the special magistrate code enforcement meeting of the city of St. Pete Beach for Monday, November 10th, 202025. My name is Erikica Aello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases. I am a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida Bar in
board and and is 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 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 on which they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed. Every effort will be made to hear all persons having relevant evidence, arguments, or comments related to the specific case that is being heard. If you wish to speak today, it is necessary that you will be sworn in,
which I will do momentarily. All testimony given will be done so under oath. In all cases, the city has the burden of proof. So, the city will present its case first. The respondent will then be given an opportunity to refute the city's allegations. Formal rules of evidence do not apply to this
proceeding. However, I will make every effort to ensure that fundamental fairness and due process is afforded to all parties. After hearing all relevant evidence, I will issue an order. The order will be reduced to writing and all parties will be provided with a copy. So, please ensure that we have your
current address or email address. Additionally, you are advised that I do not have the authority to grant you a variance, permit, or special exception of any kind. My role is solely to determine whether a city code has been violated and under some circumstances to provide a reasonable time to correct the
violation by whatever means are available to you. Please be advised that you may be subject to a fine and a lean may be recorded on your property if the violation is not corrected by the compliance deadline, if one is provided. If you wish to present any evidence today, please sign in at the podium before you speak. And it will be
necessary that you swear or affirm to tell the truth. Therefore, at this time, I will swear in any witnesses. Anyone wishing to speak today, if you could 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?
>> Ma'am, just it's okay. No worries. Um, all right. Uh, any changes to the agenda today? Good morning, madam special master. Pete Dur, code enforcement manager for the city of St. Pete Beach. The change to the agenda is case number 2025
0061. Case 4A on the agenda is continued to December. >> Okay. All right. Any other changes? >> No, ma'am. >> All right. I will get you an order of continuence for that case.
>> Appreciate it. Thank you. >> And just to be clear for the record, our December meeting is December 8th correct? >> Yes. Yes. >> So, December 8th at 10:00 a.m. Okay. Then moving on to the first agenda
item. Case number 3A, case number 20250220, City of St. He beach versus I'm gonna keep messing that up. Mr. Starkus. >> There you go. Good morning, Madam Magistrate. Steve River on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach. Uh case number
20250220. This was a status hearing um for the property owner to try to come into compliance with your order. Uh there was a demo permit submitted on the 4th, so it's in review still. Looks like it's it needs some additional documents. I'd
like to continue this to January. Okay, >> Mr. Starkus, do you have any objection to continuing the case until the January 12th hearing? >> Yes, actually I already submitted like uh insurance licenses and uh you even
gave me even gave me like permit number only few items still missing. I'm working on survey. >> Okay. >> And I need two signatures uh plumbing and mechanical contractors. >> Okay. Probably that's all I guess we >> Yeah. And I just want to see the permit uh secured >> before you consider this close the case
out. Okay. >> So, >> okay. And do you think with those items that you that the city's requiring, you'll be able to get those prior to the end of the year? >> Uh I think so. Okay. >> I think so. Yes. >> Okay. Then let's do this. We'll go ahead and continue the case until January. I
believe it's January 12th. >> Yes. >> January 12th. And then we may not need to come, you may not need to come back here if it's all said and done. So, just stay in contact with the city. Um, if something goes ary or something happens, then we'll see you on January 12th and we can discuss it at that time. >> Okay.
>> All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Starkus. And I will get an order to continue out um for the January 12th at 10 a.m. Okay. Moving on to agenda item 3B, case number 2025038, City of St. Pete Beach versus Pasigril
Condo. Passag Girl Beach condo phase 1 association inc. >> Morning madam mag ad magistrate. Again Steve River on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach. Uh for this case there was a couple of scriber errors. Um the it was mailed to the right people but there was an issue with the parcel number and the
owner information. So we're requesting an order to dismiss. >> Okay. So, the city is looking to voluntarily dismiss this case against the property. >> Correct. Uh there was just too many scrier errors to overlook. Um at this point, we would just wish that it'd be
dismissed. >> Sure. Okay. I will get um I will consider that case dismissed and get you in order regarding same. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to agenda item 3 C. Case number 20250489, City of St. Pete Beach versus Mark Cobburn and Deborah Coburn.
>> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Again, Steve C. River on behalf of the City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This was a status hearing uh to get the garage uh permit and repaired uh the items outside removed. The property is compliant.
Pull up a couple pictures here. Overhead please. So, this was where the outdoor storage was at. And this is the garage door. Uh they got a permit. It was inspected. It's been replaced. So, the city's not asking for
any fines, just the $330 administrative cost. >> Okay. Is anyone here on behalf of the property owner? Mr. Coburn, I don't see him in the audience. Okay. All right. I will find that the property is now in compliance.
I am not going to assess any fines or fees, but I will assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs to the city and get an order to that effect. >> Thank you. >> Right. Moving. Moving right along. Agenda item 3D, case number 202507, city of St. Pete Beach versus Kouche
Bectinarian. Thank you, Madam Magister. We're very good on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach. This was a status hearing um to see if the uh property was grandfathered for the short-term rentals. Uh we are still going through there was a ton of
paperwork that was submitted. They're still reviewing it. Uh we wish to continue this till January so that the proper people can look at the paperwork to see if we can get this grandfathered. >> Okay. And is the property owner here at all? Okay. Are you okay with continuing this uh until the January 12th hearing
so that the city can go through the paperwork and determine if you're grandfathered in from the short-term rentals? >> Okay, perfect. Not a problem. Then I will go ahead and continue this hearing until January 12th at 10:00 a.m. Um, and then we will meet again at that time to see if we move forward or if the
property is grandfathered. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. 3E case number 2025030. City of St. Peach versus Brandon Owens and Alexandra Owens. >> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve
Rivera on behalf of the city of St. Pete Beach. Uh this was a status hearing for the vacant lot that needed to be cut. The property is compliant. I do have a few photos, please. So, there's the lot now. Everything's been cut down.
That's the other side of the lot. So, the city is not uh seeking any funds, just the administrative costs. >> And what's the amount on the cost? >> I'm sorry, 330. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Mr. or Mrs. Owens?
Okay. Seeing no, um I will find that the property is now in compliance. I'm not going to assess any fines, but I will assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. >> Thank you. Agenda item 3F, case number 20250356,
city of St. Pete Beach versus Julia Baron Baronado. >> Good morning, Special Magistrate Ayaka Ruckell on behalf of City of St. Pete Beach. This is a status hearing for case 20250356. Um, your order uh gave the owner 30 days
to apply for a de demo permit by 119. She did apply for the permit on 1019. And I do have a picture of the property here. It is overhead, please. It is being prepared for demo. You can see the silk fence that's been erected.
And confirmation here from the permit administrator that the demo permit has been applied for. >> Okay. And you said that was on 1019. >> Yes. Okay. So uh by per the city that property has now come come into compliance. >> Yes. So property is compliant. We won't
be seeking any fines just administrative costs of $330. >> Great. Thank you so much. Is the property owner here? >> Don't think so. >> Okay. Seeing no one. I am not going to I am going to find that the property was in compliance as of October 19th, 2025. I'm not going to assess any fines, but I
will assess the $330 of administrative costs to the city. Thank you. >> Okay. Agenda item 3G, case number 20250438, city of St. Pete Beach versus Presentation Feronda. >> So, Ayakar shell, city of St. Pete Peach, code enforcement. Uh, this is a
status hearing check for case number 20250438. The order that you gave 14 days to remove the debris by 10:24. It has it is now compliant. Got pictures over here of the property.
that it's been tidied up as well as their big dead tree removed. So again, um, city won't be seeking any fines, just $330 in administrative costs. Okay. Uh, is a property owner here, Miss
Fonda? Okay, seeing no one, I am going to find that the property was in compliance as of October 24th, 2025. I am not going to award any fines, but I will award the $330 of reasonable administrative costs of the city. Agenda item 3, case number 2025044,
City of St. Pete Beach versus James Moly and Aaron Moroli. >> So, I correct Shell. City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement um status hearing for case number 2025044. The property is compliant. You had given them seven days to cut the property, the
vacant lot and that's the overhead right there. It has been completely so it is compliant. We won't be seeking any fines just 330 and administrative costs. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the property owners?
