincere belief that this activity is lawful
under Florida statute 715.075. My understanding of this statute is that the sub subsection one explicitly permits private property owners to establish parking rules and rates on their property. Subsection two prohibits local
governments from adopting ordinances that restrict this right. Based on that clear language, I genuinely believe that the city's blanket prohibition on selling private driveway parking is preempted by state law.
That said, I fully recognize that this statute comes with specific conditions, including requirements for signage, invoicing, grace periods, and appeal rights. I am fully committed to ensuring compliance with every element of the statute and am open to any feedback or
clarification that the city may offer. My intent is not to create conflict, but to exercise my rights responsibly and respectfully under Florida law in a way that does not compromise public safety,
neighborhood character, or the rights of others. If there are specific compliance concerns, I welcome the opportunity to work in good faith to resolve them. Nonetheless, I submit that an outright prohibition conflicts with the statutory
protections I just described. Number two, responding to an obvious public need. It's important to recognize the real and growing need for parking in Pasigril in all of St. Pete Beach. As full-time residents, we witness
firsthand the frustration this creates. We've seen arguments, traffic congestion, fights, honking, all over parking availability. This issue first came to us during a lunch one afternoon when a visitor pulled up and told us she had been
driving around for an hour looking for parking. She asked to pay to use our driveway. We agreed and we even let her park there for free. That's how this all started. The city's own St. Pete Beach action plan
acknowledges this problem and explicitly encourages, quote, this is all part of St. Pete Beach parking action plan. Quote, work with private property owners to allow public parking on vacant private lots. If this is part of the city's own
strategy, we struggle to understand why we are now facing code enforcement threats for doing exactly that. Helping to reduce congestion, supporting local businesses, and creating a better a better visitor experience. Our intention has never been to operate
a business, but to offer an occasional solution to a clear community problem in a way that is safe, legal, and beneficial to the neighborhood economy. Number three, my last point. Concerns about unequal enforcement and harassment.
I must raise serious concerns about what we believe has been discriminatory and intimidating enforcement behavior. A few weeks ago, we walked out our front door and there was a private unmarked vehicle that was a black truck that was blacked
all over the windows. You couldn't even see inside. It was running. It was right outside our front door and I knew that that was code enforcement Stephen sitting outside waiting for us to do whatever he wanted to take pictures of.
Um, this felt extremely invasive, made us uncomfortable, and frankly unsafe in our own home. I don't want to walk out my door and feel like I'm being spied on, which every weekend it seems like there's someone taking pictures of us. and that feels incredibly invasive.
Um, we are not the only property owners in the area who have allowed parking on private driveways. Yet, we appear to be singled out, included, including being cited for parking on the grass, while others, and we have pictures of our neighbors
doing it, are not held to the same standard. This inconsistency suggests a pattern of selective enforcement which feels unfair and retaliatory. We pay over $50,000 a year in property taxes. And we have always tried to be
responsible stewards of our property and respectful members of this community. We simply ask for equal treatment, clear guidance, and respectful dialogue with the city. And I really hope that my feeling of being harassed with pictures
every time I walk outside my door is going to stop. And the fact that um if we have cars parked in our driveway, we live in Pass a Grill, if we have cars parked there, that it's not going to be
assumed that we are soliciting parking. We have friends, we have family, we're allowed to have cars parked in our driveway. Just like his photos showed, if I'm talking to someone on the street, that doesn't mean that I solicited them. In addition, um
uh and oh yeah, so I also sent an email to um Miss I don't know how to say Dr. I never received it, so I don't think Okay. But I I sent the email and we have proof of that. And what she said is that
we were going to continue to sell the parking until we get a violation. That's not true. I didn't say that. I said, "We're going to keep selling the parking until we see the ordinance." Because our lawyer actually we consulted with him and he said, "I looked at all the codes. I don't and I don't want you to disclose any attorney client privilege
information. So, if you're willing to disclose it, please do. I just want to make sure." Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, he said, "I can't find anything." And then she approached us and I said, "Well, can you show us the ordinance?" And she said, "I don't know it." She said, "Send me an email." I sent her an email and I never got a response. And then the next thing we
know, we got a a violation. So that's how this all worked out. Okay. Um, can we show the email? The email is right there. Can you confirm that's your email? I Yeah, I can't see that. Okay. Can I show it to you? Can you
confirm that's your email? Mississippi. We can let's pull the email and it was it's on my phone. So I mean it's okay. Yeah. And we we have the testimony so I understand Yeah. how we got here. Okay.
