The code enforcement special magistrate hearing for Monday, January 12th, 202026. 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 authorities set forth in chapter 162, Florida statutes and the city of St. Pete Beach code of ordinances. I am not an employee of the city of St. Pete Beach and do not represent the city here today and I do not confer with the city's code enforcement officers outside of the
hearing process about your cases. It is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters presented. As such, I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings. Today's matters will be heard in the order 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, and in all cases, since the city has the burden of proof, it will present its case first,
and then the respondent will be given an opportunity to refute the city's allegations. While formal rules of evidence do not apply to this proceeding, I will make every effort to ensure that fundamental fairness and due process is afforded to all parties. After hearing all relevant evidence, I will issue an order. The order will be
reduced to writing and all parties will be provided with a copy. So, please ensure that we have your current address or email address. Additionally, you advised that I do not have the authority to grant you a variance, permit, or other special exception of any kind. My role is solely to determine whether a
city code has been violated and under some circumstances to provide a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever means are available to you. Please be advised that you may be 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 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. >> Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Says sworn. Are there any changes to the agenda this morning? >> Good morning, uh, Madame Special Magistrate. Pete Dur, code enforcement manager for the city of St. Pete Beach.
There are changes to the agenda. Um, the city would like to extend a courtesy to attorney Laro and the court reporter so that their cases can be heard
out of order. Uh case number 2025 0731 under new cases A and case number 20240563 under new cases F.
>> Yeah, you got it. >> Okay. And any other changes to the agenda? >> Not at this time. >> Okay. So, calling the cases out of order, I will go ahead and begin with agenda item 4A. Case number 20250731, City of St. Pete Beach versus Dolphin
Watch 3 LLC. >> Good morning, Mr. Loro. >> Good morning. Uh, I was explaining to my colleague and Mr. Der that I was completely unavailable last week. My grandson was in the hospital having brain surgery.
His father passed away. So, I'm I'm the sole uh male support system for him. Uh we were aware of these cases and we tried to put together some materials to speak to the city attorney's office. I was unable to do that until this weekend. So, I would like the the
ability to continue that case to a future date so that we can continue to speak about the issues in number a 4a. >> Okay. Um, and our next um, hearing is scheduled for February 9th at 10:00 a.m. Is that an acceptable date
for you? >> We have a jury trial in Hillsboro. Can I get the next possible date? >> Uh, March 9th. >> Very good. >> Okay. Is there any objection from the city on continuing this case until March 9th? >> There is no objection, your honor. Um, also the city was provided with a copy
of a motion to dismiss, which is quite lengthy. So, we were we are in agreement with the continuence to give us time to review it. >> Okay. >> Good. And I'll defer to whatever extra time they so desire. >> Okay. Certainly. Well, we will go ahead and then uh continue uh this case until
the March 9th, 2026 hearing at 10:00 a.m. Um and that will give time for the parties to confer on the motion to dismiss and anything else. And then um I will see you back here on that date and time. >> Very good. Thank you for the privilege. >> And then uh case number 20240563.
My understanding is that that was a case for not permitting some uh air conditioning systems and I was sent copies of the applications for permits last week. So I believe that should be resolved. But if we would reset it to the same date just to verify that that
all of the requirements have been met, that would be excellent. >> Okay. Any objection from the city on that one? >> Uh I did not discuss that one with Mr. Dwire. Um I would ask the code officer if you're aware if he has an objection to also um continuing that one to the
same day. >> Yes, we could continue it to the same day. >> Okay. >> No objection from the city. Okay. That case will also be continued then until the March 9th 220 2026 hearing at 10 a.m. Um and Mr. Laro I will get you orders. You want them sent directly to
you. >> Good. I'm very grateful for the courtesies of my colleague and special magistrate and happy new year and have a good day. >> Of course. >> Thank you for the privilege. >> Thank you, Mr. Laro. You have a wonderful day. >> Okay. Then continuing on uh to our regularly scheduled agenda, case agenda
item 3A, case number 20250220, city of St. Pete Beach versus Mr. Starkus. >> Morning, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status hearing for 11:04 passive growway
um to determine uh any authorized fines or costs for permits that were required. Um I did speak with Mr. Starkis. He's been in and out. He had some issues getting some paperwork together. Um but he is working toward compliance. So we would like to just continue it until February. >> Okay. Um is Mr.
>> A home stretch. So yeah. >> Mr. Starkus, is there any objection to continuing this until the February hearing and reassessing it at that time if need be to give you more time to get the permits as necessary? >> Okay. All right. Then we will go ahead and continue this one until the February
9th uh 2026 hearing at 10:00 a.m. Hopefully I won't need to see you there, Mr. Starkus, and you'll have your permits. Everything will be good. But if need be, we'll see you back then in February. Thank you. >> Uh moving on to agenda item 3B, case number 202507,
city of St. Pete Beach versus uh Mr. Bakitarian. >> Good morning, Mad Magistrate. Again, Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach. Uh I spoke with the property owner this morning. Um the city is still reviewing his paperwork to try to get him grandfathered. Okay. >> Uh I did tell him we were just going to
ask for a continuence till February. We should have a definite answer by then. >> Okay. And is he here? Anyone here on his behalf? >> I don't see him in the audience. Now, I he he said he wasn't going to be able to make it in. Um that's what he was calling just to verify if there was any changes. Um I did say I'd let you know
that I spoke to him this morning. Okay. >> Um but yeah, he is aware that it's still in review. >> And uh do we think that until February February will give the city enough time to review whatever paperwork is necessary? >> Correct. We were trying to the holidays kind of slowed everything down. Um we were hoping to have an answer before
today. Um I did speak with Brandon Barry who's working uh to try to get his paperwork together. We're again, we're right there in the home stretch, but with the holidays, it kind of put a damper on things. >> Sure. Okay. Well, then that one that case will then be continued until the February 9th, 2026 hearing at 10 a.m. to
allow the city to continue to review uh the status of the property. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to agenda item 3 C, case number 20250061, City of St. Pete Beach versus Christopher Padet. >> Good morning, special magistrate. Ayaka Rakell representing code enforcement, St. Pete Beach. Happy New Year.
>> Happy New Year. Yeah, this is a status hearing for um the property at 54472nd Avenue. They were required to obtain a fence permit. I did hear from the um owner on December 30th who wanted to
request another 30-day extension. Um and I advised him that he would have to appear here and ask you personally for that. It's not my uh I don't have the authority to issue another extension >> certainly. >> So um I believe he is here. >> Mr. pageant pageant.
