The special magistrate code enforcement meeting for the city of St. Pete Beach for Monday, December 8th, 2025 to order. Hello, my name is Erikica Agello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases. I am a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida Bar and
board certified in city, county, and local government law. I have been appointed to this position in accordance with the authority set forth in chapter 162 Florida statutes and the city of St. Pete Beach code of ordinances. I am not an employee of the city of St. Pete Beach and I do not represent the city
here today. I do not confer with the city's code enforcement officers outside of the hearing process about your cases. It is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters presented. As such, I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings. Today's matters will be heard in the
order in which they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed. Every effort will be made to hear all persons having relevant evidence, arguments, or comments related to the specific case that is being heard. If you wish to speak today, it is necessary that you be sworn in, which I will do momentarily.
All testimony given will be done 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 sure every effort uh is
ensured that fundamental fairness and due process is afforded to all parties. After hearing all relevant evidence, I will issue an order. The order will be reduced to writing and all parties will be provided with the copy. So, please ensure that we have your current address or email address. Additionally, you are advised that I do not have the authority
to grant you a variance, permit, or special 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
subjected 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 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
in any witnesses. Anyone wishing to speak today, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn. Um, if everyone could raise their right hand to be sworn, please. I do. You swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Okay. So, sworn. All right. Are there
any changes to the agenda this morning? >> Yes. Good morning, Madam Special Master Street. Pete Der, code enforcement manager for the city of St. Pete Beach. under new cases D 20 0079
25711. >> Okay. And those cases as listed will be continued to the January 12th hearing at 10:00 a.m. and I will get the orders to continue out. >> Thank you. >> Any other changes to the agenda this morning? >> No, ma'am. Thank you. And we will
proceed with the regular agenda to agenda item 3A case number 20250061. >> Good morning special straight. Ayaka rock shell here representing the city of St. Pete Beach. This is case 20250061.
The respondent is Christopher J. Padet. Violation address 54472nd Avenue and it is in zone CC-1. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 98-123.1
permits required of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. The initial inspection was back in January 16th of 2025. An amended notice of violation dated and
mailed certified was sent on October 3rd, 2025. The amended notice of violation compliance date was October 13, 2025 and a notice of hearing was dated and posted on the property
10:24, 2025. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. The affidavit of posting here on the property on October 24th. This is part of the initial inspection. um the the picket type smaller white
fence and that had been damaged in the storm and it had blown over and it needed to be repaired. There was some debris on the property that they were also cited for. As illustrated here, this is a closeup of the fence gate that
had blown over. um the whole house. So, this is pictures from February. We're showing that the debris was still present and the broken fence was still down. Then, um they obtained a hurricane
repair permit. That's the number 25503767 which was issued on April 21st, 2025 and shows that the work in process for the hurricane repair to the property. Um and then the new fence here was
installed as you can see on September 30th, 2025. No longer a picket fence, but a full boarded fence. different angle for the fencing. Now, the hurricane repair permit um covered repairs to the property, the
house, but it did not include the fence. So, that's why an amended notice was sent out um telling them that they needed a separate permit for the fence. So the corrective action here is property must obtain a permit for the new fence since it is not included in
the scope for the hurricane repair permit number 25503767. The property is not compliant and the recommended fine is $250 per day beginning as the date of your order 1211 let's say plus $330 administrative cost
and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. I do have the permanent administrator here who can give us the latest status on that as of this morning. >> Okay. >> Like to call call Joan Bolan if >> of course before we call Miss Boland um just to clarify the initial notice of
violation was for the disrepaired fence, the debris, etc. >> Correct. >> And then the amended notice was just for the installation of the fence without the proper permit. >> Correct. Because the debris had been picked up by that point. Uh, Miss Bolan. >> Good morning. Joan Bolan, permit
administrator, City of St. Pete Beach. Uh, this will be short and sweet. There has not been a fence permit submitted. Um, we looked this morning. Nothing in there. No uploads. So, there is not a
permit in house. Okay. Thank you, M. Thank you. >> Anything further from the city? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Um, anyone here on behalf of Mr. Padet or is Mr. Padet here? >> If you could please state your name for the record and then any response to the
city's allegations. >> Yeah. Hey, my name is Chris Padet. I'm the homeowner. Um, and and apologies. I came in here a few minutes late. I I caught the end of this. >> Can I ask before you proceed, have you been sworn in? >> I No, I have not. >> Okay. Could you please raise your right hand to be sworn? Do you swear from the
testimony you're about to give as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Uh, yes, I do. >> Okay, you may proceed. >> And and again, sorry I came in here a few minutes late. So is is the suggestion to submit a permit for this?
And if I if I don't, there are fines starting on the 11th of this month. >> No. So, at this point, there's been no judgment as to whether or not you're in violation of the code. Okay. So, right now, the city is just stating that you did b pull a hurricane repair permit.
However, that did not include the fence. Yeah. >> Um and they are requesting me to find that you are in violation of installing the fence without a permit. If I do find that violation, then I will give you a certain period of time to comply with the code. If you comply by that date,
there won't be any fines associated, but there might be costs. Um and then if you don't comply then the fines will continue will will begin to run. >> Okay. So um yeah I installed the fence after Helen um without a permit. That
was my mistake. That was wrong to do. Um I've got a 2-year-old toddler who was out in the front yard and this is not an excuse. But right across from me is Pineapple Palms which dealing drugs. Very bad situation.
along with the guys on bikes just riding around the neighborhood. And there was an incident where someone got a little too close to my 2-year-old and I said, "Hey, I can't risk the safety of my boy." And I put the fence up uh because I thought I had to. So, again, that was wrong. I messed up. I should have filed
a permit. I did not. Um I thought I had to wait for my hurricane repair permit to kind of close out before I filed this one. I got the notice. I've kind of held because I wanted to come in here and figure out
what the recommendation was. So, um, yes, I will work on this starting today and within, you know, a few days I will submit the permit for the fence and I apologize for messing up and not doing it um, in the beginning. >> Thank you, Mr. Padet. Um, I do have a
question. Miss Bolan, do you happen to know for after the fact permits how long those are taking to be approved? on a fence permit. It's going Do you have a pool in your yard? >> I don't. No. >> Okay. So, it will go to planning and zoning for review.
>> So, um you know, our minimum is 30 days. So, um it could be sooner than that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Anything else from you, Mr. Padet? >> Um no. Like I said, well, if you by by Friday of this week, I can promise to
get the fence permit submitted. I just have to see if I have the survey from when I bought the house in 21. If assuming I can use that, it'll just take me a few days. Um, if I have to get a new survey, obviously that'll take time to schedule and get the survey and then I can do the permit, but I promise I
will get on it as soon as possible. >> Okay. Um, anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Um, I am going to find that the property uh was in violation of the stated code section for failure to secure a permit
for this fence installation. I am going to allow me one moment. Okay. 30 days from the date of my order to secure a fence per an after the fact fence permit.
Um and then we will reconvene if necessary on January 12th to determine if the property is in compliance. If it's not, then we can discuss why it's not in compliance. If we need to, we can extend that time or we can I will consider fees and fines at that time. Um
and then you will get a copy of my order. Just make sure I have your mailing address or email address so I can get you a written copy of that order. All right. Thank you, Mr. Padet. >> Thank you. >> Did you sign in? >> Please do.
>> Okay. Moving on to um agenda item 4A, case number 20250712, City of St. Pete Beach versus Team B Equities LLC. >> I recall representing City of St. Pete Beach. This is uh case 202507112.
Respondent is team B Equities LLC. The violation address is 463 85th Avenue and it is zoned in RU2. Violation description. The property is in violation of sections 9.2A permitted principal uses and structures and 9.5
prohibited uses and structures of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial inspection was uh November 4th, 2025. The irreparable and irreversible notice of violation was dated and mailed
certified on November 10th, 2025. And the notice of hearing was also dated and posted on the property 11:10, 2025. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at the property on
November 10th. This is the advertisement on the Airbnb site there for the property. That is the mapped location circled
at 46385th Avenue. Um, this is showing you the potential to book four nights of bookings there shortterm. Here we have one review that said that they stayed a few nights in October of 2025
and that was a week ago from the date that I took the screenshot, which was November 14th, 2025. Some pictures of the home front the property the backyard pool
aerial view of the location of the home. So the corrective action is the property can only be rented monthly. The property is not compliant. The recommended fine is $1,000 per violation. There is one review totaling $1,000 plus $330 administrative costs only and any
recording fees that may be associated with this case. >> Okay. And the city is proceeding with this as a um irreferable irreversible. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Yes. If you'd like to see the policy for Airbnb, I do have it here for you.