And I just want to add something else. You know, this is a personal problem with Jake with us. And you can see that because he just lied to to everyone about the conversation we had. This is not the conversation we had. Like he said, and Jake owns a an insurance company.
No, no, no, no, no. But he No, he's mad at us because we can most of our houses. So, this is a personal about Yeah. But it has to be said, you know, because everybody else is doing it and we're single out. And I will be the first person to tell
you you this. I'm very happy you guys have never been before me before, but the argument that everyone else is doing it and so we should get to do it is not going to fly. Just because everyone else speeds doesn't mean speeding is legal. So to that to that point is not right. And and I will assess the credibility
when I make my ruling. Do you guys have anything further? Um no, but I think those are yeah our points. So all right, thank you very much. And then um anything further from the city? Uh no ma'am. Okay. Um I am going to take um this
under advisement. I am going to the the I'm very familiar with the statute that you referenced. However, it was just passed in 2024. So there's not a lot of case law with regard to if that preeemption applies moving forward or if it's a grandfathered preeemption. So I want to take a look at the actual bill
passage and see when it came into effect and and what happened there. So, I want to do a little bit of research before I make my ruling to make sure it one is the statute applicable to this to compare to the citation that you received from um the city because it is
not it is not a full preeemption. Municipalities and and local governments can make some um regulations with regard to off- streetet parking which is the section you've been cited under. So, not necessarily the solicitation for parking but off- streetet parking in the section. So, I want to take a little bit
of time to um do the legal research on it so I can Yes. I apologize if I may. Um may I also submit a supplemental brief on behalf of the city? Um yeah. Well, okay. So, that's fair. Um I
would say I'm going to have to give each side the the opportunity to do so. Um, understanding you are not currently represented by council. Um, I will get in order. How about I do this? I will allow the parties 7 days from today's
date, if you so choose, anything in addition to your argument that you've given here today, legal argument, to submit to me um, in the form of an email or word document, however you want to submit it, um, a legal briefing as to why you think 715.075 075 applies and
your legal position. After the seven days has passed, um the city will have an additional seven uh business days. I'm not going to count weekends, seven business days in order to go ahead and get me a response or a rebuttal brief. Um and then I will make my ruling after
that. Um and so that you have my email address. It is Erica RIA at city attorneys.leal. legal city attorneys attorneys s c i t y a t o r ne ysle
legal um and then I will I will send yeah I'm just going to make that oral ruling for now um for you guys to get me my briefing and then within seven days and then seven days rebuttal seven business days of today's date so not
counting today starting tomorrow. Thank you. And I will both I will look at both of those and then I will make my ruling based on the legal uh landscape that was set in both of those. Okay. Okay. And when you send it to me, just make sure that you copy somebody from the city on it. Uh preferably the city
attorney's office, but somebody from the city. If you don't, that's fine. I will just incorporate them into it so that we don't have any exparte communications because technically I'm sitting as a judge in my position in here. And also, are you aware that the the parking action plan?
You can submit that within your brief. That's fine. Okay. I am bound by certain things that I can and cannot consider and I will set that forth in my order. But you need to give me whatever you think is the legal landscape so that I can take consideration of it. Um, and then they will respond to it and then I'll have
all of it and you will get a full order with, you know, everything. I don't think this applies. I think this applies, etc., etc. Yeah. All right. Okay. All right. Thank you both very much for your time here today. Um, and I will just be on the lookout for that email. Okay.