Mr. Ms. Mori. Okay. Seeing no one, I am going to find that the property was in compliance as of October 22nd, 2025. I'm not going to award any fines, but I will award the RA $330 in the reasonable administrative costs of the city. Agenda item three, I case number 20250497,
City of St. Pete Beach versus Trisha Figgins. I correct Shell, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status hearing for case 20250497. The your order gave him 14 days to trim the property by 10:24. It is compliant
and I have some pictures here in the overhead that it has been trimmed. So, city won't be seeking any fines, just $330 in administrative costs. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Miss Figgins?
Okay. Seeing no one, I am going to find that the property was in compliance as of 1024 2025. I am not going to award any fines, but I will award the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. Agenda item 3J, case number 20250495, City of St. Pete Beach versus James
Strebler. >> I correct, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a status hearing for case 20250495. Your order gave them 14 days to remove three dries that were um two up front and one in the rear and they were
compliant. Um, so these are the pictures overhead, please. The trees in the front have been removed and the large one in the rear that we spotted has also been removed. So, this property is compliant and we will not be seeking any fines,
just $330 in administrative cost. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Stumbler? Seeing no one, I'm going to find that the property is in compliance and has been since 10:24, 2025. I am not going to award any fines, but I will award the 300 reasonable administrative costs of
of the city in the amount of $330. Agenda item 3K, case number 20250484, City of St. Pete Beach versus John Scott Olsen Jr. >> I correct Shell, City of St. Pete Beach, code enforcement status hearing for case
2025484. Your order gave the owner 14 days to register the vehicles um as the property had been cleaned up previously. So they are compliant now. They provided proof of registration for
the black Mazda and the unregistered trailer has been removed. Only the vehicles remaining are registered. So, the city will be seeking no fines, just $330 in administrative costs.
>> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Olsen? >> All right. Seeing no one, I will find that the property was in compliance on 1024 2025. I am not going to award any fines, but I will award the $330 in reasonable administrative costs to the city.
Well, that was a very successful. >> Yeah. Uh, okay. Moving on to new cases. Case 4 A has been continued to December 8th. So, moving on to case 4B. Case Z 20250147, City of St. Pete Beach versus Kevin
Hannon and Robert Smith. >> Hi, Aqua Rockshell, City of St. Pete Peach Code Enforcement. Uh, this is case 020250147. The respondents are Kevin Hannon and Robert Smith. The violation address is 32772nd Avenue. Violation description. The
property is in violations of section 98-123.1. Permits required of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was done in February 19th of 2025. A courtesy notice was date and mailed
certified on 31325. A notice of violation was dated mailed certified on 41725. and a notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 102425. This is an affidavit of posting um at
the property address 32772nd Avenue on October 24th. So these are the initial pictures from back in February 19th. Um a dumpster showing all the debris doing renovations and a repair on the fence there. Again,
the newly erected fence debris. This is the work that was done on the side of the property. Um, looks like electrical work in March. Um, inspected again. They were continuing their repairs and these are the renovations that are
completed as of October 27th. See a drastic difference and none of this was permitted. So, and there's the completed fence as the current home condition. So the corrective action um the property must obtain a permit for the renovations
completed and as of yesterday they had just submitted a permit for the hurricane repairs. So technically it has been compliant and uh we are recommending no fines at this
time only administrative costs of $330. >> Okay. So though they did not comply by the date in the notice of violation, the city is not seeking any fines since the property did come in to compliance prior to the hearing. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> By one day. >> Is there anyone here on behalf of the property owner? >> Okay. If you would please come up, state your name for the record. >> Morning, ma'am. Robert Smith. >> Okay. And um as you can see that the city is not seeking any fines against
the property. >> Yes, ma'am. Um, how are this the city is looking for the $330 and having to prosecute this case? Um, do you have any comments that you want to make on behalf of yourself? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. All right. Well, then we will go ahead. I will find that the property was in violation of the stated code sections. The property is now come into
compliance. I am not going to assess any fines, but I will award the $330 in administrative cost to the city. You will be receiving an order to that effect. Um, just understand that since I did pine the properties in violation, if it happens in the future in the next 5 years, it would be considered a repeat offense. So hopefully I don't see you back before me.
>> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Moving on to case number 20250358. City of St. Pete Beach versus Laura Valuchcci. >> Ayaka Ruckell, City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. This is case uh
0202500358. The respondent is Laura Valuchcci. Violation address 51078th Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violation of sections 46-331. Items A through C. Enumeration 98-64A
general maintenance 98-654 and six unsightly conditions and 98-66 A B 20 22A and B2 C2 and 3 of the residential and
commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinances in the city of St. Pete Beach. The case summary. Initial inspection was on June 5th, 2025. Notice of violation dated and mailed certified on June 11th, 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted
on the property October 24th, 2025. This is the affidavit of posting at the property address, 510 78th Avenue on October 24th. So going back to the property back in June, this was the initial debris and
overgrowth that was found. Same picture in different angle. Still overgrowth continued back in October. It was still overgrown. Hence, it was taken to special magistrate. The trees and debris,
further debris in the driveway. Same pictures. So, the corrective action, the property must clean up the landscape and remove dead trees and debris. The property, however, is compliant. They worked on it this weekend. So, I have pictures
that were taken this morning. Overhead, please. All the debris were removed and they've cut back on all the overgrowth. any concern with the remaining palm tree that appears to be >> they've actually applied for a demo
permit as well. Okay. So, at this point in time, the city won't be asking for any fines, just 330 in administrative costs. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Miss Valucci? >> Okay. I will find that the property was uh in violation of the stated code
sections. How? However, as of the date of the hearing, the property came into compliance. I will not be assessing any fines, but I will be assessing the $330 in reable reasonable administrative costs of the city. All right. Uh, moving on to agenda item 4 D. Case number 2025060,
City of St. Pete Beach versus Shamaro Homes LLC. >> I Aqua Ruckshell, City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. Uh, this is case 202500606. The respondent is Chararmmo Holmes LLC. Violation address 447 80th Avenue.
Violation description. The property is in violations of sections 46-33 1 A through B and three enumeration and 98-66A B 20 22A and B2.
Residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. The case summary. Initial inspection September 2nd, 2025. Notice of violation dated and mailed on certified on September 8th, 2025. Notice of hearing
dated and posted on the property October 24th 2025. This is the affidavit of posting at the property address 4478th Avenue on October 24th 25. So, these were the initial uh pictures
taken back on September 2nd of the overgrown landscape and dead trees. There was a row of looks like four dead trees there that were all uh dead. Overgrowth on the driveway and debris.
overgrowth further overgrowth of the front yard. That's a better picture of the east boundary where the four dead trees are present. Then October 24th,
the property had cut the grass. However, the dead trains have uh are still remaining on the side. And in fact, the furthest one closest to the house had fallen over and fallen
into the neighbor's property. I've identified the fallen tree right there that's fallen on the neighbor's house. Another angle of the tree. So the corrective action is the property must maintain the landscape and remove the dead trees. One has collapsed on the
neighboring house at 439 80th Avenue. The property is actually now compliant because they just removed the trees on Friday. So I have pictures over here. All those four trees that were remaining
have been removed. So, it's no longer posing a threat to the neighbor's carport. >> And that's a different angle there from them. >> So, we're going to consider the property compliant and just only seek $330 in
administrative costs. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner? If you could come, please state your name for the record and then if you have anything to say uh with regard to your case. >> Good morning. My name is Charlene Morris and I have nothing to add. Okay. All
right. Thank you very much. Um, I'm going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code sections. It is now in compliance. I am not going to award any fines, but I will assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. I will get you an order to that effect. Much like I told the gentleman before, this is the first
violation. If in the next five years I find the same violation, then it could be considered a repeat violation. So hopefully I don't see you before me again. All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Right. Moving on to agenda item 4E, case number 20250663,
city of St. Pete Beach versus William Buchanan and Terresa Buchanan. >> Good morning, special night. >> Uh, Lucite code enforcement for the city of St. Pete Beach. >> Good morning. >> Clicker
>> and welcome to your first magistrate hearing. >> Thank you. They don't normally go this easy. So, just know that. Case number 2025663. Respondents William and Teresa.
Affidative posting. This picture is true and accurate representation of what I observe on the date it was taken. advertisement on Airbnb. The host uh review by Michael. Review by Roslin.
Review by John. A review by Hunter. Review by Dylan. Review by M. McQuail. Review by France. Review by Stephen.