>> Yes, please. If you could enter that into the record. Okay, that will be entered into the record. Anything further from the city? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of Team B Equities LLC? Anyone here on behalf of Team B Equities
LLC for 463 85th Avenue? Had you had any uh communication with the property owner on this at all? >> No contact at all, ma'am. Okay. All right. I am going to find that the evidence is sufficient um to
uh prove the violation of the code section stated that it is irreversible and irreparable. I am going to assess um a onetime fine of $1,000 plus the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city.
Okay, moving on to agenda item 4B, case number 20250. Oh, and on that one, do you want the recording fees as well? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. And the cost to record for any new leans.
>> Okay. Um, moving on to agenda 4B, case number 20250713, city of St. Pete Beach versus Enam Ibraim. >> Ayaka Rashel representing City St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is case number 20250713.
The respondent is Enami Ibraim Ibrahim. Violation address 42488th Avenue. It is in zone RU1. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 8.2A 2A permitted principal uses and structures and 8.5 prohibited uses and
structures of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. The case summary. The initial inspection November 4th, 2025. Irreparable and irreversible notice of violation was dated and male certified on November
10th, 2025, as well as the notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 11:10 2025. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. The affidavit of posting on the property on November 10th.
This is the advertisement on the Airbnb site. The mapped location for the property. Um, this screenshot shows you the potential to book for four nights. There there was one review
um from September 2025 and they stayed one night. This is the front entrance of the property. the L-shaped pool in the back. The corrective action is the property can only be rented monthly. Property is
not compliant. The recommended fine is $1,000 per violation. We have one review totaling $1,000 plus $330 administrative costs only and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. Okay, thank you. Anyone here on behalf
of uh Enam Ibrahim? >> Yes. >> If you could please come up, state your name um and your affiliation with the respondent for the record. >> Hi, my name is Beverly Boggas. I am property manager. And do you have um the
authorization from the property owner to be here and represent his interest? She's here with me. Her interest today. Thank you. >> And I'm apologize, Beverly. Your last name was >> Bogus. >> Can you spell that, please? >> B O G G SS. >> Okay. And uh you're the property manager. What company are you with?
>> Well, I'm a family member. Okay. But >> Okay. And Miss Bogus, what um would you like me to know? >> Okay. That uh we had we we're doing a test run for Airbnb. that was a family member that did the one night booking. Obviously, we wouldn't be renting the
house for one night. Um, we haven't had any vacation rentals there at all as of yet. Our first rental is February the 1st for one month. Um, and we were unaware actually that there were no short-term rentals. Uh, we were under
the impression that we had three per calendar year. um as in the city of Gulfport because that's where our other family vacation home was. Um so it was just lack of knowledge on our part, but it is only available for our family
members and for one month rentals. >> Okay, give me one moment. >> And so you said it was a family member. Did the family member um did you guys exchange funds at all or >> you have to when because we had to do the official booking through the site.
So, I mean, yes, we we paid ourselves, I guess. >> And how much did you pay yourself? >> Uh, 200 change, 229, maybe two. I'd have to look it back up. >> Okay. But >> we had a we had a minimal like just a fee in there. There was no cleaning fees
added. No extraneous fees obviously. >> It's whatever they the minimum was set at is what we did. Madam Special Ministry. >> Yes. >> May I ask who the family member was, please? >> Zena. It's a It was a cousin of Enams. And are we able to pro uh get some sort
of documentation from this person, please? >> You can certainly ask for it. They do not have to provide it to you. >> May we have documentation, please? >> Um >> do you have any documentation? >> I don't I don't have anything with us. I mean, would you
>> do you have an email or something that you could put on the overhead? >> Um at all. >> If if you don't, then you don't. I I not to my knowledge. I >> I mean I could look something up for you, but I don't I don't have anything with me now. No, >> I I can certainly provide something if you want to.
>> As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any reason not to believe you. I mean, >> I mean, nobody's renting a house for one night. I mean, >> um my only concern is the Anything else from the city or any other questions for the property?
>> No, ma'am. Manager. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. And you said that you do have an upcoming uh rental, but it is for the one-mon period. >> It's for the entire month of February. February 1st through the March the 1st, actually. >> Okay. All right. Um, anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Ayako is going to interrupt. >> Make sure you if you wanted to see the Airbnb and I will go ahead and take that into the record. >> Okay. And just to just to state that if even if this was a friendly one night false review in this case, it still does
give the impression to people that do view the site that it is possible to do this within St. Pete Beach and this is the whole >> understood. I >> um I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code section. It is very clear that it is being advertised for less than the
30-day rental. You've admitted that it was rented. There was money exchanged, which is why I asked. Um, I do find that it is irreparable or irreversible. I am not going to assess the $1,000 fine. I am going to assess the $200 fine based on the amount of money that it was
exchanged hands and the $330 and the reasonable administrative costs of the city and any recording uh fees that might be necessary in order to effective lean if if it's not paid. Um, I do that to do this. You do have a property that's located in Gulfport.
Every city is different. you need to learn whatever the rules and regulations are within the city that you are you've purchased your property in. So, it's very good that you guys got this here before um you know you started renting in February if you were going to do the three short terms. So, understand now it
can't be less than a monthly rental um and if it does if we do find that there is a monthly rental it comes back before me and I do find that there is within the next 5 years it will be considered a repeat violation um and it can carry heavier consequences. So, I will make sure I will get that order to you. Please make sure I have your email
address or mailing address to get that to you. Um, and then you can work with the city on whatever needs to be done. >> Okay. I'm here. >> Okay. And moving on to agenda item 4 C, case number 20250716, city of St. Pete Beach versus Royal
Properties Management LLC. I a rectell representing city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is case number 20250716. The respondents are Royal Properties Management LLC. Violation address is
34078th Avenue and it is in zone CC-1. Violation description. The property is in violations of sections 32.5 prohibited uses and structures of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial inspection was
November 5th, 2025. An irreparable and irreversible notice of violation was dated and mailed certified on November 10th, 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property same day, 1110, 2025.
This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting on the property on November 10th. This is the advertisement on VRBO showing the the ability to do a
short-term rental. That is the mapped location of the property. Again, showing a 3-day booking possibility on the website. There is one review here showing that
they stayed two nights in September of 2025 or pictures of the property. The corrective action is the property can only be rented monthly. The property is not compliant and the recommended fine is $1,000 per violation. There's one review totaling $1,000 plus $330
administrative cost only and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. I have been in contact um the owner did reach out to me on December 2nd >> and um pleaded his case and I we discussed it and I told him to be
present here and he could let you know how he the situation. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. Is anyone here on behalf of Royal Properties Management LLC? Okay. If you could please come up, please state your name and affiliation with the LLC for the record. >> Good morning. Uh, my name is Peter
Gretchie. I'm property owner. >> Okay. Could you please spell your last name for me? >> G R E C I. >> Okay. And your affiliation with the LLC? >> I'm the owner of the After we rectified it the first time, we actually
VRBO, we we actually gave it to housing. We had veterans in in the building after the hurricane. We had a huge problem. We couldn't rent it. We reached out to uh a agency that rents. Now, I got, you know, we
have court the correspondents here and they informed us that the the codes have well, I can even read it here. It says your risk was showing as yellow, which means those regulations are currently
not being actively enforced. what the city shared with you also supports that they are not actively enforcing their regulations at this time particularly around zoning. Now when when they said that to us I didn't ask any questions other than this because we've had such a
hard time renting the place even for long term. We didn't even we wanted to do away with the Airbnb. Um, so a after that after we saw this, we said, "Okay, since it's relaxed," I said, "Why is it relaxed?" Because we understand a 30-day monthly. Why is it relaxed? They says,
"Well, we're not exactly sure because we don't work for the city. Our only guess would be that there are just less opportunities for people to come on in because of the all the hotels and this that that are not available. So, the zoning is relax, you know, the code is relaxed." And I says, "That's beautiful,
you know, because I'm actually dying in the water." And and that's what leads us here. We got the notice. We immediately changed it again. We reached out to the company and they says, "Well, we're we'll back you with whatever you need." You know, I says, "Okay, then that's f, you know, then you better be there for
me if I have any trouble." And but that's what I have. have the correspondence and emails going back and forth them telling us we are allowed to do you know whichever whatever minimum we would like and like I says I didn't reach out and do my own homework cuz I don't I didn't even want to to be honest
I we're struggling we're struggling renting the place I have our next door is is ratinfested has been abandoned for years and I just can't do it I can't I can't I can't seem to rent it you know so when we got this this okay from them.