>> If you could please just come up and let me know uh what the what the basis of the request for the 30-day extension is, I'd appreciate that. >> Um yeah, it took me I I had to get a new survey in order to submit the fence permit over the holidays. That was a
little delayed. I asked to extend it. Um but the status right now is the permit application has been submitted and the fees have been paid. So it's, you know, under review. Um, I don't know if that's acceptable or I need to come back after
it's approved, but that's the status. >> Okay. Um, I my order I was just double checking what the the verbiage of my order says. It says that you need to come into compliance. Coming into compliance would be securing securing the after the fact permit. So, I will go ahead um and Is there any objection to
the 30-day continuing or the 30-day extension from the city? >> Well, now that has been submitted and the fees have been paid. No, if there were no efforts made, then I would >> Okay. So, then I will go ahead and extend my administrative order by 30 days. Um I can't do math very well, so I
don't know what that date is, but um we will that'll put us past the February 9th date. Um actually, let me ask this. Um, Miss Rectto, do you have any idea what for after the fact permits what the length
of time is to get those approved are? >> I can call the building official up here to talk about the permit process. >> Yeah, I just I just it would be if I'd like I'd hate to extend this all the way till March. So, after the fact permits are reviewed.
>> Good morning. >> Good morning. Luke Curtis, building official. >> Okay, Mr. Curtis, how long is that process generally for after the fact securing of permits for fence permits? >> So, it's it should be a simple process. Uh it's
more planning and zoning than building uh to make sure it's it's meets the criteria of the city code, but it shouldn't be more than 30 days. >> Okay. 15 days. with that. I'm I'm The reason I ask is
because 30 days puts us at the March hearing and frankly for an after the fact permit this I would think it would go relatively quickly. So I'm just trying to get it in before the February hearing >> and I apologize if this information has the permit been applied for yet? >> Yes, >> it has. Okay. So it's in the queue. Um
we can we can make it's it's a simple review. So it shouldn't be a problem if you put 15 15 days on it. >> Let's go ahead and do this. I'll grant a 15-day extension. Um, and then, uh, if need be, we can meet back here at the February 9th hearing, um, to see what's going on with the process. If it's not
been issued by then, if it has been issued, then you should be in compliance and we won't need to have you come back to the hearing, but at least that way um, we're not pushing it all the way out till March. >> Okay. Excellent. Thank you. >> So, I will get you in order to that effect and Mr. Pad, just make sure I have your contact information.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. Mhm. And it will be 15-day extension from the date of my order today. So, okay. And moving on, 3D D. Case number 20250604, City of St. Pete Beach versus Develop St. Pete Beach LLC.
>> Good morning, Madam Magistrate. Steam Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. Uh, this is a status hearing for 55059th. The property has obtained a roof permit to make the repairs for the roof. uh fascia and sophets. There's also a
permit that was obtained for um stucco work that needs to be done at the property. So, at this time, the property is compliant. They're coming into compliance. >> Okay. And so, the city considers that substantial compliance coming into compliance. >> It's it's yeah, the the repairs haven't been made yet, but the permits that were
required to do so, so they've gotten past their whatever uh home repair permit issues that they may have had. >> Okay. >> Permits for the RIP referral we brought them in for were applied for and obtained. >> Okay. So at this time the the city finds the properties in compliance. Are you seeking any administrative >> 330 in administrative costs please?
>> Okay. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner develop St. Pete LLC St. Pete Beach LLC. Seeing no one. Okay. I will go ahead and find that the property is in compliance. I am not going to assess any fines or fees but I will assess the assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs
of the city. >> Thank you. Um, and agenda item 3E, case number 20230431, City of St. Pete Beach versus Michael Delp. >> Good morning again. Stephen Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Uh, this was a status hearing to determine a
compliance for the permits that were closed and expired or I should say expired. Uh, the permits have been reopened. So now they just need to do their finals, find out what needs to be done and close it out. But on our end, they are compliant. So, the city's only asking for the $330 administrative cost.
>> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Delp or is Mr. Delp here? Okay. If you do you want to come up and say a little piece for yourself here? >> Now that the uh permit is active, the the next step that we have is uh for a
variance to uh permit for the extra pavers that we have to to create the driveway. So that process has also been started. >> Okay, great. And so the city's not asking for any fines or fees, but they are asking for the $330 in administrative costs. Do you have any
response to that? >> I let it expire. So >> Okay. All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Delp. Um I am going to find that the property is now in compliance. I am not going to assess any fines or fees, but we'll assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. And if as long as I have your information, I'll
get you an order to that effect. You have a free records. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Have a great day. Uh, moving on to 3F. Case number 20250707. City of St. Pete Beach versus Affordable Properties Realy and Management Inc. Trustees for 6795 G Winds Drive Land
Trust. Uh, good morning. My name is uh Lucy, enforcement officer, 6795 G Winds Drive. Uh, we're asking for 19,000 in admin
fees. They had 22 reviews. It was a INI. Notice of violation dated and mailed certified 102825. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property on 1028. The respondent affordable properties
realy and management violation address 6795 Gwinds drive violations the property is in violation of section 12.2 a permitted principal uses and structures of land development
and code of the city of St. beach affidavit of posting. This picture is true and accurate representation of what I observe on the date it was taken advertisement on Airbnb.
the host review from John in April, Jerry and May, Alexandria and May, Mara and May, Gregory Sean and May,
Nicole May, Susan May, Adam June, Jason June, Sydney June, Amy July, Eric, August, Gabriella, August, Marie,
August, Nathan, August, Matthew, September, Nacherie, September, Bailey, September, Isabelle, September, Melissa, October, BJ, October,
Erica, November. The corrected action is a property is permitted to operate a short-term rental up to three times within a 12-month period. Any additional rentals within that time frame must be for a minimum of one month. Property is not eligible to
be rented short-term May 26. Property is not in compliant. Recommended fine is $1,000 per violation. 19 reviews totaling 19,000 plus 330 admin fees. House only and any
recording fees that may be associated with this case. Okay. And those reviews were posted from which platform? >> Airbnb. >> Airbnb. >> Yes, ma'am. And does the city want to submit the Airbnb review criteria also as the >> Yes, as it typically has done in the
past. >> This is the Airbnb. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am. Okay. From the city. >> Is there anyone here on behalf of the property order? Affordable Properties Realy and Management Inc. trustee for
6795 Gulf Winds Drive Land Trust. Anyone here on behalf of the property 6795 G Winds Drive? Have you had any communication with anyone relative to the property or the property owner? >> No, ma'am.
>> Okay. And I do see in the backup that the um information that the notice and everything was sent um certified mail um to the 6795 Gulf Winds Drive Land Trust at 32128th Street South in St. Pete. And
that's the address that's listed on the property appraisers website or the tax collector. Perfect. Okay. All right. Seeing as there's nobody here on behalf of the property owner, I find that the property is in violation of the stated code section and that it is irreversible and irreparable in nature. I will find
that there has been proof of 19 violations on this property that are irre irreversible or irreparable. And I am going to go ahead and assess a $1,000 fine for each one for a total of $19,000 plus $330 in reasonable administrative costs to the city and any necessary
recording fees that might uh result as a need to record the lean on this property. Okay, thank you very much. Moving on to agenda item 3G, case number 20250718, City of St. Pete Beach versus Nelson B.