Thank you. And thank you, Miss Barryman. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to 4 D. Case number 20250341.
City of St. Pete Beach versus Scott R. Shamming and Lisa R. Shamming. Uh, well, so good morning. Good morning, Mad Magistrate. Stephen Rivera again, on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach, code enforcement. Case number 20250341.
Respondent is Scott R. Shamming and Lisa M. Shamming. Violation address is 2817 pass away. Violations description. The property is in violation of 23.1121 and two parking construction and design requirements of the land development
code of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 64205. Notice of violation dated 65205. Notice of violation compliance date 623 2025. And notice of hearing dated and
posted to the property 7:30 2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I've witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 2817 Pass Way. It's a Google image of what the driveway looked like before it was removed.
It's a current picture of the driveway now covered in mulch. Uh it looks like the concrete was removed and they put mulch down. There another picture here July 9th. You can see in this picture too how the mulch is coming out of it's getting
washed out into the street. Another picture from the other side. Corrective action. Property must apply for a driveway permit and construct a driveway to meet the code standards. Property is not compliant. Recommended
fine is $250 a day beginning$823 plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. And Mr. Rivera is uh are they do they need a
permit to remove the concrete that was already on the driveway? gotten a permit to remove. It would have been one permit to remove and reinstall. Um, there's no permit application at this time for the reinstallation. Okay. So, would it be an a I guess it would just be an after the fact or
a just a driveway. Yeah. And I didn't see him pulling it out. So, I didn't issue a stop work order. This was I drove by, saw it was mulch, there was no car parked on it. Assumed maybe they were just going to use the other side entrance for their garage. Mhm. Um and then noticed that they started
parking on it and that's when it became a violation. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Is there anyone here on the behalf of the property owners? If you could please come up and state your name for the record. Scott Shamming, 2817 pass away. All right, Mr. Shaming, kind of let me
know what happened here. Um well, Bruce is right. I didn't have didn't get it done in time and u not necessarily technologically uh advanced to get that permit applied for. I did talk to I think an associate or somebody that u uh so I already I got the
estimates it's going to be done within the next they're going to start in about two weeks to three weeks is when they're going to start. So it's going to be so I'll have the permit applied for prior to that you know get it approved. So, it's going to be all along we were putting uh
uh I wanted to put down the Augusta brick down, you know, like the streets, but tried and tried and tried to find some. We couldn't find any, so I had to settle for Detroit as opposed to um old Chicago. So, uh so that took a little bit of time and um so now uh I I only
put that down uh to hold down like the dirt and all that. And so I know that I apologize for putting that down, but I just didn't want to get all dirty. That's my bathroom. So, okay. So, the concrete has been removed. The concrete pads have been removed. Yeah, it was the mulch went in to prevent the spread
of dirt everywhere. Yeah. In and out. Yeah. So, that's what I did it for. So, um do you know you said it was about 3 weeks for them to to install or they're going to start in three weeks? In two to He told me two to four weeks this morning, but I'm pushing them to
get it like sooner than later. Okay. So, Okay. So then um Okay. All right. That makes sense. All right. Anything else? Yeah. And the one estimate didn't have like a concrete BM, you know, from from the street end on the one side and so the apron. Yeah. So the other one did.
So that's I'll show it to you. It's all right. Thanks. Okay. Um All right. Anything else from the city? No. No, ma'am. Okay. So your estimate is is two, three weeks, but you still have to pull permits. Well, I'm going to pull a permit here this week.
Okay. Okay, cuz I'm we're all ready to go. I'm just going to pull the permit and make sure he's okay. Then I will do um four weeks from the date of my order in order to um have the concrete the p permit pulled and everything installed and ready to go. Okay. Um and to come into compliance. So that
will put us after the September hearing. So I will set a set a status check for the October 6th hearing. Hopefully I don't see you then because everything's in compliance and you're good to go. But if not, then I will see you on October 6th. Please make sure we have your contact information and I'm going to send you an order that says all that.