I says, "Okay, I guess you guys did the homework. You're you're an agency that rents." So, that leads me here. Now, after we got the notice, we contacted the agency said, "You you messed this up, you know, said, "Well, you know what? I I don't know. Nobody knows anything after the fact, you know." So,
so after that, we did rectify the problem. We have no short-term after that. I understand it's monthly, but that's where we stand, you know. So, >> Okay. And um how much did you make off of the rental? >> I don't really remember. Do you have any
>> I know it was minimal. It's like $60 a night when because it was initial, you know, they said, "Well, let's just try it for sure." So it was 60 bucks a night. >> Okay. And it was a two night stay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Now, was that do you have any, you
know, knowledge of what this was telling me? Do you want to see it? >> I can look at it. I what I understand your testimony is that they told you that there the risk is yellow. >> The risk is yellow. >> Risk meaning that there's still risk that if you rent your property in violation of the state of the city's
laws that you might not get caught. So, I liken it to speeding. The posted speed limit 65. there might be minimal risk for you to go 80 miles an hour and you might never get caught, but you might get tagged by FHP and be subjected to a
$280 fine or whatever it is. >> So, this didn't mean it's just >> I I can't I'm not going to make an opinion on that. All I can do is take whatever you've testified to at this point. So, that's between you and your property management company whether or not how that's interpreted based on what
you've told me. That's how I would interpret it is that there is a minimal risk, but it's, you know, zoning relaxing. I don't know what that means. I I I'll be honest with you. I that doesn't that doesn't really sway into what I'm doing up here, right? Um you
know what you've told me is that you've rented before. You've been here before. You know, you couldn't do it. >> We knew and I and we actually eliminated it from that whole site from the Airbnbs. We took it off. Yeah, I gave it I gave it veterans that actually
unfortunately destroyed half the property and out of my pocket I had to rebuild, you know, and everything we're trying is just not working. >> And I can understand that. I, you know, I and I do have the ability to make an equitable decision, but I also need to
make sure I'm making a legal decision. The testimony that you've given me is you knew you knew better. You did it. you ran you ran into a tough situation, but you took a risk, right? And at this point, the risk didn't really pay off. Um, I I I get that. I can understand that. Um, I'm a person as well, but this
is also not your primary home, right? This is this is a rental property for you. It's an investment property, right? >> Um, so I'm taking all those Yeah. riskreward. So, I'm taking all those things into consideration when I'm going ahead and making my determination as what I should do here. I need you to
understand that before I make my ruling. Um, that's why I asked how much you made for the rental because obviously $1,000 when you're making 150. It, you know, it is more punishment than compliance, but again, maybe maybe that needs to be done
because you you you do, but you were honest about it. So, I am taking all of that into consideration. So, is there anything else you would like me to know before I ask the city if they have anything else to make my ruling? >> Um, no. other than the fact that as soon as we did find the code, you know,
violation, we took it off Airbnb. Um, and or just, you know, kind of putting it back to the the monthly minimum. Um, and I mean, there's a lot in my head to say it just isn't coming out. I mean,
you know, I'm here. I'm just not good at speaking in front. >> I can understand that. Um, well, if there's if there's nothing else that you you think I need to know, I'm gonna ask the city. Do you guys have any does the city have anything further? >> I we were just wondering, you said you were here before and Madam Special Mist
reiterated it >> about three, four years ago. >> Two. Yeah, it was I mean when we >> It's about probably about five, six years ago. >> So, it was outside the repeat violations window. >> Yeah. And like I said, we we we know we understand the code and now I'm not
looking to skirt the system because it's not going to work. I found myself here before, but when I had this and the situation that we're in financially, I didn't question it. I said, "Thank God." >> I said, "Thank God that there's a there's an opening." I said, and I even asked the company, I said, "Why why is
that you being allowed?" And I said, "Our our guess is that there's just minimal places to stay because of the so many shutdowns." Said, "Well, it makes sense to me." So I I just didn't question it, you know, and my apologies for not questioning it. I guess I should
have did more homework. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So that is a hard lesson learned. Um but based on the evidence and testimony that I have received here today, I'm going to find that you are in violation of the state of code section that it is irre irreversible and irreparable. Um because you only got
$120 out of that um and the other credible testimony that you've given me, I am going to assess a fine of $200 plus the $330 in reasonable administrative costs. It is a little punitive because it's more than you made off of it. But I need you to understand that you are ultimately the property owner.
As you know, you're responsible for knowing the laws and what you can and can't do. I know you relied on who you thought was an expert to help you out with that. I that's between you and them and you probably need to bring that up with them, right? >> Um just understand the the laws are never relaxed. They are what they are
until they're changed, right? >> So you're still required to abide by them whether the city is actively enforcing them or not. Right? >> So hopefully I don't see you um back before me again. Um please make sure that I have your contact information so I can send you a copy of the order.
>> Okay. Thank you. Madam special magistrate, um clarification on your on your statement. >> Sure. >> To include the recording fees. >> The recording fees as well. >> Thank you. Ma'am,
>> did you need to see the VBO? >> Yes, please. For consideration in the record, but >> that's a standing I just assume that's a standing evidentiary. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um All right. Case 4D has been continued to January 12th. Moving on to case 4 E.
Case number 2025. Oh, that one's also been continued to January 12th. Uh, agenda item 4 F, case number 20250604, City of St. Pete Beach versus Develop St. Pete Beach LLC. >> Good morning, Madam Magistrate. Excuse me. Steam Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach
code enforcement. Case number 20250604. Respondents develop St. Pete Beach LLC. Violation address is 55059th Avenue. Violation description, the property is in violation of section 4633 2 and 3.
Enumeration 98651B and 4 unsightly conditions and 9866A and B 11 12 14 and 18 residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St.
Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 109 2025. Notice of violation dated mail certified was 10:22 2025. Notice of violation compliance date was 116 of 2025. And notice of hearing dated and posted to
the property 1112 2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I've witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 5559th. This is a picture of the palm frrons piled up in the driveway. It's a picture of the gutter and the
fascia board separating from the roof. This picture has sophets that are fallen. It's another section of the house where the fascia board and the roof are separating. This is near the front door. It's a pond that's got stagnant water in it.
It's kind of drawn out picture. I've circled where you can see the sophets's failing on the top right and the fascia board is separating from the roof. These are just some follow-up photos. Hasn't been corrected. The pond is still stagnant.
Let's pull back picture so you can kind of see where the entryway is into where I saw the pond at. Corrective action. Property must repair the roof fascia and sophets and repair or drain the pond. The pond frrons must be disposed of. The property is not
compliant. The recommended fine is $250 a day from the date of your order plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with the case. And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Thank you so much, Mr. Rivera. Anyone here on behalf of develop St. Pete Beach LLC?
Anyone here on behalf of Develop St. Pete Beach LLC? 55059th Avenue. >> Okay. Mr. River, have you had any contact with the property owner at all? >> No, ma'am. They did apply for a uh roof permit, roof repair permit. I don't know
if it's going to cover everything that they need, but as of 121, a roof repair permit was applied for. However, there's a five or six documents that are still they're still waiting the city's still waiting for to receive in order to fulfill the permit. >> Okay. And as far as, you know, the palm frrons or anything else, that's still
out there. still out there. Just for the record, we the neighbor has complained several times. The property has been in this condition for quite some time. The previous owner had it same condition. They sold it to this company. She's trying to sell her house and has been unable to because of the house next door.
>> Okay. Do you know when this company purchased this property? >> I do not off top of my head. >> Okay. >> Okay. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. I am going to allow for 30 days from the date of my order in order to come into compliance if the property is not found to be in
compliance. Um we will meet here on January 12th and I will assess any fines and fees as requested by the city. >> Thank you. >> And that will include my order will include that it needs to come into compliance but also secure any of the necessary permits in order to do so. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Moving on to uh 4G is continued to January 12th. 4 H case number 20230431, City of St. Pete Beach versus Michael Edward Delp. >> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach, code enforcement.