Hill and Alice Lill. >> Good morning. Case number 20250718. Respondent Nelson Hill B. Jr. and Hill Alice. Violation 5449th Avenue. The property is in violation of
section 36.4 prohibited uses and structures of land development code city of St. Pete Beach. The initial inspection was 111025. Irreprable and irreversible notice of violation dated and mailed certified
1112. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 1112. This picture is true and accurate representation of what I observe on the date it was posted. This is the advertisement on Airbnb. This is the host info. They had one
review. We're asking for $1,000 for the one review and admin fees of 330. Okay. Anyone here on behalf of Mr. or Mrs. Hill? Anyone here for the property at 54469th
Avenue, St. Pete Beach? >> Miss Knight, did you have any um communications with the property owner at all? >> Not the property owner >> or anyone on behalf of the property owner policy. Can I get over here?
>> And this is the VRB property paper. >> Okay, I'll accept that as into evidence as well. Um, have you had in any conversations with anyone on behalf of this property? >> Um, Mr. Hill, not Mr. Hill, Lynch. the
property management. >> The property manager and uh uh what discussions did you have with the property manager? >> Uh it was an email about the um fines. >> Okay. So he is aware that there was a hearing today and he was aware that
there would be fines assessed if >> I haven't spoke with him because I wasn't here on the ETH. Uh someone else spoke with him then. >> Okay. So somebody else >> Yes. >> Okay. anyone that's here that I could ask questions about that? >> Madam Speaker, Mistra, um, as staff, uh,
office, >> are you going to go to the podium? Yes, please. Um, I spoke to, uh, a gentleman this morning who, um, made the claim that he is away and unable to make the hearing today because he is attending a funeral.
>> And who was that? Someone on behalf of the was that the property owner or the property manager? manager um claimed that he is away at a funeral today. >> Okay. >> The property manager is the only one that I've had communication with and we advised him that he could represent them
if he had the power to represent them. I don't think that that was ever changed. So, um he wasn't able to represent them, so he's not here. >> Okay. Okay. And and no one's had any contact with Mr. Hill or Miss Hill, >> right? Just the property manager. >> All right.
Okay. Um, seeing as no one is here on behalf of the property owner and that it is unclear if the property manager even had the authority to represent the property owner in this instance and notice noticing, excuse me, and knowing that notice was properly sent to Mr. and
Mrs. Hill at two white dove court in PBlo, Colorado. Um, they are on notice that this hearing is occurring today. I'm going to find that the property is in violation of the state of code sections. Um, that the uh nature of the violation is irreversible and irreparable. And I'm going to assess the
$1,000 fine plus the $330 in reasonable administrative costs to the city and any recording fees that might be uh needed to record a lean on the property. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And moving to 3 H. Case number
2023060, City of St. P Beach versus Mark Broadick and Lynn Brick. >> Morning, Madam Magister. See Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 2023 03, I'm sorry, 0606.
Respondents Mark Brderick and Lynn Brick. Violation address is 3535 Bel Vista Drive East. Violations 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. Case summary. Initial inspection was 1019 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. following is a true and accurate representation of what I've witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 3535 Bel Vista Drive East.
It's a Google map image showing a general area where the structure that was built without a permit is currently located. In this picture, you can see I've outlined the circle of the structure in question. Zoomed up photo of it.
Corrective action. Property must obtain a demo permit, remove the structure. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250 a day starting the date of your order, plus $330 administrative costs, and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. I also
have the building official here should you have any questions about the structure. >> Okay. Um, so the requested relief is to demo the property and remove the structure. So based on the limited evidence that the structure was built, are are they not allowed to have
accessory structures in this zoning district? >> Luke up to speak better on why it has to be removed. >> Okay. Thank you very much, >> Luke Curtis, building official. Um, so the structure was we did get an after-the-act permit for this. Um, it
the ex the structure that was built does not meet setbacks, so it couldn't exist in the footprint where it's at, number one. And then number two, nothing was approved as far as the construction. So because the whole city is in a flood zone, there are flood regulations that
have to be met, building codes that have to be met. None of that was approved and uh none of the work was inspected. So a complete demolition would be requested by myself uh outside of even code enforcement. I would be looking for that to be demoed.
>> Okay. So they did apply for an after the fact permit but it was denied. >> Correct. >> Because of >> they can't they can't meet the setbacks and even so what's built there in the field is not appropriate does not meet code. >> Correct. Uh for example the proposed
plans included a bathroom. Bathroom would not be uh >> understood. First floor bathroom, right? Okay. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Curtis. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Mark Brick or Lynn Brick? If you could please come up and state your name for the record and your
affiliation with the property owners. >> My name is Alexis Moore. I am the attorney representative of the property owners. And so, um, we were in the process of submitting, well, we did submit a practical variance application to, um, planning with the city of St. PE
Beach to basically um like the bathroom has been taken out. Just basically revamped the structure um as far as electrical and um other things that were an issue uh pursuant to the building codes to make it compliant uh with the city code.
>> Okay. So, at this point, the plans have been well, I guess the plans haven't been redrawn, but the the items that are in violation of the Florida building code for being on ground level have been removed or will be removed. And then your client is seeking a variance from the setbacks. Is that correct?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Do you know where you are in that process? >> We've submitted it. Uh I believe the representative of the city's name was Kristen. She said they were in the process of reviewing it to make sure that um it was approved so that we could
meet with the board of adjustment to see if it could go through. >> Okay. Do we happen to know? Does anyone know when the next board of I don't even know if it would be on the >> I believe it's January 28th. >> It is the 28th. However, if it's in review, I don't know if it's at the top
of the queue. Right. Right. >> Okay. Um, and then it will probably be at the end of February if it was on the next BOA meeting. Okay. Um, if you were able to secure Well, the
property was still built without getting a permit. So, okay. Do you have anything further? >> No, that's it. >> Okay. Anything further from the city? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code section for erecting a structure without first securing a permit.