Review by Riley. Corrective action. Property can only be rented monthly. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine if is $8,000 per violation. Nine reviews totaling $9,000. That's $329 in administrative
costs only. and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. This concludes the representation or presentation. Okay. And my question is on the uh notice of violation. The section cited
is section 9.5 prohibited uses and structures which said all uses and structures not of nature specifically are provisionally permitted here and are hereby prohibited in the RU2 residential district. So it's the city's contention that short-term rentals are not permitted in this district at all. Correct. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And you went through the reviews. Some of them said stayed for a few nights. Others did not say that. Um said group stay or something of that nature. >> Stay for a few weeks. >> Okay. >> A few days and like if I circled the
date at the bottom like 103, but the review said stayed 3 weeks before or something like that. So the testimony from the city is that the ones that stayed stayed a few nights that indicates they were obviously saying less than 30 days. The other ones that you've indicated happened within like
the same month. Yes. Therefore based on the city's uh review of these reviews, it indicated to the city that they were being rented for less than 30 days. >> Okay. Based on the timing of the reviews. Okay. And this is the Airbnb policy. >> Airbnb policy.
>> Okay. And it states that reviews have to be put in 14 days after checkout. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Anyone here on behalf of the property owners, if you could please come up, state your names for the record.
Good morning. And I'm Jessica Golden. I'm the host representing the property owners, Theresa and William Buchanan. >> Okay. And you said Jessica Golden, Miss Golden. And uh what company are you with? >> Golden Realy Consulting. >> Okay.
And you have with you here today both property owners? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you very much. All right. You might go ahead, Miss Golden. Um we would just like to state that we were not aware of the um policy but now that it has been brought to our attention we have already taken the
corrective action. These are the images of the calendars that have been updated requiring a 30-day stay or longer. That's VBO. This is calendar. And then we also use a um property management
tool to sync the calendars and that too is requiring a 30-day stay. >> Okay. You fixed the uh availability to book. Are there any outstanding uh reservations that are less than 30 days
that are currently on the books? >> Yes. And we have um sought clarification on that. We actually contacted the city and spoke to a representative just to clarify whether the notice is asking us from the state forward to take the corrective action which we have for 30
days or longer stays. Um but we are seeking clarification and wanted to verify as well that the existing bookings that were made prior to this notice are okay. Okay. Well, that's something that the city is going to have to contend with. I will say what I'm here to determine at this point is the
nature of the violation is that it's irreversible or irreparable means that you have rented the property. Money's already exchanged hands. The stay has already happened. I can't give you time to undo the stay. Um unless we had a time machine and gosh, I'd be using it for something much different
than this. Um, but I I can tell you in the past, and of course I'd verify with the city, but I can tell you in the past, if it continues to rent for the short term, it's still in violation of the city, and the city is not going to give concessions on actively violating its code. Um, so Mr. Der, any point?
>> You are correct. >> Okay. So, in the in the past, my orders have said that all future bookings need to be cancelled and that you need to show us proof that they've been cancelled um in order to be compliant. Um so, I'm that I'm verifying with the city that that's continued. Um understanding that you did
not understand before, can I ask when you when did you all purchase the property? >> Of this year. Okay. Um is this the first rental property that you've purchased anywhere? >> No. So you are familiar with renting
property >> in Georgia in Georgia. >> In Georgia. Okay. But and so the understanding the laws are different in Georgia. Um when you moved to Florida, did you do any due diligence with regard to if you could even rent the property, if it could be an Airbnb, anything of that nature?
>> Yeah. Yeah. It was a bit unclear to us though. I wasn't really sure, but we talked to some people and and it seemed like it was okay. And so >> at any time, did you call the city and ask if it was okay? >> Okay. Okay. >> He also only started renting the
property at the very end of August. So, it only went on from end of August until this notice. >> Okay. And on average, how um what was the charge for the short-term stays? You can either give me a nightly rate or you can give me for the the week, whatever it ends up being.
>> We use a calendar management tool with dynamic pricing. It changes every single day, >> right? Which is why I asked for on average. So, can you give me on average? How much were they making per booking? Um, I would say on average closer to maybe 300 a night. >> 300 a night. >> And how much was an average stay?