You got it. Thank you so much, Mr. Shaming, and have a great day. Thank you. You too. Thank you for your consideration. All right. And moving on to 4E. Case number 20250424, excuse me, 0420, City of St. Pete Beach versus Kenneth
Hutman. Mr. Rivera. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20250420. Respondent is Kenneth Hutman. Respondent address is 2893 West Vina Delmare
Boulevard. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 46331 and 4B. Enumeration 9866A B 20 and 24. Residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of
ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 712025. Notice of violation dated 72 2025. Notice of violation compliance date dated 717 2025. Notice of hearing dated
and posted on the property. 7:30 2025. Following is a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 2893 West Vina Delmare Boulevard. It's a picture of the grass and weeds that were overgrowing.
Another picture there is the sideyard going into the backyard. Was a little worse than the front yard there. the little island section there in the horseshoe driveway. It's a piece of the retaining wall
that's starting to shift. More retaining wall shifting around there. This is grime buildup that was on the roof. Corrective action. Property must cut and maintain the grass and weeds regularly, repair the section of retaining wall that are in disrepair, and clean the
grime build up off the roof. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 per day beginning 823 2025. That's $330 administrative cost and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. I did finally get a call from one
of the property owners. The grass has been cut. Um so the grass and weeds have been cut. The retaining wall they're still working on. They did clean the grime off the roof. So currently the only violation that's on the property would be the uh for the grass and weeds
uh 986620 I believe it is. Um I'm sorry the grass it was the retaining wall. Retaining wall. Yeah. My apologies. Think of what was in compliance there. Okay. Yeah. Uh so it's just the retaining wall. I asked them what their plan of action was to get they're thinking about pulling it out but she didn't give me a
definite answer as to when and I'm not even sure if they're here today. They're in Virginia. So, okay. Okay. Thank you. Is anyone here on behalf of Mr. Hutman or is Mr. Hutman here? Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Kenneth
Hutman or is Kenneth Hutman here? Seeing no one. Okay. I am going to find that the property is in substantial compliance but is still not in compliance with regard to the retaining wall. I am going to allow 14 days from the date of my order in order for the property owner to repair the retaining
wall. Um, and then we will be back here on September 8th. If that is not the case, Madame Magistrate, can I get that pushed to October? I am not available uh for the September hearing. Yes, we will move it to the September or
excuse me, October 6th hearing um for the status update. In addition, I have their mailing address. Have you been corresponding via email with them at all? We've gotten email now. Uh they finally called back. our administrative assistant forwarded over to emails. We I've spoken to I think it's Kenneth's
wife I was speaking to Hutman. Um they have a local person here that went out and cut the grass and cleaned up at what they could. Uh this came in as a complaint from the neighbor. Okay. Property was severely overgrown. It's that's going on in that area currently. Um so yeah, she she got back to me, but
it was way after the compliance date. So right, I will you just said that they were in Virginia. So, I will mail them a copy of the order once I get it to you if you guys have their contact information forward on. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Moving on. Case number 202504,
City of St. Pete Beach versus Paul Murphy. Uh, and Donna J. Murphy as trustee of the trust. Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Sever behalf of City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. This is case number 202504.
Respondent is Paul V. Murphy, trustee, and Donna J. Murphy, trustee. Violation address is 25341st A. Violation description, the property is in violation of section 8.2A, permitted principal uses and structures of the land development code of the city
of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 7:22 2025. Irearable and irreversible notice of violation dated 728 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to
the property 728 2025. Following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 25341st a. This is a screenshot of the Airbnb ad for the property.