Case number 2023 0431. Respondent, Michael Edwards Delt. Violation address is 3508 Golf Boulevard. Violation description, the property is in violation of section 98123.1.
permits required and 98123.7 expiration of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. You have the PowerPoint up please. Case summary. Initial inspection was 7:14 2023. Amended notice of violation
dated and mailed certified 8:21 2025. Amended notice of violation compliance date was 9:15 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 1113 2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This
is the affidavit of posting at 3508 G Boulevard. This is a picture of the rear of the home. Um El Centro Avenue runs behind there where the parking's at. You see there's no pavers on the ground. This is a picture of the pavers that
were installed. Corrective action. Property must obtain a new permit for the unpermitted pavers that were installed. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day starting the day of your order plus $330 administrative costs and any
recording fees that may be associated. And that concludes my presentation. >> Mr. Rivera, you said that the the two code sections are permits required and expiration. The request says a new permit to be secured. What is the date of the old permit? >> Um,
I'd like to call Joanne Boland up. She's a permanent administrator. She can probably better answer that question for you. Miss Boland morning again. Good morning. Joanne Bolan, permit administrator, city of St. Pete Beach. Uh, initial submitt of this
permit was May 5th, 2023. uh went into review and it was uh approved May 31st, let's say 2023, I think is the date. Um they did have a plumbing underground
and a pool pre-sight inspection that passed uh May 17, 2023 and May 24th, 2023. After that, the permit sat and
there was a reinstatement request which we put through. They paid $300 and it um extended the expiration date till I think it was um maybe March of 2024, something like
that. Um, so again, no other inspections happened. So at this point, you know, 128 2025, we're missing a
certificate of insurance and workman's comp from the contractor that's expired. We need a new pool safety form because that's been updated since the permit was submitted. We need a
renewed notice of commencement because that's expired. We also need the $300 fee paid again to reinstate the permit to get that into an open status. Once
all of that is done, it will go back into review to planning and zoning because the um papers are still non-conform non-conforming as of 130 2024.
So, can you tell me the the permit was just for the pavers or was there a larger construction project? >> It was an ingground fiberglass swimming pool um with a pool deck. >> Okay. >> And there was a revision on 72823. Replace
existing pavers like for like additional 820 square ft. Revision again on 84 customer requested replacing existing pavers unknowingly that it was nonconforming. We have replace existing pavers with new pavers and are
requesting zoning approval. Another revision August 17, 2023. Pavers corrections made to remove 5T from between garage and parking. Another revision September 22nd, 2023. Existing concrete pavers were replaced
with new paper to match pool deck and at that point it was non-conforming. So we are in need of all these documents as well as a new plan review for
uh planning and zoning. Give me one second. Okay. Um and I my understanding from your testimony, Miss Bolan, is the permit with even with all those revisions expired March of 2024.
>> Yes, it expired Let's see when the last inspection was and I could tell you an exact date. >> I'm just curious. I I'm trying to figure out there were no other tolling provisions based on hurricane occurrences and the recent uh legislative changes that well not recent
but the legislative changes that allowed for tolling provisions of rights under permits um when subjected to a state of emergency. I'm working out the dates. Eden was 2022. Adalia was 2023, but I don't believe that Penelis County was
included in the state of emergency for Adalia. I >> I don't think so. Um, so their last inspection was May 24th, 2023. That would bring the permit out for expiration 3 months later, >> right? But you said that they were
extended until my my I wrote down they were extended until March 2024, right? Which is still before Hilton Milton and Helen, >> correct? >> Okay. So, as of March 2024, that permit expired, >> correct? >> Okay. And your your understanding is there were no intervening hurricanes
that would otherwise toll the provisions of the rights underneath their permit. >> No, the only thing we did receive a um a resubmitt for re reinstatement on um 101, I'm
sorry, 11:21 2025 permit reinstate. And it says homeowner had some delays and now we are ready to final. Well, we can't final because we're missing many many inspections
>> and in the interim they did work without an actual active permit. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Anything else, Mr. Rivera? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Um, anyone here um for Michael Edward Delp or is Mr. Delp here? If you
could please come up, state your name for the record. >> I am Michael Delp. >> And Mr. Delp, what would you like me to know in your defense? >> Um, well, one, I started the the project with a licensed
contractor. So as the project was progressing, I was under the understanding they were taking all the necessary steps to keep the project into compliance.
Um, I had received a notice about the permit expired and I had been contacting them to make sure they got the permit reinstated and get their final inspections so we could close that out.
Um, one of the things that they had done to I guess it's the uh square footage of the driveway that was out of uh compliance. So, they made the driveway a little bit more narrow
uh to accommodate that. And I thought that had already been applied for, but with the notice of uh no active permit and that uh it had never gotten closed out. Um I do see that now that uh they
haven't been keeping things in compliance. Um, I did sign a new uh uh notice of commencement for them as well as the
pool safety document. They've requested those here recently and I've sent those uh back. Um, and I don't know what else I need to give them for the um, permit to be reinstated so they can they can bring
everything into compliance, but uh, I haven't willingly done anything to uh, violate uh, the ordinances of St. Pete Beach. So, just trying to, you know,
make our our home just, you know, appear nice and to to be functional for our use. >> Sure. Okay. Anything else, Mr. Delp you would like for me to know? >> No, I don't think so. >> Okay. Anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated
code sections. I will allow for 30 days in order to come into compliance. If that means to submit the proper documentation in order to get the reinstatement or to apply for a new after the fact permit, whatever needs to be done, that's between you and the city. Um, but I will allow for 30 days for that. I will um set a status hearing
for 112. If we need to meet back here to figure out what's going on or to assess any fines and fees at that time, we will do so. I will let you know your comment to you haven't done anything willingly. You secured a contractor. Contractor is your agent. You're the homeowner. You're ultimately responsible for what happens
on the property. So, I would just say you might want to speak with the city directly and just let that to figure out what they need. That way, you can point your contractor in the right direction. Um, but make sure I have your contact information and I will send you a copy of the order with that information in it. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Double. >> Okay. Moving on. 4 I was continued to January 12th. 4J was continued to January 12th. So, we have 4K. Case number 20250715, City of St. Pete Beach versus Ballast Point Holdings LLC. >> Thank you. Steve Rivera, City of St.
Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20250715. Respondent is Ballast Point Holdings LLC. Violation address is 336 South Tessier Drive. Violation description. The property is in violation of section
8.2 permitted uses and structures of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 115205. Irrepable irreversible notice of violation dated and mil certified 1113
2025. Notice of violation dated and posted on the property 1113 2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 336 South Tessier Drive.
This is a screenshot of the VBO ad. This is the reviews. There was two reviews. Uh, one review was uh for 15 nights in March of 2025 and another review for 14 nights in February of 2025.
Corrective action. The property can only be rented monthly. The property is compliant as of now. I haven't seen any more reviews since the two that are posted here. Recommended fine is $1,000 per violation for the two reviews totaling $2,000 plus a $330
administrative cost and any recording fees that may be associated with the case. And that concludes my presentation. >> Thank you. Anyone here on behalf of Ballast Point Holdings LLC? >> Yes. If you could please come up, state your name and affiliation with the LLC for the record. >> Good morning. My name is David Grder.
I'm attorney for Ballast Point Holdings. Uh we do not contest uh the facts that Mr. Rivera laid out. However, I want to point out a couple things that Mr. Rivera did not point out. Um number one, my client did think that this was in the
um pasil overlay district, which I believe allows up to three monthly rentals a year. uh they found out in spring that that was a wrong assumption and they self-corrected about 10 months ago. And
what Mr. Rivera didn't show is on that same ad that's been there for about 10 months, it does say on the very first line of their policies, minimum 30 night rental required by City of St. Pete Beach. So, I think all I'm asking is to
just keep in in mind that my client did self-correct and uh I would say for the last 10 months it hasn't been advertised like that and it won't in the future. >> Okay. Does your client own any additional rental properties within the city of St. Pete Beach? >> No. >> Okay. Um and you how long has your
client owned this property for? >> Since late 22. >> Late 2022. >> It's really not um primarily a Airbnb. It's only rented out a few times a year. It's really a guest house for the family. >> Okay. Um and like you said, you're not contesting that the two short-term
rentals occurred at about uh 295 a night. Looks like the advertisement, >> correct? >> Okay. >> Okay. Um anything else on behalf of your client? >> That should do it. >> All right. Anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. I am going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code sections. There were two instances
that the property was rented in a short-term um manner. Uh understanding that the property owner did selforrect. I've not seen you here before me before, so this is not a repeat violation, at least to my knowledge. Um, I am going to assess a single $1,000 fine um based on
the average nightly rental based on the two rentals. $1,000 single fine plus the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. Um, and I will get you a copy of that order as long as you provide me with your email address. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much.
uh and any recording fees that might be associated with recording of the lean. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Moving on to agenda item 5a, repeat violations. Case number 20250602, city of St. Pete Beach versus Kenneth Donovan and Wilma Donovan.
>> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. PowerPoint, please. Case number 20250602. Respondent is Kenneth and Wilma Donovan. Violation address is 820 59th A.
Violation description. The property is in violation of section 9866A and B and E residential and commercial property maintenance 98654 unsightly conditions and 46332 enumeration of the code of
ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 93 2025. Notice of violation dated and mailed certified 1113 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property was also 1113 2025.
Following is a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 82059th. A. This is the driveway storage. I have dated them to kind of show um the last time Mr. Donovan was here, he said that
the items in the driveway were transient. They were not stored there. Um the complaint came in I believe it was around 91 93. I did my next investigation. Um so you'll see the dates as the items have not moved.
Some tires here in the front. Items up by the garage door. This is 929. You still see there's items out in the garage or out in front of the garage. Tires still up by the roadway. This is 107. Item stored in the driveway.
More items by the garage door. This is 1110. Tires still out by the driveway. More items out in the uh in front of the garage there. 1113. Tire still out by the uh end of the
driveway there. Corrective action. Property must clean up all tra, junk, and debris and dispose of it properly. and all equipment and other items must be stored out of public view. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $500 per day
beginning 93 until compliant plus $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated. And that concludes my presentation. >> And Mr. Rivera, do you have any knowledge of if the property, you said it's still not compliant? Your last inspection was on 1113. Do you happen to
know if the property still remains in the same condition? >> I didn't get a chance to get out there this morning. Um, but I'm still receiving complaints. I was sent time and date stamped photos that I'm not going to present. I can't attest to it, but they do show that they're time and date stamped at the property remains in the same condition. >> Okay. Thank you very much.
>> Yes, ma'am. >> Mr. Donovan, >> he's not here. >> Yes, he is. >> Mr. Von Donovan, were you here when I swore everybody in? >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you, sir.
>> Number one, we went this route a few months ago when you discovered that my motorcycle was be allowed to be parked. We talked about the filters and there was a table behind the motorcycle. It's not visible from the street. Everything else is movable. Uh
here's the pictures of the motorcycle. It seems that these Oh, by the way, those photographs he's got, he's got those things in here so that they look >> I'm I'm well aware they're wide angle lens, >> right? >> Thank you, Mr. Don. >> This is a picture of the uh motorcycle
in the in the driveway. Uh >> the tire, believe it or not, >> you can put the photos here so she can see >> so I can see them. Oh, >> I'm sorry. >> It's okay. This way. Do >> it yourself. You'll change it.
You got that? >> Yes, sir. >> Now, the tires that's on the street there is res was left over from the hurricane. It seems as though when the city contracted with the cart carting
company. Now, there's supposed to been a cart a dumpster up here by the city for residents to put bulk items in, large items. They will not take the tire the city or
not the city but uh progressive or whatever. They won't take that tire. I am not driving 40 damn miles to drop a tire off that for something that's supposed to be here because it isn't here anymore.
It disappeared. and everything that he showed that there's hand trucks there or there is a hand truck and there's a truck that I use for bringing my groceries in. It's modified. It's got a box on it. Other
than that, everything is usable every single day. >> And while it's usable, Mr. Donovan, is it being replaced back in your garage and being carted out every day, or is it being stored on your driveway even though you're using it every day? Well, can't always get it back in the
garage because I work, >> right? >> So, I start to work and then I have to quit >> and then I have to go back, >> right? And I think the issue is is that it looks like it's consistently being stored on the property and especially with the photographs that are being
demonstrated on on the timing that there are several of those items, as we've discussed before, that are consistently there. The motorcycle I don't necessarily have a problem with as long as it's registered. Um, >> it is I got the registration, >> right? I don't I don't have a problem with that. The issue that I have is
there are multiple things that are that appear to me from the evidence that's been presented that are just stored in your driveway even though you might be using them on a fairly regular basis. >> Most of these things are inside the garage, but uh and not outside. And I can see that
the garage doesn't close all the way, but I'm I'm There are plenty of things that are just consistently outdoors, and I'm not including the motorcycle. >> Yeah. The filter. Well, he showed with two filters. There's only one filter there now. >> Okay. >> Uh but they're rotated.
So, what what's here now won't be there, but it'll still show up there because I dry I rinse it off in the driveway. >> Sure. And I think the point is that the you're you're focusing on a couple of different things, but there's far more items that are stored there. And it looks like on a consistent basis. So
whether or not they're being rotated out, what I can see is that on these days, they're pretty consistently in the exact same spots. >> Okay. From the right hand side of my garage is
a red thing that used to be a shopback. >> Sure. Right. The shop acts bad. That's a trash can. When I'm opening up packages and stuff goes in there. So, it's got to go on the ground. >> A little next to that is uh see if I'm
not mistaken. That's where my hand truck is that I use. And then behind the uh motorcycle is the one with the grocery grocery thing. >> Sure. What about the table? >> The yellow chemical boxes. The public
>> right now. in the back of my truck because they got to be refilled. >> Okay. And I think the point is is that the over the course of of of a month they just sat >> but they rotate. I mean, you don't you don't go through you don't go through seven. >> And the point is it doesn't matter how
often they rotate. If they're consistently being stored in your driveway, that's outdoor storage. So unless they are stored inside your garage, if you rotate them, they're still regardless if you're talking about the individual items, it is the the the
mass of the items that we're talking about. Motorcycle excluded as >> the remainder there's what looks like wood blocks. It looks like there's a couple of other things. And yes, and in the different pictures, not all of those things are there, but in the different pictures, there is something there at
all times, which is outdoor storage. >> There will most likely be something there every single day. >> And that I think that's the problem. >> That's my way of that's the way of living. I've got a rocking chair out there. Is there is there a law against that? That's right in front of the garage door. >> There there is if you continue to
accumulate items in your front in your front driveway and >> you can't sit on that. No one is saying that, Mr. Donovan. What I think you're the point is is you're talking about individual items. My issue is the code says no outdoor storage and you're
storing these things in your driveway. At some point, if it's all cleared out and you've got your motorcycle and maybe your hand truck, I might be okay with that because that the motorcycle is permitted to be there. But these things are there's always something there
that's not allowed to be there. So, it could be one day. It could be the rocking chair and then you put the rocking chair back the next day. It could be the chemical boxes and then you put the chemical boxes back. There's always something there. And the issue is there's not allowed to be always something there. It needs to be cleaned
up. >> The rocking chair is out there permanently. >> Then the rocking chair might be your it might be your outdoor furniture and that's okay as long as that's allowed to be on your front patio, but maybe not on your driveway, right? it won't fit on
the up there on the on the whatever you call it thing. >> And and Mr. Donovan, if that's the case, then you need to talk with the city to see if that's something that's permitted. But I'm not even talking about the rocking chair. That's not in the photographs that I'm seeing. I'm seeing a whole bunch of >> And even if it is, I'm seeing a whole
bunch of other things that are consistently and some of these things were also in the pictures from the last case. They're consistently in your driveway and they're not permitted to be there. So again, the motorcycle is not an issue. That can stay and certainly tarping it is a good idea. The other
items, even if you're tarping them, that's considered outdoor storage. And even if you're rotating them out, it's not about the individual items. It's about the accumulation of the items in general. So those need to be cleared out off of the property. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to see you back here
and I'm going to continue to have to say you're still in violation of the code and I'm going to continue to have to assess fines because that's what my job is under under the law. >> Let's get back to the tire if you don't mind. >> I won't even consider >> what can I do about that since the city
has removed the thing that was supposed to been in there with the contract with the contract with >> that's between you and the city. I don't know what the city's contract with the debris hauler is. I don't know. All I know is you are the property owner and you are responsible for maintaining your property in a specific way and that is
in accordance to the law. Right. And so this the tire is not even the sole issue. It's >> No, you're right. Part of it though, >> right? And and I don't disagree. So I my suggestion would be to talk to the city to figure out how to get that removed, where their contract lies. I don't have that information, so I can't get that to
you. Um what I can say is it's been in all the pictures. And that's not really what's driving my questioning here in in this conversation. What's driving it is all of the other things. >> So, I'm not allowed to have a hand truck
or or a a rocking chair or waste basket, garbage can. >> You are not allowed to store the the rocking chair. If that if you are permitted to have furniture, outdoor lawn furniture on your driveway at all times, then sure. If you're not, then
no, you're not. From what I from what I can see is you are not allowed to be storing things in your driveway like that at all. And so no, my my comment to you would be no, you can't have those things there. Um, unless the city disagrees, but
>> they they've been disagreeing for since 1972. >> Okay. Well then, and then I'm going to continue to see your back here. And while I enjoy having these conversations with you, I don't think you want to be here. And I certainly don't want to have to do this with you. So, my suggestion would be to get with the city to have
them tell you what they think cleanup is. Have them put it in an email or something, write it down. That way, if the next time you come up, you say, "The city told me I could have this." You can show it to me and I can say, "Well, you told him he could have it." So, that would be my suggestion. Um, other than that, I I don't I get what you're saying
that you're taking them out, putting them back in, that they're rotating in and out. It doesn't matter. It's just that there's always something there and that's considered outdoor storage. Okay. >> And one time you mentioned bicycles. There's bicycle there.