>> So, I'm asking you this because the city is asking for a $9,000 fine. I'm trying to get an idea of if you've cleared $15$20,000 on these rentals, maybe $9,000 doesn't sound so bad. If you've cleared $3,500 on these rentals, maybe $9,000 seems a little steep. So, I'm
trying to get the information so that I can be equitable in my ruling because clearly y'all have violated the code, but it's not meant to be punitive. It's meant to be compliance driven. Um, so if you can give me as best and accurate as you're standing here today, on average, how much would it be?
>> Matt, after you know all the fees, the cleaning cost, whatever. >> No, just give me give me gross. There's a cost of doing business. So, It's like seven. >> $6,500. >> 6,500 each.
>> Oh, total over since you've started at the end of August. $6,500 net or gross on >> net? $6,500 net. Okay. >> Okay. Anything else that you would like to say in your defense?
>> Sorry. >> Okay, understood. Um, anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am. Okay. Um I am going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code sections for the um number of violations cited by the city.
I am going to find that all of those violations are irreparable or irreversible. Um I am going to assess a flat $3,000 um fine for all nine of them. That's quite a substantial amount. And then I'm going to tell you this.
I hope to not see you guys again before May. Um, when you purchase property in any jurisdiction, it's buyer beware and also you're required to know the laws in the jurisdiction in which you operate. That's true. If this was your primary home or if it's a rental property or whatnot. So, um, if somebody represented
to you that you could do this without checking first with the city, I would maybe go find that person and figure out why they told you that and maybe educate them a little bit so that they're not telling other people that. Um, but hopefully that this will be the last time I see you and that you guys will
enjoy the property here maybe. So, um, thank you very much. I will get you guys an order to that effect. Um, and then I'm also going to include in my order the standard orders on short-term rentals, the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. I'm also going to include a provision that
within 10 business days that you can get to the city proof that the future bookings have been cancelled. Um, and that the property cannot be rented on a term less than 30 days in the future. >> Uh, Mr. Doer, did I forget anything in the orders? No. Uh, and recording fees in the event that the lean has to be
recorded. >> Yes. >> And recording fees in the event that the lean has to be recorded. And I will get you guys a copy of that if you've got your contact information there. >> All right. Thank you very much. You guys have a good day. >> Okay. Oh. Oh.
Moving on to the last agenda item. >> Lean is not not Oh, I skipped one. I got excited. Sorry, guys. Okay, moving on to agenda item 4F. Case number 20250641, City of St. Pete Beach versus SGE2
LLC. >> Thank you, Madam Mag. Steve Rivera again on behalf of the City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This case number 20250641. Respondent is SGRW2 LLC. Violation address is 205 Golf Way.
Violation description. The property is in violation of section 46331A and B and three enumeration and 9866A B and 20 residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of
ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection 9242025. Notice of violation dated and mailed certified 1014 2025. Notice of hearing dated and posted to
the property 1028 2025. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I've witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 205 Golfway. It's a picture of the overgrown grass and palm frrons. It's a measurement of the grass.
It's a view facing north. You can see the right away and just outside the fence line there where it's overgrown. It's October 22nd. Another picture of the grass overgrown. This is the back side of the lot from the alleyway.
Corrective action. Property must be cut and maintained regularly. Property is now compliant. Uh recommended fine is $330 administrative cost only and any recording fees that may be associated. And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner?