These are the two reviews. Uh if you look May of 2025, Melissa stayed about a week. And then there was another review for May of 2025 as well. Corrective action. The property can only be rented monthly. The property is
compliant. Recommended fine is $1,000 per stay for the two reviews totaling $2,000 plus the $330 administrative cost and any recommended any recording fees that may be associated with this case. I
do have a copy of the uh Airbnb policy. So this is for the review states on the back side here. Okay. Thank you. All right. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner? Have you had any contact you? Okay. If you'll please come up,
state your name for the record and your affiliation with the property owner. Um, I gave her the I Yeah, I I did see the power of attorney. If you could just for the record state your name. I'm Angela Ross. And what is your affiliation with the property owner?
The property management company. And what company are you with? St. Pete Beach Vacation Rentals. Okay, Miss Ross, go ahead. whatever you want to say in response. Well, I mean, I think it's the first time they've, you know, been doing this
and we did put it up. I didn't advertise it for weeklies. And technically, I blocked so it's like 30 days and 30 days on each of the 7-day rentals. So, there was a 7-day rental because it was bookable on each, but I blocked the
three weeks prior and the three weeks after for both those rentals. I mean, so I technically it's 30 days on each side of it. So I Right. But they but the rentals were not for 30 days. Correct. They were just for seven days. Right. But you couldn't book any other
time in between that. Sure. And while I appreciate the creativity, the technicality of the law does state it can't it has to be a 30-day rental. Um, which would mean that you would have to have someone in the property for the 30 days or so they they have to be in the property
the whole 30 days even if you block it from nobody else. Correct. Okay. Yep. That is the way the law reads. Oh, okay. But so those were both short-term rentals then. And you said they're not advertising that for that anymore. It's all taken off. It's not It wasn't advertised. Yes, it's on Airbnb because
that's where they're at anyways for the 30 days. Okay. But everything is taken off to be able to book for less than that. Okay. Okay. Anything else? No. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Anything else from the city? No, ma'am. Okay. Um, based on the testimony here
today, I'm going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code sections. I am going to consider this irreversible or irreparable as you cannot go back in time and unren the property. Um, I will, as this is the first offense for this property owner,
um, I will go ahead and assess $500 in fines for each stay. So, a total of $1,000 in fines plus the $330 in administrative cost to the city. Um, and any recording fees necessary in order to affectuate
the lean. Thank you, ma'am. Of course. Um, and Miss Ross, just make sure that I have your email address. I can send you a copy of that order. you can forward it to the property owners. Um, all right. And, uh, moving on. Case 202503,
City of St. Pete Beach versus James uh, Guyire for the James TMG Guyire Trust. Thank you. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. Case number 202503.
Respondents James TMG Guyire, Trustee. James TMG Guyire Trust. Violation address is 3302 East Maritana Drive. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 9.2A. Permitted principal uses and structures
of the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection 7225. Irreparable and irreversible notice of violation dated 728 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted on
the property 728 2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting. 3302 East Maritana Drive. This is a screenshot of the Airbnb ad. This is So there's three reviews. Uh,
one of them was in compliance. The other two was stayed about a week, stayed with the pet. Uh, so two in May. So the one in the green would have been we're assuming is a monthly rental. The second one in May would be a violation. And then the one for June that says stay
about a week. Corrective action. The property can only be rented monthly. Property is compliant. Recommended fine is $1,000 per stay for two reviews totaling $2,000 plus $330 administrative costs and any
recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. Okay. So, just for clarification, there were two stays in May, one stay in June, but the city is only categorizing the one stay in June that said stayed about a week and then the May one of the May
stays as short-term. I can bring it back up if you need to. It just shows I'm assuming that one of those May stays could have been from April. I I don't have proof that there's two violations in May. Okay. See one definite violation in May and one definite violation in June.