However, um I am going to allow the property owner. We'll call it I'm trying to figure out. Your honor, may I make a suggestion? Uh could we do a status perhaps? I I'm Mr. Dir is not here. I don't want to speak on his behalf, but if we did a status on
February the 9th, that way if they were on the January 28th, we would have more information as far as have they come into compliance regarding the variance issue and then at the status hearing on the February the 9th, if they weren't,
then we could Yeah. Okay. >> Is that >> Yeah, I think that's that's an acceptable way that way since we don't know where they are in this in the variance process. So, um let's go ahead and do that. I will hit um schedule a status conference for February 9th and at that time at 10:00 a.m. at that time
we'll figure out where your client is in the variance process um and and how we can better come into compliance with the city's code. So I'm not going to issue any fines or fees at this time and we'll come back on February 9th um thank you >> to to check in. Not a problem. And then Miss Moore, do I have your contact information because I will get an order
to that effect and I can email that to you. >> Yes, I signed in on the signage. >> Perfect. Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. All right, moving on to agenda item 3i. Case number 20250079, City of St. Pete Beach versus Plet Bosella. Good morning, Mad Magistrate. Steam
Rivera again, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20250079. Respondent is Pette Mousella. Violation address is 1706 Passway. Violation description. The property is
in violation of section 981231. Permits required of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 125 2025. Notice of violation dated and
mailed certified 127 2025. Notice of violation compliance date was 217 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 1118 2025. Following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This
is the affidavit of posting at 1706 passway. This is a picture of the AC minit that was installed without a permit. Picture of two more mini splits installed. Another mini split that was installed.
Just to give you kind of a picture, it's a multi-unit uh like apartments. Another mini split. Corrective action. Property must apply and secure a permit for the AC split units that were installed. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is $250
per day from the date of your order plus $330 administrative costs and any recording se fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of um Miss Plet Bosella? If you could please come
up and state your name for the record. >> Good morning, Miss Bella. Can you tell me what's going on with your property? >> Uh, hurricane related. I was not in town and so I relied on information that was given to me secondhand, I suppose. Uh,
first thing was I was told by people in town that you could get an after the fact permit on things. So therein starts that. Oh, first of all, I want to say I have nothing but the utmost respect for Mr. Rivera, who has practically held my hand through so many um thieveries and
lying and miscommunication on this whole thing. So, as far as the mini splits go and they were installed, I was lied to by the contractor that put them in that they did have a license to work in St. Pete Beach. So, when I found out I
didn't have any means to get that, I started searching for other people to do it. And at that time for that whole year, as you know, it's kind of a nightmare for things. I don't live here. I just travel here during the wintertime. >> Um, but the thing about the permits is
when Oh, and I also hired a general contractor who was going to then subcontract because they can't do the HVAC work and he turned out not to be honorable as well. And so that permit uh I was looking for another general contractor. the whole thing got revoked
by the city, but uh through phone calls to the city, I was told, I think Patty forwarded me to people that said I had until December because the permit that was open was going to be good for that time. So now we're in January and I have
finally I've only been here for four days. I have found a reputable company that last Friday attempted to get a permit for the mini splits, but were they were unable to get through to the city and so I'm hoping that somehow we can streamline they're going to try to
do it again today and so get this permit finally there. So kind of like a lot of ignorance and a lot of misinformation and a lot of dishonesty was going on through this whole time period. >> Okay. So, some of what you said is at
some point was there an active permit for work being done on the property? >> There was a permit that was applied for >> but not issued >> but not issued because the the general contractor that applied for the permit made mistakes on the form. >> Okay?
>> And so it was never issued. And I spoke with someone back in um permits and licensing that said, "Don't worry about it because your number was assigned. you can change that contractor any time up until uh I think it would be November or
December. It didn't matter that that general contractor had withdrawn it. Sure. >> And the reason he withdrew it is because I didn't completely I lost a down payment on that, but I didn't completely pay him because he was in essence trying to extort more money from me
>> for work that didn't need to be done. >> Okay. But now you do have a a reputable general contractor who has is working to streamline and getting those after the fact permits on the AC units. >> Yes. It's actually an HVAC company. It's called Magnum Air. >> Okay. >> And they would like to get it today if
we can put them in touch with whomever would be able to do that for them. >> Okay. Then um anything else that you'd like me to know before I make my ruling? >> Uh no, just that it it really hasn't been neglect on my part. It's just been a series of errors and um and
miscommunications and dishonesty that's been going on as a result of people taking advantage of me. >> Understood. All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time. Anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Um I am going to find that the property was in violation of stated code
sections, but I'm going to allow for 30 days to secure the after the-act permits. Okay. >> Um just in case there is something that happens with the contractor or whatnot. And so, um, it'll be 30 days from the date of my order. Uh, and then we will set a status hearing for it will be the
March 9th, um, special magistrate hearing. If the property is in compliance, you won't have to worry about attending. If the property is not in compliance and something else has happened with the contractor or the permit, then we can discuss it at that time. >> Thank you very much. >> Not a problem. Just make sure I have your contact information so I can send
you my order that details all of that. >> Thank you much. Bye-bye. Thank you. >> Okay. And moving on to agenda item 3J, case number 20250711, city of St. Pete Beach versus Brendan Doyle and Courtney Doyle.
>> Good morning, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. Case number 20250711. Respondent is Brandon D. and Courtney Doyle. Violation address is 1074th A. Violation description. The property is in
violation of section 20.03b permitted principal uses and structures of the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 114205. Irrepable and irreversible notice of violation dated and mailed certified
1113 2025. Notice of hearing 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 1044th A.
This is a uh shot of the advertisement on Airbnb host information. So, the three circled in green were the three that were permitted. The property is permitted to have three short-term rentals within a 12-month time period. The one there at the top that's uh in
red is uh the violation. And then there's three more that are also in violation for short-term rental. You see it says stayed a few nights. Stayed a few nights. So review summary. There was two stays
in April, two stays in May and three and three stays in June. And again the property is permitted to have three short term. So, anything after the three short would have to be monthly. Property is permitted to have three short-term rentals within a 12-month period, and all following rentals must
be monthly. Property is not eligible to be rented short-term again until June of 2026. Property is, and I had did not see any more reviews this morning, so I'm going to say the property is compliant. Recommended fine is $1,000 per review for the four violations totaling $4,000
plus the $330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of uh Brendan Doyle or Courtney Doyle? Anyone here on behalf of the address at
1074th Avenue, St. Pete Beach? Have you had any occasion to speak to the property owners? >> Yes, ma'am. So, I we got contact from one of the property owners. That's how we got to it being continued. They said they weren't going to be able to make LA uh the December hearing. So, we agreed
to continue it until this month. And there's been no further communication since. >> Okay. Okay. And I do see here that uh the notice was sent via certified mail to 1074th Avenue and that is the correct address on the property appraisers
website or tax collectors. >> Yes, ma'am. And also I'd like to submit the uh review policy. Overhead, please have you. There we go. >> There it is. >> Right. And I will go ahead and accept that into evidence. >> All right. I do find that the property
is in violation of the state of code sections. Um and I do find that the nature of the violations are irreversible and irreparable. Um, I am going to assess a fine of $1,000 for each of the four violations. So,
totaling $4,000 plus $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city and any necessary recording leans to affect a lean on the property. Um, and in my order, I will include that the property is not to be rented until June 2026 and my standard verbiage that they're to get
you uh proof of uh rentals within 10 days of the date of my order. that and that's true for all the short-term rental orders. >> Thank you. >> All right, moving on to agenda item 4B. Case number 20250710, City of St. Pete Beach versus 10912th
Avenue Beach House LLC. >> Thank you, Madame Magistrate. C Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20250710. Respondent is 109 12 a Beach House LLC. Violation address is 109 12th A.