>> There is a bicycle there. Wasn't there before, right? But again, there's consistent >> moved in, moved out, but down the street there, there's a guy's got bicycles right in front of his house. Been there, never been moved. >> Well, and and I'm not here about that that case. >> That's >> And so you can complain to the city about that if that offends your
sensibilities, but I'm not here about that. Right. I'm here about this. >> Um, and if that case comes before me, I might have that same conversation with them. >> I'm not going to be that petty. >> Well, I appreciate that. So, is there anything else that you need me to know before I make my ruling?
>> No. >> Okay. >> Just I just hate it when these idiots go down the road like the last time they were bartering back and forth on what ordinances I was violating and I still don't know what I'm or all these numbers don't mean a darn thing. But this all happened the day after the hurricane or
the storm came through in November when we got that cold day. >> Okay. >> Blew all blew all my tarps off for everything. >> Well, and regardless if you >> and then the next two days later, this was on my door. >> Okay. Well, and keep in mind whether it's tarped or not, if there's stuff that's not supposed to be there, I mean,
obviously they can't open the tarp, but you can see there's all there's just I'm not even considering the stuff that was tarped before, right? There's other things on. >> The only thing that was tarped was the motorcycle, >> right? Understood. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Donovan. I appreciate it. Anything else further from the city? >> Do you need to see the registration for
the motorcycle? >> Nope. Because I we we considered that last time and I understand that it's it's a registered vehicle. >> Nothing further, Mr. Rivera. >> Uh no, ma'am. Let's put a record. It wasn't the motorcycle that was a question. It was the items that were stored in the driveway. Um but not not
the motorcycle, not the RV. He showed proof the last time he was here. Register. >> Okay. Uh I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. As this is a repeat violation, I am not permitted to give any time to cure because it's something that was already uh determined uh was a
violation in the past. It's a violation again. Um I am going to with consistent with Okay. I am going to assess a $50 a day fine. Um, and that and and then I'm that's going
to continue to run from to the date of my order until the property comes into compliance. I'm also going to assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs and any recording fees that need to be assessed for recording of a lane. Mr. Donovan, I highly suggest you get with the city, have somebody come out, give
to you in writing exactly what compliance means, and that way you can work on it and get it done so that these fines don't continue to accumulate and I will get you a copy of the order. >> Can I take that wheel and put it in a dumpster? It's up there for public works. >> I don't know if you can do that. I don't
have the the ability to tell you, but you can talk to the city and see if they if they can allow that. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Donovan. I appreciate your time today. Okay, moving on to no cases complied, no old cases. Moving on to the lean reduction cases, 8A,
case number 20250410, city of St. Pete Beach versus 3511 Gulf Boulevard LLC. >> Good morning, Madam Special Master. Pete Der, code enforcement manager. You should have as part of your package the order and
the reduction that's being requested here is to reduce the lean to $1,000. The city would like to request that the fines for $16,830
which include $16,500 for the lean plus $330 for administrative costs not be reduced. Thank you. >> Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Der. You said the city is allowing would allow for a reduction in the No Ma'am. No. So, the city is staying with the 16,000. Yes,
ma'am. Thank you. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Uh 3511 G Boulevard. If you could please come up, please state your name and affiliation with the LLC for the record. >> Good morning. >> Uh Jimmy Yergy. I am the owner member of
uh the LLC. >> Okay. And I see in your application here for a lean reduction that the reason that you're asking for the reduction is that you didn't receive any of the notices of violation. >> That's correct, your honor. >> Okay. Can you explain to me how that works? Since I when they came before me, I saw that it was sent to the address
listed in the property appraisers uh website via certified mail. >> Unfortunately, I don't I don't use I don't use the home that it was uh mailed to. So, there's a bundle of mail um that was there. I don't I didn't sign for it. There was someone in the front that signed for it. So, when I finally came
back and I saw the mail and then I actually got my first email from uh Mr. Rivera, I believe it was >> and I immediately took care of this. Um, it was something that I was unaware of. It's uh something that I did not receive. I did not sign for any of those notices
and I can tell you as soon as it was taken care of I think um I'm comfortable to say that the city uh folks that I did deal with will tell you that I took care of it literally days >> because a lot a lot of the stuff was really stuff that was from the storm and
I and I and I hadn't been here in six at least six months. >> Okay. So this here are my questions to you. This uh it's a vacant lot correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, and you are uh the LLC, you're the sole member or you Okay. And so you're responsible for making sure your
address is updated within the property appraisers website for where you get your legal notification sent to. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And you have that listed as the address for the vacant property. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And so somebody did eventually get that. You said someone another property a property in the front they signed for
the certified mailing. >> No, it's actually it's a home that I have in um in Tampa. >> Okay. the other address that they sent it to. >> So, someone at the front desk was just grabbing mail, signing it, throw it in a mailbox that I never I never got to for six months. >> So, the city sent it not only to the property, posted the property, but also
sent it to you at your Tampa address. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And so, you didn't get any of those mailings, but once you figured it out, you did take care. >> Once I got my first email, >> it wasn't it wasn't 48 hours. I was on the phone calling, oh my god, I'm sorry, what what happened here? And I got the notices and I I >> And you didn't check and where do and
where do you live? >> City. You don't need your exact address. >> I live in New York. >> In New York. Okay. And so you own this property. Do you own other properties in the state of Florida in this area? >> I'm trying to figure out, you said you didn't get back down here until after the hurricanes. And my my thinking is,
>> you know what, man? There was a lot of news coverage about properties in the state of Florida. And I get that this is a vacant lot, but >> No, I had I I have people that drive around. There was no honestly I was I was actually being a good neighbor. People were parking all their stuff in my vehicle, and I didn't say a word, so people were cutting their vehicles. I think the gentleman that may have even
brought this attention to you was using the lot for his stuff which which was fine. There was a whole bunch of park trailers. I think some of the workmen were using it and I did and I did notice that. That's I just never saw the mail. Um >> Okay. So, >> do you have a lawn service that comes and periodically takes care of that lot for you? >> Yes.
>> And did they come at all after the storms? >> I don't recall. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I don't I don't be honest with you, I really don't even know, but I assume they did and and I as soon as I knew I got them right back on it and they they have been maintaining it. I've sent pictures to proof of it. Uh it wasn't 3 4 days later I got that notice. >> Okay.
>> And it's and as it is today it's it's in compliance. >> Okay. Um give me a second. Let me >> thank you. >> Thank you very much. Let me do some may >> and Mr. Derer any reason? Usually the city is okay with a 10% a reduction to
10%. And I just is wondering is the city just taking a hardline stance on all lean reductions now or? >> Yes ma'am. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Have there any that have been enforced? >> Yes. Yes. And follow through on and pay those those type of numbers.