Okay. Fair. Okay. Anything else, Mr. Rivera? No, ma'am. All right. Um, is there anyone here on behalf of the James TM Guyire Trust? Please come up. Please state your name and affiliation with the trust for the record. My name is James Guyer and I own the
house and the trust. Okay. And Mr. Guyer, can you kind of tell me what happened here? Yeah, just to give you a little history, I've lived in that same neighborhood 20 years in that home, our home, the last 10 years. And just walked probably a thousand times around the neighborhood
and I won't point out, but it's kind of routine. So when my wife and I had to move and we still own it, we come back and forth. Uh so I we decided, well, let's maybe rent it out sometimes and use it sometime. So I
called the insurance company and said, what do we need to do to get this to be kind of a renter and owner policy? And they said, as long as it's not short-term rentals. What's short-term rental? Less than three days. So I had no idea. So first, let me say I had no
idea going into it. Once we received this notice, I researched it and I agree 100% we were wrong. Um, but so that's how it came to be. I believe it was um July 28th that this notice came out. By
August 1st, I had our uh person that is in charge of the BMBB immediately changed it to um no less than one month. And at the same time, um, we had, uh, people booked in advance.
We had somebody, uh, for next February 1 through 15, cancelled them. I paid $436.77 cancellation fee to those individuals. Uh, on December 21 through 31, cancelled
them right away. Um, paid them $234.75. I will say uh we had somebody there for um August 15th through the 31st. I'm being straight open. I didn't feel right to cancel them because it was such short
notice, but as as of uh September 1, there will be no more short-term rentals. Uh that's the way it is. Okay. And if you don't mind me asking, what's the average night? Like what are you asking for average per night on those rentals? Uh, I'm not trying to be evasive. I
don't take care of that. Um, we have somebody who does it, but from what I understand, it can vary depending on if it's a month, they get lower rates per night, right? Depending on the summer versus the winter, it's lower rates. Um, I think in the winter time it's more.
Yeah. In in the May ones and the June one, do you recall how much you Well, I can tell you this if you can do a little math. Oh, we'll see. It'll be easy. I believe I had to pay 10% of the fine. Uh 10%
to them because I canceled them. So if it was $4367, it was it would have been $4,300 divided by 15 days. Okay. That's that's in the middle would have been in February, right? Yeah. And during this point in time, um,
I think two weeks was like 3,100 something. Two weeks was about 3,000. Okay. So, it kind of varies and depends, right? They may have put a floor on it for 200 or something like that. Right. Okay. Um, maybe it's not. Okay. The other if I could just say
Sure. I I care very much about the neighborhood. I didn't I didn't know we were doing this um in the past. I see the name Betty Renwicki. She lives in the neighborhood. I was one of the individual core group that set the stage
for her to come in as president of that organization and take control of lots Eminem and safeguard the dunes. Uh I was and I I was singularly responsible due to my relationship with the DOT of
having the Bayway toll converted from uh paying to transponder because the cars are going through the neighborhood and causing a disruption. One complaint I would tell you that I have um with the city
is we do have it actively for sale. We're trying to sell it, but we're not getting any help with the city. There's this whole area that we're talking about is Pineellis Bayway. It goes from Barcelona to Gran Granada. It was when we first moved there, one of
the commitments of the city was to plant it was after the bridge was done and was to plant beautiful trees all the way across which provided a buffer of sound and sight for the homes. The hurricane flood waters killed many of them. But
since that time, which is almost a year now, they've not done hardly anything, if anything, to clean up the dead oras. They're all piled up. It doesn't allow the new to grow. It creates a haven for
rats. It's unsanitary. And I've seen code violations listed today about unsightly this and unsightly that. they don't help us uh to to make our sales better to have a chance to sell us. We've complained
no results. So, I hope maybe that can change that would help us. And the last but not least, um as far as I wish I had known we had the opportunity to be here by Zoom. I came here because I said to be here, didn't
say there was a opportunity to There typically is not. So, yeah, I checked myself out of the wishes of doctors out of a hospital this weekend to be here. Had I known, I would have certainly used Zoom and uh
that's really about all I have to say. I was we were we did wrong. I totally admit that. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Guy. I appreciate your testimony here and for being here. Um anything further from the city? No, ma'am. Okay. Oh, one one last thing. Sure.