Violation description. The property is in violation of section 20.03 permitted principal uses and structures of the lane development code of the city of St. P. Case summary. Initial inspection was 1142025. Irrepable and irreversible notice of
violation dated and mailed certified 121205. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 121 2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I've witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 1091
12th A. This is the Airbnb advertisement. The three uh circled dates were the three that were permitted. The property is permitted to have three short-term rentals in the 12-month time period. There's the one for October that put it into violation.
Property is permitted to have three short-term rentals within a 12-month period, and all following rentals must be monthly. Property is not eligible to be rented short-term until October of 2026. As of this morning, I did not see any further review. So, the property is compliant. Recommended fine is $1,000
for the one violation plus a $330 administrative cost and any recording fee that may be associated. And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of 1091 12th Avenue Beach House LLC. Okay. If you could please come up and state your name and affiliation with the respondent for
the record. >> Good morning, your honor. My name is Sunil Pocarel. Last name is P O K H A R. and uh me and my wife own the property. We live in Hillsboro Avenue so this is our first time buying a property
in St. Pete's. Um we bought the property in 2024 somewhere around April um April May and um we use it as our second home to we stay there during summer. So obviously we're not there much in winter. Um basically me and my wife both
are physicians. So, as you see, I'm here, you know, off of my work to make a couple of points on our behalf. So, um, in, uh, we, when we bought the property, our agent told us about the rule of
short-term rental, three per year, and 30 days rental. So our goal was to so once we bought it um we um you know with the hurricane and everything so we couldn't we enjoy the house for a few months and uh we put the
house on rental for 30 days and after the hurricane happened so we had a lot of interest for shortened rental there were a lot of families looking for a home we're lucky enough because our home was not damaged uh with the water so um and we kind of heard the rumor that
city was kind of laxed with the short-term rental. We didn't want to believe that. So, we came here a couple of times. We spoke with the lady on the front. CQF's a card and information uh email address of Christine and I did
email her uh requesting just to make sure this if this is true or not. And I'm going to Should I give this to you? >> You can put it on the overhead. That's fine. >> So, this is my first email to her. I didn't hear back. And uh so we thought
no news is a good news. Then um we came back again. We actually came here a few times and um then I wrote another email in April. So what they told us was only way to get hold of her is to keep on writing email. So I wrote
another email in April and no answer. I didn't hear back from her. So and then we got the notice in December, November, December. Then after that we canceled all the reservation. We had a lot of interest and ended up end up
paying fine to Airbnb and we almost paid $1,500 almost. Yeah. And I have the I have the print out of all the fines we already paid for cancelelling the short-term rental. So the only only thing I just want to make a point is if somebody had told us at that point
saying that's not true. Whatever you heard that sort city is not laxed with the rule would have stopped then. So since we didn't hear back we did that for you know couple of times but I canceled all the short-term rental after
that and we end up being fine. So that's the only only thing I have to >> Okay. Um and on average how much do you make on your short-term rentals? >> Um we put it for like 650 a night. So, I just have to go back and check how much we made, but
>> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um, anything else? >> That's what >> Okay. So, a couple of things. While I I appreciate that, um, and and I'm giving you this background information so you understand where my ruling is coming from.
Hearing rumors because I've heard this a couple times. So, whoseever else is listening to this, um, hearing rumors that the city is not enforcing its code or that it's more lax on something is insufficient. I do appreciate that you tried to reach out to the city to confirm that that was the case, but not
hearing anything back from them does not then give you cart blanch to just go ahead and violate what the law is. So, you did take a risk. Um, didn't quite pay off in this in this respect. Um, but um, I do appreciate you being very forthcoming and and showing up here
today. So, with that being said, I am going to find that the property is in violation. Um, and I am not going to assess the thousand fine, though based on your uh trying your efforts to try and reach out to the city and then understanding as soon as you found out you couldn't do it that you pulled all of all of the um the rentals and got hit
with fines from Airbnb. Um, I am going to just assess a $500 fine associated with that. Um, plus the $330 in administrative costs of the city and any um, recording fines that might be necessary in order to affect a lean. So, please just make sure that I have your
contact information, I can get you an order that has all that information in it. And then just while I've got you in front of me, just make sure this doesn't happen again because next time if it's a repeat violation, I will not be so. >> Yeah, sure. Thank you so much. Yeah, we already we already took the property. >> Okay, perfect. I appreciate that.
>> Madam Magistrate, real quick, just for the record, can we uh introduce the uh review policy? >> Absolutely. I will accept that into evidence. Right. Thank you very much. >> Okay, moving on to agenda item 4 C. Uh
case number 20250710, City of St. Pete Beach. Oh, we just did that. 4C, City of St. P Beach versus Padpro LLC. >> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. P Beach, code enforcement. Case number 20250735.
Respondent is Padpro LLC. Violation address is 2740 East Vina Delmare Boulevard. 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 122 2025. A reparable and irreversible notice of violation dated and mailed certified 125 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 1252025. Following is a true and accurate
representation of what I've witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 2740 East Vina Delmare Boulevard. This is a screenshot of the Airbnb advertisement. So these are a few of the reviews. Uh
this is going back from the date of uh 1219 2025. There was uh two for October would have been two for November. Go back. Two for October and two for November was four. Um, before I get into
the next slide, I did look online this morning and there is significantly more uh reviews on the property. I'd like to introduce it as evidence. Um, and I made you a copy because it's going to be kind of hard to see the date at the bottom
here. >> Thank you. four there. And then here we have three more reviews. Look at the uh the time frame one week, two weeks ago, and two days ago. Okay. And you're you're saying that
these three reviews are demonstrations of short-term and not one of them could have been a 30-day because the the timing between one week, two week, and two days >> and based on whatever the Airbnb >> policy is. >> Policy is within 14 days of >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. >> PowerPoint, please. >> So, the corrective action, the property is only permitted to be rented monthly. property is not compliant. Recommended fine. It's $1,000 per violation. There's actually seven violations now total. Uh
so city's requesting 7,000 $1,000 per violation for seven reviews plus $330 administrative costs and any fees associated with this case. And that concludes my presentation. I'd also like Oh, I'm sorry. Let me
introduce the uh review policy as well. No, we'll go go ahead and suck that into evidence. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> And you're saying these three reviews you found today? >> This morning? Yeah. If you look at the date at the bottom, it has today's date
on it. >> And your date, your notice of violation went out on December 5th. Correct. >> Uh, yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Um, all right. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Padpro LLC? If you could please come up, state your name and affiliation with the
respondent. >> Good morning. My name is Andrew Hook. I'm legal counsel for PADP Pro. >> You said Hook. >> Hook. H O E K. >> All right, Mr. Hook. >> Yes. So, I was recently retained last week regarding this matter. Uh reviewed
the notice with my client, explained what the issues were and what the restraints were. Uh they're basically here to plead forgiveness on on uh ignorance of the law. The property was put into into the rental pool late last year. They weren't aware of the 30-day
restriction. Um, upon being educated about what the restrictions are at the St. Pete Beach level, they've instructed their property management company to cease all rentals that are less than 30 days. Uh, moving forward, there's nothing we can do about the past here.