SGE2 LLC. Okay. Seeing no one, I am going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code sections but is now compliant. I am not gonna um award any fines, but I will award the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. >> Thank you. >> All right. Now, moving on to the final
one. Agenda item 8A, case number 20230204, City of St. Pete Beach versus Patrick Helmer and Carolyn Helmer. This is a lean reduction case. Please go to the overhead. Good morning, Madam Special Man Street. Pete Der, code
enforcement manager for the city of St. Pete Beach. You have before you a lean reduction and on the overhead um is your order from January 11, 2024. Um, I'd like you to note on that order you reduce the
fine to $50 per day and the lean reduction request is to reduce the fines to 3,000. The city is asking
for the entire 29,448 which is 29,000 for the lean amount plus the administrative cost of 448. Okay. Did the city abate the code enforcement leans at any point during the emergency declarations for Helen or
Milton? No I >> it it was just a question. >> No, I don't know. Um >> I know it happened prior to, but understanding >> that if they were trying to get building permits >> and they were unable to do so because of the two hurricanes, but if the city
didn't debate them, they didn't abate them. It's just >> trying to figure that one out. Okay. Is the property owner here? Okay. If you could please come up, state your name for the record and please tell me about your lean reduction request. >> Uh yes, good morning. Uh my name is
Patrick Helmer and uh as I've stated on the application for the lean request, there were several several issues that continue to remain beyond our control. uh the most recent
being uh not only the the hurricanes but the impact that had on the city's functioning but also in in that process uh we were required to
break up our renovation permit into two separate permits. One that addressed damages and the other that address renovations. But prior to that and one of the things that led up to the act your original
order was the fact that we we were facing I I don't know what kind of obstacles inside the city but you know we had several uh officials that we we had to deal with. Uh I had contractors that
said that they were doing things and they were not doing things. uh up until December, we lived uh in in Atlanta and we were trying to manage all this remotely and it was just a
just a confluence of of events that we thought were in we were in control of but we weren't. Um and then the initial code enforcement violation ha have having to do with several um matters with respect to the
the physical property itself. We did get those addressed within the within the time frame for the for that initial hearing. But as I as I told you then, >> I I had no control over the processes
inside the city. >> And it just >> I'm going to stop you right there, Mr. Helmer. So the the original violation, yes, there were some things that were taken into account and that were fixed prior to the hearing. But the fact of the matter is that there was exterior
and interior renovations conducted on that property without ever first getting a permit from the city. And and >> so if that had been done first and you had gone through that process, we would have never been at the initial hearing. >> And uh unfortunately, I was not aware
that that work had been done. You know, >> did you engage the services of the contractor? >> Yeah, we did. And and we did have some exterior demolition work done >> um that that we were aware of. Um, we uh I don't recall the the exact
circumstances, but there was a a wooden dock and living area that had been created that had been it it was in such a state of disrepair that we were told we needed to get it removed. So, we got rid of it. And there
was some concrete slabs that were outside. I I was not aware uh of the interior um demo work that was done. uh without uh the permit. You know, I think the contractor at the time took it upon
himself to to do that work. >> Okay. And I think I took all that into account. I can specifically recall I took all that into account, which is why you didn't get a $250 a day fine. >> That's right. >> So then tell me what happened after my orders dated January 11th, 2024. Albeit
those hurricanes did occur, but they did not happen until October. >> Yeah. Well, one of the things that that um took place and and I I don't have a calendar in front of me of of of the timeline, but my recollection is it took
six to eight months for for because there was some questions about the structural uh uh the structure of the of the building itself. And long story short, there was an interior
wall that separated what was an enclosed Florida room that had been incorporated into the living area, but there was a uh a a a structure there and supposedly the trust system was resting on that as a
loadbearing wall. And it took months and months. Uh we we had a special engineering survey done. Uh we we h we we did some work to expose the ceiling so that inspectors could look at it and
make their own assessment. And finally ultimately it was determined that the um loadbearing wall was in fact the rear wall. Well that process took like I said six to eight months at the very least. And
I I I could certainly provide documentation to that. I I >> Well, your testimony is plenty. I'm just trying to weigh the understanding and I and I can understand your perspective. You hired a contractor. You had faith in
the contractor. I like I said at the beginning of this, I'm also a lawyer. So, I'm also putting my lawyer hat on saying, well, if it's my property and I've engaged the services of of somebody to work on my behalf and be my agent, I'm responsible for their actions. So, you know, and and you haven't been in
front of me many times, which is a good thing. Um, but you know, the saying that ignorance is a law is not excuse of the law. The ignorance of your projects is not necessarily excuse. So, >> right, >> I'm having I I'm just my thought process is I appreciate your lean reduction request. I appreciate the support behind
it. However, if you had, you know, maybe it was just a mistake of the contractor, but ultimately the property owner was responsible for it. And if you had done it, gotten the pri prior permits before, this wouldn't have even been an issue, >> right? >> Um, so I am sitting in a place of
equity, so I can balance those. Um, but I don't believe that putting the onus on the city and saying it took eight months for them because if you had to engage additional engineers and stuff to do something that was otherwise done as unpermitted, um, you know, feel like you you probably should have some animous
with your contractor. >> Uh, yes, we do. And in fact, >> I I been expecting a phone call from from legal counsel with respect to that. But uh it just it and you're absolutely
right. I I I take responsibility uh for what happened and what didn't happen. Um so I'm I'm not trying to avoid that or or diminish that. I am asking that given all of the
circumstances uh that that we encountered uh and and and fought through to to get to a place where we are now in possession of two permits to renovate the home that we we
in fact uh can can move forward with that. And you know, yes, I I understand that there is a a a penalty for what has transpired. I'm just asking that it be >> reduced.