I I understand the um $330 uh registration fee or whatever it is, court fee. But the trouble I have with that is had somebody sent me a letter, gave me a phone call and said, you know, you're
not supposed to be doing this. Fix it. You're in violation. I would have fixed it immediately. There would have no been no reason to be at this court. Some time ago, we had some bushes that went over into the sidewalk. We got a letter. I called them right up. Hey, it'll be
taken care of in the next two days. So, I don't know if anything could be changed in the future, but maybe people can get a a warning before it has to come to this level. And I appreciate that there are some certain violations that do warrant that. These types of violations are usually
after the fact violations. The only time the city found out about it was because there was a review posted. So, um, that is something that, you know, this is a public hearing, so the city is listening to that. They can certainly do that. I don't have any control over that. Understood. But thank you very much for that. Um,
and my understanding is this is also your first violation of this nature because I've not seen you here before. I've seen many others that have stood there for the same violation. So, uh, I am going to find that the the testimony provides that there was a violation of the code section. Um, as we've discussed
on in like the last case, this is the first violation. So, I'm not going to assess $1,000 per stay. We'll do $500 per stay for a total of $1,000 for a fine for a repable irreversible plus the $300 in administrative costs of the city for having to bring the case
and the reasonable recording fees should there need to be a lean recorded. And make sure I have your contact information so I can send you a copy of the order. And how do I go about paying that? Do I pay? um you talk to the city and they will figure out how you go about paying that. Thank you. I would love to take your money, but they don't let me do that. So,
okay. Um thank you very much, Mr. Guyire. Moving on to 4 H case number 20250426, City of St. Pete Beach versus Marilyn Rimmer. Ayaka Ruckshell representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is
case 20250426. Respondent is Marilyn D. Rimar Trust. Violation address is 5404 Paliway. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 46-33.
Items 1A and three. Enumeration 98-66A B 20 and 22 of residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach.
The case summary, the initial inspection was on June 25th, 2025. Notice of violation dated July 1st, 2025. Notice of violation compliance date was July 11th of 2025. Notice of hearing was
dated and posted on the property on August 7th, 2025. This is a picture that I actually handed to the property owner on August 7th of the um affidavit of posting. So, we know she got it. Yes. Okay.
Um this is some pictures dated back from June 25th of the overgrown vegetation. more overgrown vegetation. You see here, same all from June 25th. This is clearly all from, you know, storm damage clearly, but um and then uh
a dead tree on the property and overgrowth, overgrown vegetation again. Plenty of pictures. This is from July 15th. Um pictures looks like they had a
a pod of some sort there. trying to do some repairs, possibly some debris on the property on site. This is on August 1st. It's like a tidy up event um effort on August 1st.
Continue to make an effort to clean up, August 1st. So, the corrective action that we are seeking is the property must maintain the landscape and remove all dead vegetation and debris. Um, the property um is not compliant as of today. I was out there this morning just to take some
pictures. They are making efforts though. Um, the recommended fine is $250 per day beginning uh August 23rd, 2025 plus $330 in administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. So, um, for
full transparency on August uh 7th when I did go out to repost the property and handed the owner the the notice, I did speak with her then. She did have a landscaper on site. She had a contractor there. She was working with them to bring it into compliance and just had
some questions that I answered for her. Okay, great. So, I believe she is acting in good faith, but we need to narrow down a timeline to get this all accomplished. Understood. Okay, thank you very much. And anyone here on behalf of Miss Rimmer
or Yes. Okay. Do you want to come state your name and your affiliation with the property owner for the record? And were you here when I swore everyone in? I was. Okay. Just want to make sure. Haven't sworn. I was gonna say I watched you walk in and out, so I wasn't sure if you were here at the initial one. Perfect.
Morning. My name's Arando Kintterero. I am uh Maryland's uh general contractor. Perfect. And Mr. Kero, can you kind of tell me what the plan is moving forward? How long? Yes, we are actually on site this morning. Um when we were there with the
inspector there um early August, we had our landscaper there as well. um a little slow and turn around. Um everybody's a little busy, but I'd like to request an extension to get these items taken care of. Sure. How long do you think that you might need in order to go ahead and and finish up?