Unfortunately, what we're looking for is uh future conformity on the wall. >> Okay. And can I ask, do you have any information on uh what the average rental is, the income from the rentals on this property are? >> I don't, unfortunately. I'm not sure what the nightly rates are. >> Is the property owner here that they
might be able to testify to that? >> They're not present. >> Okay. Well, that is unfortunate. Um, so I've got a couple of things I'm contending with. one, these three new reviews, while I appreciate that they do demonstrate a violation of the city's
code, um they were brought to our attention after the notice of irreparable irreversible violation went out in December. So, I'm not inclined to consider them as part of the um violation that's before me here today. Um, with that being said, I do find that
the property is in violation of the stated code section and I do find that there had been four, I believe violations that are irreparable or irreversible in nature. Um,
and I am going to associate assess a fine. I don't have any information on how much the average nightly rental was. Uh, Mr. Rivera, do you know from when you were looking at Airbnb what it said? If if you can recall,
>> slide back up for the advertisement. >> I think it says it's like, if I can read this, sorry, my vision is not great. 3,100 $3,141 for five nights. >> 3141 for five nights. Correct. >> Okay. And I know that's an average
So, it's about 6:30 at night. Okay. So, um, with that information, I am going to assess a fine of $500 for each of the violations, which, uh, will amount to a $2,000 violation, um, for the four, uh, stays that are found to be in
violation of the city's code, plus the $330 in reasonable administrative costs to the city, and any recording fee should one be necessary. Um, I understand ignorance of the law, as you well know, as an attorney, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Um, however, based on the average nightly rate and with your being appearing here and
understanding uh the um credible testimony, I'm going to ahead and reduce that fine down to the $500 per each. Um, please make sure I have your contact information. I'll get you an order to that effect. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Of course. Um, moving on to agenda item
4 D, City of St. Pete Beach versus Martin Mara. Lucy Knight, code enforcement officer, case 20250725. Respondent Martin Moore, address 6802 Gloss Drive. Violation, the property is
in violation of section 12.2 two permitted principal uses and structures of land development code of the city of beach. Case summary initial inspection 1120 2025
irreparable and irreversible notice of violation dated and mailed certified 11205 notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 1120 2025 affidate posting this picture is true
and accurate on the date that it was posted it. This the advertisement on Airbnb. They have two units. So, this is unit two side by side. This the host information
reviews from Andrris. Alex and June. Alexexas in June. Ashley in June. Anandi, Tori in July, Veronica in July, Brian in July,
Elena July, Tahara August, Kimbley October, Adriana October, Connor November. The property is permitted to have three short-term rentals in a 12-month period.
All rentals following must be monthly. Property is not eligible to be rented short-term until June 2026. Property is not in compliant. Recommended fine is $1,000 per violation.
Nine reviews totaling 9,000 plus 330. Administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. Turn over. This is the rules for the Airbnb. I'll accept that into evidence. Thank you.
All right. Anyone here on behalf of Martin Mara? Okay. If you could please come up, say your name for the record. >> Yes, I am. My name is Martin. >> Okay. And Mr. Mara, tell me what's going on with the property. Um we purchased a property back in May um the end of uh
31st of May I believe and shortly after that um uh my job was kind of on the rocks and I subsequently I lost my job in uh the end of August. So, and if you can see from the uh Airbnb,
um we did it a couple of times in the summer. Uh we didn't know and due to a family emergency, I had to leave in September and we returned um mid November around first week or the second week of November. Um we did it a couple
of times. Um honestly, we didn't know it. I've been on and off uh here. I It's the first time that we purchase a property. Uh I've been on and off uh resident uh since 2009 and either work or school. I've been uh overseas or or
in other states and um we as soon as we got that um we listed the home and currently um is I think it's for a minimum of 30 days. I have a print out, but um I guess a code
officer can have a look at it to confirm. >> Okay. So, my understanding is you were unaware that you couldn't rent the property short-term. Do you live in the property as well or is it just a a rental? >> Well, one we we keep one uh one unit um
almost never it does show that unit one and unit two. Unit two uh we've always kept it uh for oursel >> for you guys. Okay. And we do uh live I mean we used a couple of times. >> Okay. And do you live is that not that's not your primary home? >> It is the primary home. >> It is your primary home. Okay. And then
in the second unit that's the one that you were renting. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And your testimony is you're renting it because you one you didn't know you couldn't rent it but also because you had lost your job for income purposes. >> Honestly um we're um probably one month or two months away from having the
property foreclosed. If thing if nothing changes in the next >> Okay. Uh we're hopefully will uh but I mean that's a reality of the situation. >> Okay. Okay. I understand. And so from now right now you're saying that you are no longer renting the property shortterm >> and it's only for 30-day rentals on the
other side. >> Okay. >> It's not shortterm yet. >> Okay. At any point did you try and contact the city to find out if you could rent the property on a short-term basis? >> It I contacted when we got the notice. Um >> Okay. But I didn't just didn't have enough
time to I I I was gone from uh Septe early early September and like I said due to a family emergency and that took me two and a half months uh to return. Okay. >> And if you saw the how frequently Airbnb
was used, I think after September it was used maybe once or twice. Um, and we just it was just whatever. If we could get something, great. If not, then it's what it is. >> Okay. All right. Um, I appreciate your honesty here, Mr. Mara, today. Thank you
very much. Anything else from the city? >> Okay. Um, I am going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code sections. Um, I am going to assess a fine. I am I've looked at the ad to see. Um, it looks like it was about9.95
for five nights. So, you weren't really making a ton of money off the property. Is that correct? What on average? >> It was probably and sometimes we did a promo it was like one even 120 150. >> Okay. All right. And it looks like you have nine rentals that were um that were
um in violation. Um, based on the information that I've received with regard about the property you're most going into foreclosure and the hardship that you have, I am going to assess only a $25 fine for each of those nine rentals plus the $330 in administrative costs of the city. The city's purpose is
to gain compliance, not to be punitive. Um, however, they did have to bring this to the the hearing. So, that is part of the reason for my ruling. So, it'll be $25 per each of the nine rentals um plus the $330 in administrative cost and any
recording fees needed for um affecting a lean on the property should that be necessary. >> Um please make sure I have your contact information. I'll make sure to get you the order to that effect. >> Thank you. >> All right, moving on to agenda item 4E.