>> Yeah. >> Um it but it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and whether or not they're coming through for a lean reduction. So I have taken anything into consideration. The application does meet the standards that are required for the city's code. um based on the credible
evidence of the respondent or the petitioner in this case, I am going to reduce the uh lean to 10% of what the value was. So from $16,500 to $1,650 plus the administrative costs, which I
am always going to include of the $330. Um and any recording fees that were necessary to affect a lean, um I'd like to add those into there, although I don't have those. Um, where did Mr. Der go? Oh, you're behind the TV. Um, do you
know if you recorded the lean on this one? >> No. Okay. All right. Then I won't include that in there. So then I will reduce it to $1650 and three with plus the $330 in administrative costs. Um, I'm going to allow for 10 days for this
to be paid. 10 days from the date of my order. Actually, 10 days from today's date. I'm going to have it um scheduled. If it doesn't get paid within 10 days, then it will revert back to the full amount of the lean. >> Your your honor, I I will pay it today. That's that's >> great. Then I will let you get with the city on that. >> I appre I appreciate the understanding
and uh knowing that uh that once I did make the get the call, I did I did immediately take care of it. So, I will take care of this and >> understand hope never to see you again. >> Yeah, I was going to say understand that if I do see you again though, I will take that into consideration. I'm finding what you're telling me now to be very credible, but I will have a hard time if I see you again in the future.
>> Understand? >> Please make sure I have your contact information. So email so I can send you a copy of the >> Thank you so much. >> Of course. >> Have a nice day. >> You too. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. Understand and just tell me how. >> All right. Moving on to 8B, case number
20240193, city of St. Pete Beach versus Brightwater Beach Condo Association. >> Madam Special Manate Pete Dur, code enforcement manager for the city of St. Pete Beach. Presenting case number 20240193. The lean amount was 9,000 and the city
is requesting that the lean amount um not be reduced. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Right. Anyone here on behalf of Brightwater Beach Condo Association? You guys can please state your names in
relation to the association for the record. >> Good morning. I'm Scott. I'm the manager representing the association. And this is Larry. Larry, you can come up. Larry's on the board of directors. >> Okay.
>> Um, so I see your petition here. I was kind of surprised when I didn't see you at the next hearing and then and it was still out of compliance. So why don't you explain to me I see your letter here, but can you explain for the record? >> Yeah. >> Your reason for the petition? >> Uh, I know that we probably wouldn't even be here if we would not have
probably not missed that hearing. There was some delays with the permit. There was some I guess the not the appraisal but the they would like a survey. The survey got kicked back a couple times. That was delay. The prior board member was uh he signed off
the NOOCC but he resigned from the board because he got sick. So we had to get Larry on and he was another delay in getting the NOOCC signed because he was out of town. Larry, do you want to kind of just chime in? Yeah, we um our president got sick and uh he had to step
down and still sick. So I was called upon to step in. I was away for a few weeks. Came back to find all this, find out what documents we needed. We took Karen as promptly as we could as soon as
I got back and then we're off to the races, which I think we have everything submitted properly now um and have uh for some time. So, we're hoping that this can be
dismissed, but I don't know the rules. >> We we do have a permit that got assigned and unfortunately the contractor couldn't be here today to file all the permitting. I did talk to Kayla. She says it's under final approval, but she doesn't have like a deadline for me.
>> Okay. I have to say I was surprised that nobody showed up at the fine hearing as we had had a conversation. You know, if if it's not going to get done in time, come back and see me. I can't extend the time. Nobody showed up. Didn't come into compliance. So, um
>> there was some confusion. I'll show you over here. Um because I guess there was a a rescheduling of the date um which I thought was the 13th. I got a letter
from the previous president saying thing was on the 13th. >> Sure. Or as otherwise amended >> scheduled or something, >> right? It says or as otherwise amended by notice and that was due to the availability and then a second notice went out. I believe all of those were
emailed to Scott here because I have your email address here. So you should have been provided a copy of the amended notice as well. Um, that is why I got the email addresses so that it was easier than sending in the mail in case something last minute happened. So, I do understand the that and I believe it was
rescheduled to the 18th is what I want to say, but I don't specify recall what day it was rescheduled to, but I know it was rescheduled and and a copy was emailed out. Um, all that to say, so there's still no permit that's
been issued yet. There's a permit number and it's under review. I just talked to Kayla in the permitting and she says she have more information by January 6th. It's under final review. Not sure what the holdup is. We had to survey the entire building.
Well, first we just surveyed just the dumpster area and then they wanted another bigger survey of the entire building which we got. So there was that delay. But >> Right. And then the fence and the dumpster had already that's already been done. Correct. >> Yeah. So what happened prior to Helen
like again it was a perfect you know storm no pun intended but when the new contractor came in to rebuild the fence you didn't pull a permit. So, I don't even think that I can consider the application for the lean reduction.
Um, because I don't believe that the violations on the property have been corrected. And the city can attest to this, but if the property was in violation because it did work without first securing a permit and my code, my order says to come into compliance would
be to secure an after the-act permit. They have yet to come into compliance. the city is finding that they did come into compliance on a specific date. And if that's the case, I'm okay with that. I just need to know. >> Yeah, we've had a permit for a while. >> Yeah, >> that's what I just said. I asked if you
got a permit. >> We do. >> Okay. >> You were saying you're still going back and forth. >> Well, the contractor is going back and forth with Kayla. I don't know what the delay is, but there is a permit. >> Okay. >> What's that? >> But there's not an actual permit that's
been issued or Yes, a permit. >> There has been a permit issued. Do you actually have a permit number? >> Oh, that that is something that I would need to know. >> Yes. >> Okay, let's go ahead and take um a fivem minute recess. Uh we'll go off the
record and then we'll come back in 5 minutes at well we'll make it 6 11:35. I don't run it. >> Oh, they're on. >> Perfect. Okay, we are back on the record at 11:33. Mr. Der,
>> madam special master Pete Der, code enforcement manager. Um, they have applied and it's pending review. They just recently completed u much of the request for documentations on 1125. So it's currently sitting in review.
>> Okay. So then my question to you is the city makes the determination whether or not the property has come into compliance with the stated code section based on them the application for the permit. Do you find that this property has come into compliance with the city's code? I would prefer um
since it's an interpretation of the code I would like attorney so um Mr. the the action that needs to occur in order
for compliance to have been achieved. Is it the finalization of the permit or was it the mere applying for and being in the process >> based on the code section? My interpretation of that code um is
applying and obtaining which is in the language of the code. So the obtaining is fining it out, getting the actual permit. It's completed. So based on your interpretation, which I agree with you,
um, is the property in compliance >> at this time? No. >> Okay. There has not been an approved permit. >> Correct. >> This is a requirement for an after the-act permit because this has already the work has already been done. >> Correct. I think it would be for me it's a different analysis if they were just
asking to apply for a permit for work that had yet to be done but this work was already previously done >> completed >> and so to order comply with the code they would have to secure the permit they have yet to secure the permit >> correct >> okay so with that I cannot consider a lean reduction because it doesn't meet the criteria or I'm just going to deny
the lean reduction because it doesn't meet the criteria um I will give the applicant the the petitioner the the right to withdraw the application for the lean reduction at this time since technically the lean or the the um fines are still running on the property. Um if
I deny it, I don't know if the city's going to let you reapply for it um if you even have the ability to reapply for it. If you withdraw your application at this time when the permit is secured, then you can come back and ask for it again um based on the same circumstances, but I defer to you on as
to what you would like to do. >> So are you saying the fines are still being >> this the fines are still acrewing as the property has not come into compliance? >> The fines were suspended because the application that is submitted and everything finalized through what they need for paperwork >> and I don't control that. I can tell you
underneath the city's code in order to ask for a lean reduction, the property needs to be in compliance. I've just been told by the code enforcement supervisor that the property is not in compliance because compliance would be achieving and receiving an after- the-act permit, not just applying for
the after the-act permit. So the fines, if it's not in compliance, the fines will continue to acrue. Whether or not the city abates them for a certain period of time and then says, "Okay, when you're in compliance, we're going to consider this date compliance because you are ultimately approved." I don't know. I don't I don't control that.