14. Okay. Um Okay. And you said business days? Yes. All right. Okay. Anything else? Uh no. Okay. I I typically write my anything else from the city. No. Okay. I typically write my orders in
regular date and regular days in calendar days, not business days. So, um I am going to find that the property was not in compliance. I am going to allow for 20 days from the date of my order, which should allow for the a sufficient time based on the testimony here today for the property to come into compliance. Um and then once it does, if
you guys could just let the city know, they can come back out and inspect it. it is your responsibility to make sure that they are aware and then um we will hopefully not meet back here uh let's see 20 days that's kind of so we'll have to do that for the October
8th hearing hopefully or 6th hearing October 6th hopefully I don't have to see you there and everything is in compliance um if not then I will see you both in October thank you very much thank you all right and moving on to the last case
of the day Case number 20250401, city of St. Pete Beach versus Matthew Gate. Gate Gates Rock Shell representing City of St. Pete Beach. Code enforcement. This is the next case. Code enforcement
case 20250401. The respondent is Matthew Gibbs. Violation address is 42970th Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violations of section 46-33
1 A 2 3 4 A and B 12 of enumeration section 98-64A general maintenance section 98-651 A and B 3 and 4 on sightly conditions
section 98-66 A B 2B 3 6 20 22 24 C 2 and 3 of the residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach.
The case summary initial inspection was on June 20th, 2025. Notice of violation dated June 23rd, 2025. Notice of violation compliance date July 14th, 2025. And the notice of hearing was dated and posted on the property August
7th, 2025. This is a picture of the affidavit of posting on August 7th. Um, this house has pretty much been abandoned, so there's a lot of overgrown vegetation. Um,
the home is in disrepair. Has a damaged window here on this was taken on June 20th. Overgrowth again. growth vegetation. June 20th picture same again. June 20th, damaged window trim.
Overgrew vegetation and debris in the driveway. Sighting missing from the house. Debris. Sighting. vegetation, damaged windows, missing sighting again,
debris, overgrown vegetation on June 20th. Again, this abandoned trailer has been removed, okay, as of the date, but the overgrowth still remains. and had an expired trailer registration
on it. So, June 20th overground vegetation pictures. This is July 15th. Still showing overgrowth. Like I said, the trailer has been removed. July 15th,
I think there was an attempt to possibly clean up on August 1st. Um, I was out on property this morning and I do have some up-to-date pictures. So, um, there may be a little bit of maintenance done on the landscaping.
However, the structure is still in in disrepair. There's been no attempts there. So the corrective action here is property must maintain uh the landscape, paint the exterior structure, repair fascia boards, door, window trims, fence, and remove trash, debris, and dead vegetation. The property is not
compliant, so the recommended fine is $250 per day beginning August 23rd, 2025, plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. If you'd like to see, things have grown very quickly since that August.
Okay. Yeah, thank you. This is as of this morning. Overhead, please. Oh my. I can still debris. the driveway. Still see? Yes.
Have you had the opportunity to speak with the property owner at all? No, I've made no have no contact with him. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Is there anyone here on behalf of Matthew Gates? Gets anyone here on behalf of Matthew Gats or
is Matthew Gats here? 4297th Avenue. Okay, seeing no one, I do find that the property um is in violation of the stated code sections. I will allow 14 days from the date of my order in order for the property owner to come into compliance. Um, and if we do not see
that, um, is set this for a code compliance hearing one, two for the September 8th, a status hearing for the September 8th meeting. Um, and it is at that time I will assess any necessary fines or fees.
All right, that is the last case I have on my agenda. Is there anything else we need to discuss? No, ma'am. Okay. So, the next hearing will be September 8th at 10:00 a.m. and then October's is set for October 6th at 10 a.m.
Okay. Thank you. I will see you all at those dates at those times. Have a good day. Thank you. Have a good day.