Case number 20250747, City of St. Pete Beach versus Beyond the Baseline Coaching LLC. Case number 20250747. Initial inspection 12225. Irrepraable and irreversible notice of
violation dated and mailed certified 1222 2022. Notice of hearing dated and posted on property 1222 2025 beyond responded beyond the baseline
coaching LLC. Violation address 151 PA Vista Drive violation description the property is in violation of section 9.2 permitted uses and structures in the RU-2
residential district are as follows. A residential dwellings detached singular single family only affid posting. This picture is true and accurate representation
of when I reserve and taken. The advertisement on the Airbnb. The host information reviewed from Brooke. Review by Maggie. This property is not permitted to be rented on short term. Property is not in
compliant. Recommended fine is $1,000 per violation. Two reviews totaling 2,000 plus 330 and administrative cost and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. And this is the Airbnb.
Okay. Okay, that will be accepted into evidence. All right, thank you so much. Anyone here on behalf of Beyond the Baseline Coaching LLC? Okay, if you could please come up, state your name and affiliation with the respondent for the record. >> Good morning. My name is Nadia Brian. Um
my husband Mike and I, we own the 151 Ponta Vista Drive. Um I came here first of all to apologize um when we purchased the home. Um, recently, uh, we were told by the real estate agent that we are allowed to do
three short-term rentals per year. And I understand that it's my fault. That's why I came here to to apologize. Um, what I did afterwards, I looked on Airbnb. I saw that in the area lot of people within even half a mile from us
renting on Airbnb. And after what she told me, again, my fault, I should have double checked. I thought it's fine to put it on Airbnb. Um, we had these two people there um with the reviews and then I got the violation. It was probably like a day before Christmas.
Um, it's not our primary home, so I actually wasn't there. Um, I haven't got any notice or call or anything. No um warning um before. So, this was the first thing that I got was this hearing. So, I obviously took it down right away
and I just came here to apologize. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, and so you said this is you you were not renting it anymore shortterm and you were advised by a real estate agent that you would be able to do it three times a year. >> Per year when we were purchasing the home, but again, you know, they can tell you.
>> Yeah. >> Which I I'm that kind of person. If you tell me something, I trust you. I don't go on Google and double check if you're what you're saying is true, which I should have. Um, that's why once I found out that it's obviously we were not supposed to, I I took it down. And >> And when did you purchase this property?
>> Um, so we purchased it in the summer of 24, but then we spent um a year almost a year renovating. So it was not liveable or okay. >> Um, anything for a while. >> All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Anything else from the city?
>> Okay. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. Um, I do appreciate your honesty and I do appreciate that you understanding now you're taking it down. Um, you're not going to be renting it anymore. I do see, um, maybe you can verify this. The average nightly rental
is about $1,000 a night. >> Um, I would say about 800. >> 800 a night. >> Probably depends like Yeah. >> Okay. And then based on the two times, it looks like they each stayed a couple of days for or maybe a week for each of those. >> I think it was three nights.
>> Three nights for each of them. Okay. Um, based on that, I am going to go ahead and assess um the uh I'm going to assess $500 for each of the two rentals. Um, and then the $330 in administrative costs plus the um recording fee should
one be necessary. Um, again, I do appreciate you coming here and apologizing. I do appreciate that you're now in compliance. Um, but like you said, you know, >> I understand you took a risk. The rest didn't quite pay off. Um, but I will and and I'm not doing the full thousand dollars that the city is is requesting
because you were so forthright in coming here today. I appreciate that. >> Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Of course. >> And then make sure I have your contact information. I can get you an order that will have that information on it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. We've continued case 4F. So, moving on to 4G 2025074,
City of St. Pete Beach versus James L. Wall III. >> Yes. Overhead, please. >> Okay. Good morning, special magistrate. I repel representing the city of St. Pete Beach. This is case number 2025074.
The respondent is James L. Wall III. Violation address is 6635 Bay Street. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 46-331A 2 and 3 of enumeration. 98-654
and six unsightly conditions and 98-66A through B 20 22B 2 and C3 residential and commercial property maintenance of the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach.
The case summary. The initial inspection was August 19th, 2025. A courtesy notice is dated and male certified on August 25th, 2025. A notice of violation dated and mailed certified on December 22nd, 2025. Notices of hearing dated and
posted on the property December 29th, 2025. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. the affidavit of posting at 6635 Bay Street. So, this is the initial um situation
back on August 19th of an overflowing dumpster. Also showing overgrown vegetation, building debris on August 19th in the front yard. Um, by September 6th, the dumpster had
been removed, but the debris still remained on property. The debris, building debris still present as shown on September 6 with overgrown landscape still present, building debris.
Then on December 17th, another um inspection was done and there's still building material um in the front yard. There is wood and block debris there and there's a pile of sandbags in the
front yard with overgrown vegetation over it as shown here. December 17th, the building debris. So, the corrective action is the property must trim landscape and remove debris. Um, the property, however, is
compliant now. Um, the owner did reach out and send pictures on January 6th, and I did do an inspection this morning. So, the recommended um fine will not be for um any daily fines, but just uh 330 and
administrative costs. I'd like to use the overhead and show you the pictures that were taken this morning. >> Thank you. >> All the debris has been removed from the front yard. >> We're just from another angle. It all had all been removed.
>> Thank you very much. Is anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Wall? Anyone here for Mr. Wall? Did you have a chance to speak to the property owner or just when he told you that the property is now cleared up? >> Yeah, he just emailed through the pictures on uh the 6th of January and I
just reinspected this morning just to confirm. >> Perfect. Okay. Then I am going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code sections but is compliant as of January 6, 2020. I'm not going to assess any fines or fees, but I will assess the $330 in reasonable
administrative costs of the city and that one will be done. Okay, moving on to repeat violations. Agenda item 5A, case number 20250712, city of city, city of St. Pete Beach
versus Team B Equities LLC. Okay, so Ayakar jail, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Um, this is case 20250712. The respondent is team B Equities LLC. The violation address is 46385th Avenue.