That's on the administrative side of things. From a legal point of view, right now, the property doesn't sit in compliance because no permit has been approved. And so the fines will continue to run, which means once it's approved, the fines will cease and then you can come back and ask for a lean reduction
and I can grant it. Otherwise, if you would like to continue with this application, I'm going to deny the lean reduction for the fact that it doesn't meet the requirements to request one. And then I don't know if there's going to be the ability for you to come back and ask for one in the future. Your honor, the city would not object to a
withdrawal um allowing them to um bring the property into compliance by the issuance of the permit and then allowing them the opportunity to come back and request a uh reduction. >> I mean, I think we can also do that by by way of continuation as well if that's
if if there's an end date in sight. I just don't know what that looks like. >> We would not be opposed to that either. So, it's under review. Um, my understanding is from your testimony that it everything's been given to them. They you've signed all the
>> months. >> It's been almost a month since everything was submitted to the city >> for an after the fact permit. >> Do we know where they are within the review process? Then >> GC's got all these emails going back and there were some emails that she
getting back to him. Um, madame special master Pete Der mentioned for the record 11:25 was when everything was submitted and that's when it went into the review status. >> Okay. >> They were waiting on documentation in
the permitting department and they finally got those documents on November 25th. >> Okay. Um, so with that information, do you all want to proceed with this lean reduction? I'm going to tell you a little preview. I will deny the application because it doesn't meet the requirements. Or do you want to just continue this until the January hearing
and then you guys can come back and plead your case if you have your permit by then? >> I mean, this is all new to us. >> I I understand. Yeah. I don't usually see people at this several times, so that's good. Um, but if if you are amendable to it, we can postpone this until the January 12th hearing. If you
secure your permit by then, which it should seem like you should, um, unless there's some other issues with the paperwork, then I can consider your request at that time. Um, if the paperwork is not in that time frame, just continue to contact the city and
then we can push it to the next hearing until such time as we can consider your application. >> In the meantime, are the fines still going? >> In the meantime, the fines will continue to acrue. Um, and then that will just be part of your application. And you'll just have to I'll just have to be amended to understand what the final
amount of the fines will be for the reduction request >> be thousands and thousands of dollars. >> It could >> How is that going to be cost effective for >> it's it's not intended to be cost affected. Could the issue right well you should not have done work without a
permit on your property. The permit should have been secured before the work was done. So that that is where it is. Right. So it's not it is meant to be garner compliance and in some respects it's meant to be punitive. This is a relief from the punitive portion of it but I can't consider the le reducing the
lean based on the information you've given me until the property is in compliance. So while it might acrue daily that doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be slated with all of that if I find that the reason for the reduction is valid and and I can have there is some equity in there. However,
I'm not saying I'm going to reduce it. I am saying that that's just the status of the law. If you had complied in the first place, I wouldn't even know who you are. I wouldn't you wouldn't be here, right? So that's that's the thing is I can work a little bit because there is an equity part of it to your point,
the thousands of dollars. Also, you're dependent on someone else to review your items, but again, the initial violation was for not getting a permit when you were required to have one. So >> just keep checking in with Kayla. >> Yeah, I whomever you have to at the city. I am not familiar with all city
staff. So, I will say what I'm going to do is I'm going to get an order out continuing the lean reduction application hearing, petition hearing until the January 12th 10 a.m. hearing. And then if it needs to be postponed, just stay in touch with the city. That way, we can because if you're not here
on January 12th, then I don't really have a lot to consider, right? Yeah. And I will send you an email with the continuation. And if there's another email address you want me to copy on that, make sure it's on the list to sign in and I can send it to whomever needs to be on it. >> Can I just ask you one question? You
were saying if we um withdraw our application, >> how would that be advantageous to us? >> And I I can't give you legal advice. Um, but I will say on the record that I think a continuence would be easier for the for the city as well because of the
noticing issues and um just being familiar with uh the documentation. >> I can't advise you on cost effectiveness, but I can tell you that the easiest path forward would be a continuation as opposed to a withdrawal. If you withdraw, you have to then resubmit your application for a lean
reduction. It needs to be scheduled for a future hearing. the city has to pay for notice, etc., etc., they're going to want those administrative costs as well, probably. >> Hypothetically, if we come into compliance and we get this thing uh approved by the next day, January,
whatever, >> what would be your likely ruling? >> I'm not going to even go down that hypothetical. I'm going to consider the evidence that's presented in front of me based on the criteria in the code and the reasoning for it. I'm going to see if I find it credible and then I'm going
to make my ruling consistent with that, which is what I do for every lean reduction case. >> Okay. >> All right. So, then we will continue this until the January 12th hearing and stay in touch with the city and I will get you an order uh continuing this lean
reduction request. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh we have one more lean reduction request 8C case number 202504, City of St. Pete Beach versus Paul Murphy and Donna Murphy as trustee of
the what I assume is the Paul and Donna Murphy revocable trust. >> Madam Special, Mad Street, um Pete Der, code enforcement, they're requesting that the lean be reduced
to $250 for each occurrence plus $330. and the city is requesting the entire amount and the lean not be reduced. Thank you. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the property owners? If you could please come up and state your name and
affiliation for the record. >> Uh my name is Donna J. Murphy and we are the owners of the property, also managers of the trust. >> Okay. And Miss Murphy, I do see um
application here. Um, can you tell me your reasoning for the lean reduction request? >> So, um, the reason that, uh, we're requesting the lean reduction is because we are we were represented, uh,
unfortunately by our property management and, um, that particular company we are not with anymore. I feel like we have met all of the requirements that the city has asked of us. The minute we got
the certified letter in the mail, I immediately called the property manager, which was uh Miss Angie Ross, and said, "I just got this in the mail, like what is going on?" And then she explained to me uh with the rental of the property
being one week and one week that she and she has said this before and of course we're trusting them that and I understand that is our responsibility to understand all the rules and regulations
of uh St. Pete Beach and in renting. Um, but we did we did trust this company and she said, "Well, as long as I don't rent it again within that month period, either before or after." So, yeah, we
understand that that is not the case. So, with that being said, I we accept the responsibility that this occurred. Um, and like I said, we're not with that company anymore, nor do we plan on being back
with that company. and and we're hoping that going forward uh we're going to be managing our own property and understanding all of the rules and regulations with this and feel like that is the safest way to go. Um and
requesting that the fines be dropped being that this was obviously a first time violation. It was back to back. Didn't realize any of this was happening until we got the letter in the mail. And that's that is all.
Okay, I appreciate that information. Um, and we did we did ask her, we called, like I said, I called her immediately. I had no control over anything that had to do with any of the renting part like the Airbnb or whatever else it was on. I
didn't have any control over that. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Um, well, a couple things. >> Sure. you know, you've been here throughout, so you understand that, you know, property owner, you engage agents on your behalf, so you are responsible for their actions. Um, I do wish that you had been here at the hearing. That
way, I could have spoken to you instead of your representative. Um, it doesn't necessarily sound like, you know, it would have been good to hear from you so I could actually take that into consideration when I assessed my fines. >> Sure, we're we're we're in another state. So, >> and I was going to ask, do you live locally?
>> No, we live in Chicago. >> Okay. And so, hence the property management company. Yes. Um, I don't know what your contract looks like with that property management company, but you may wish to get them on board to paying your fines for you because what they were doing was um not correct. And,
um, they can seek their own legal counsel to figure out how they're advising their clients on things. Um, I didn't assess a large amount as I recall. It would have been $2,000 I think for the two. and I think I only assessed the 1,00 and that was based on
what the average rental was of the two short-term rentals. So, um I do appreciate your time here today. Um I um would suggest that you know you like you said, you're self-managing. I hope to never see you here again. Um thank you
for putting in for this. I will say I again I took that all into consideration. I do understand um your position. So, I I I will grant a a lean reduction. It's going to be a minimal request. Instead of the thousand, I will
do $700 plus the $330 in reasonable administrative costs. Um, again, I the city asked for two grand for each. I took all that into consideration during my fine hearing. Um, but since this is the first time I've
got to actually speak with you and my understanding is you're no longer with that property management company, I'm willing to con give a little concessions on that on that side for that. So, I will reduce the lean to $700 plus the $330 in re reasonable administrative costs. Um, it will need to be paid
within 10 days of today's date. Um, and then if it's not, then it will revert back to the previously amount previously stated amount. As long as I have your contact information, I can email you a copy of that order. >> Yeah, we're prepared to take care of it today. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Murphy. I appreciate your time
>> and I hope you all have a wonderful day. >> There is nothing else. So, I think the next meeting is January 12th, 2026, which is shaping up to be a very long meeting just continued cases. >> Um, so I'll be sure to be extra
caffeinated. Uh, as I will not see you before the end of the year, everybody have a merry Christmas, happy holidays, happy new year. Same to you. Thank you, ma'am. >> 2026. >> Thank you, ma'am.