Violation description. The property is in violations of section 9.2A permitted principal uses and structures and 9.5 prohibited uses and structures of the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach. Here's the case summary. Your final
order was issued back in December on December 8th, 2025. Violation using property for transient public occupancy. There was a single review that at that time, an October review. Um, since then there were more reviews posted and so a
repeat irreparable and irreversible notice of violation dated and male certified on December 22nd, 25 and the notice of hearing dated and posted on the property December 22nd, 2025. the true and accurate description of what I witnessed, the affidavit of
posting on the property at 46385th Avenue. So, here is the Airbnb advertisement taken on December 22nd showing that it was still possible to rent for six nights. as in an example
shown here. The circled green um review was the one that we had already cited back in December. Um there were four new reviews um posted after that fact showing short-term
rental. So, the property is not permitted to be rented for short term and the property is not compliant and is a repeat violation. And subsequently, the recommended fine is $5,000 per violation. There were four new reviews
totaling $20,000 plus $330 in administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. And for note that um all our correspondence has been returned. >> Okay. So, the the proper notice was sent
certified to 463 85th Avenue, but it was returned undeliverable or just returned unsigned? >> Uh, undeliverable? >> Undeliverable. >> Yes. All notices of >> Okay. May I ask the officer, do you have any additional information for the
record like the policy? >> I do. I do. Here's the Airbnb policy. Overhead, please. >> Okay. Thank you. that'll be accepted into evidence. Um, anyone here on behalf of TeamB Equities
LLC? Is anyone here on behalf of Team B Equities LLC 46385th Avenue? Seeing no one. Miss Reach, do you have my previous order? I didn't see it in the backup materials.
>> I do. Team Biquities. Overhead, please. Okay, thank you. >> Okay. Um, I'm going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. I am going to
assess a fine of $1,000 per violation um for the five overnight stays that were in violation of the code. I'm going to assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city and any recording fees that might be incurred in having to affect a
lean on the property. >> Thank you. Madame Ma Magistrate, the violation that you're finding, is that a repeat or >> it's it's all it's it's a repeat violation, but it's also a reparable and irreversible. So, for both uh the city has only asked for $1,000 for each of
them. I know it can be up to $5,000 for each of them. I think that might be a little excessive at this point, especially since the notices are being returned. Um, I do also see in the backup material, and maybe um I want to make sure this is associated with this case, but I do see a certified
mailing was sent to Jeffrey Borum in Oldsmar. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And is that the address for the registered agent or the manager of the registered agent? Correct. Was that one also returned? >> Yes, >> that one was also returned. >> Everything's been returned. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I do find
that proper notice was given. I find it's a repeat violation. It's also irreversible and irreparable in nature. So, $1,000 for each of the five violations amount in a $5,000 fine um plus a $330 in reasonable administrative cost in the recording fees for uh recording a lean.
Okay. Um moving on to agenda item seven, stay of fines. Case number 20250069, City of St. Pete Beach versus Annie Nuin and Jimmy Trong. Um, Madame Special Master Pete Dor, code enforcement manager. There is no one
here to represent that case. Um, they requested to have this case added to the agenda. And since they're not here, we can >> Did they um provide any backup materials for the stay of fines? The difficulty
they were having is having the current owner agree to a buyer representing them here today. >> And um I guess the current owner was refusing for good re reason maybe to provide them
the power >> to speak on their behalf. >> Okay. >> Um so we can move ahead with our agenda. >> Okay. Um, so I've never had a request before my first day of fines. Um, so that case I guess I'm not going to be
deciding on it. That I due to lack of uh the petitioner appearing that's going to be withdrawn from the agenda and I'm not considering that today. >> Very good. Thank you, ma'am. >> Moving on to lean reductions 8A case number 20240193 C of St. Pete Beach versus Brightwater
Beach Condo Association. The request by the respondent is to pay 10% um and that number is not 9,000. based on your order of October 10th of 2025, the property was to be
compliant by September 16th or that's when you ordered um the fines to start. So from September 16, 2025 through uh December 16, 2025, the property um was
compliant and that's a total of 91 days at $250 per day. uh brings us to $23,080 plus $330
in administrative fines. And the city would like to request the full amount. And if um whatever decision that you make, we would like it to be contingent on the final um fire inspection that is required. I think that is set for
tomorrow. So we would like to have um that contingency on the order. >> Okay. So let me understand this. The property was non-compliant was found to be compliant as of December 16th. Correct.
>> The property was found in compliance September I'm sorry December 16th. >> Okay. So, I'm going to tell you right now, I'm not going to I'm not going to condition any lean reduction on any further activity that's being done because the city has already determined the property was in compliance as of
December 16th. Therefore, my jurisdiction as far as the violation seeds. So, at this point, I'm just listening. I'm just considering the the lean reduction. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. >> Uhhuh. Um, and my math is a little bit different. I have if it's 91 days, I
have at 250, that's 22 750. Then you said plus the 330. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And the property owners for a reduction of 10%. Or two to 10% I guess or of 10%. I can ask the the property.
>> Got it. Thank you. >> Because the the numbers are not matching to 10%. Okay. I see. All right. Anyone here on behalf of Brightwater Beach Condo Association? Please come to the podium. State your names and affiliation with the property
owner as >> Thank you, ma'am. Good morning. >> Good morning. >> I'm Scott. I'm the manager for Bwater Scotch. I think you remember me. >> I do. >> This is Matthew. He's the GC that filed the paperwork for the permit. >> All right, gentlemen. So, what happened?
>> What happened? >> Yeah. >> Well, I think what happens we missed the hearing >> which, you know, triggered the fines. Um, there was a lot of issues going on at that time. We had a board member who was sick who could not attend. Another board member could not attend because he
was out of state. Um I think he was I don't know what I'm not sure what you were you were at, but there's no excuse. There's no excuse for that. We're just asking for some sort of lean reduction, some forgiveness. >> Um we were just told today because shortly at our last hearing that we were with you in December, >> right,
>> uh the paper was was on the was on the desk and we were had a permit number. We didn't have a physical copy, but we did get a actual physical copy of the permit shortly right after that hearing. And then we were told this morning that I guess there's a fire sort of inspection or something like that. I'm not sure.
>> Okay. Well, I don't know if you want me to tell Mr. Der. He wants me to condition the lean reduction on the completion of the fire inspection. As far as the city is concerned, they said that you were compliant with this code enforcement case on December 16th when the permit was issued, and that's good enough for me. So, I need you to work with the city on whatever the fire
inspection is. Bless you, Jenny. Um, but I'm just going to consider the reduction of the fines um from the 22,750. And you guys are asking for a reduction of 10% or two 10%. >> I'm not sure the difference. >> Two 10%. So $2,275. >> Yes, ma'am, please.
>> Okay. Um, plus I I never wave the administrative cost, so it would be plus the $330 in administrative costs. Um, I guess my question for the city is uh uh I I it doesn't really matter, I guess, but the policy is you guys are just holding firm on all lean reductions
now. Okay, understood. Um, okay. I will um grant a lean reduction because I can understand some of the stuff that was going on, but I'm not going to do it to the 10%. I'm going to do it to 20%. So, $4,550 plus the $330 in administrative costs.
That'll be good for 30 days. Um, if you don't pay within the 30 days, then it goes back up to the full amount. Um, and I have your contact information, so you'll get an order to that effect sent to >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Anything else on the agenda? >> No, ma'am. Thank you.
>> All right. Sounds good. We are adjourned at 11:26 a.m. and see you next month. >> Yes.