>> Um, and how did you come up with or was there any rhyme or reason to the reduction request at 3,000? Well, one of one of the rhymes or reasons had to do with the fact that well while there may not have been any abatement uh
with respect to the hurricanes and everything to me with and another thing it wasn't until I I actually stepped in and and started aggressively uh taking
over the the process of getting our permits in hand um that we actually I feel started to make some progress. But then with the hurricanes last September, you know, everything went crazy. But prior to that, you know, it it wasn't
that easy either. And I don't know how much of that was St. Pete Beach versus our contractor. And I'm I'm now beginning to believe that it was our contractor not doing the things that he said that he was doing
>> more than what was going on at the city. But I I guess part of my part of my $3,000 was the fact that this past year was there certainly nothing that I could control. It's nothing you guys could
control. And I can only imagine what it's been like, you know, to be inundated with as as much stuff as as the city's been inundated with. But I just kind of in my mind said, "Okay,
well, you know, everybody should get some kind of break for this past year." So that's part of it. >> So this is this is not your primary home. You said you live in Atlanta. >> Uh, no, no, we moved. We moved in
December, but by then, you know, our house, like everybody else's, was 3 ft underwater right? >> So, we're actually living in in Palmetto right now. >> Okay. >> And you said you said you had to apply for multiple permits. >> Yeah. Um,
>> did they end up all being after the fact permits? I guess my my question is when you get an after the fact permit, it's usually three times the cost for the building permit. So your building permit fee can be say it's $1,000 for your building permit fee. If it's an after the fact permit,
it's a $3,000 building permit fee. >> I got you. Actually, we paid for the the permit, the original permit. I I believe we paid for it. Oh, bear with me, please. >> Sure. Um,
we paid for it quite some time ago. >> Sure. >> Uh, that's not it. August 30 of 24, we paid $10,683.58, of which, as you pointed out previously, $5,956
of that was a fine for commencing work without a permit. So, our our permit cost was $5,000. Our penalty was almost $6,000. Okay. >> But we we had that we had paid for the
permit in August of 24 and I believe just before um Helen hit we were pretty close to having that permit approved and and in between those those
times that's when this engineering analysis was required. But I guess my question is how would an in in between August and because my order was dated January 2024. So you had from January 2024 to when the permit was actually
submitted in August 2024 to apply for the permit. Why isn't it that in January 2024 a permit wasn't applied for >> because apparently we weren't ready. I actually a previous permit had been applied for
but apparently it was inadequate. It did not have the necessary construction document level of of work done with it. But we we were under the impression that a permit was in fact
applied for and it had been redlined by the building department and there were six items that needed clarification and I I didn't bring any of that with >> Oh, no, that's fine. Um, can anyone from the city verify with me when you apply for a permit, are you required to play your building permit at the time of application or do you pay for your
building permit fee at the time of the issuance of the permit? I'm trying to get a good timeline here so I can figure it out. >> Yeah, I think it's before the review process. Um, >> so it's at the time of the submission of the application, >> right?
>> Before Yeah. review. >> You don't have to pay to submit it, but you do have to pay before it's submitted for. >> So once you submit an application, it goes through initial checklist of do we have all the things that we need for the actual application? And then once that's cleared, then you pay for the permit to
be reviewed by the building department, planning and zoning, etc., etc. Okay. So, it sounds like is maybe the permit might have been applied for or the checklist never got met because whatever documents were not completed and then that took six to eight months and then
in August it had been applied for for review and then that the building permit fee was assessed. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Okay. Anything else that you would like to say in in support of your lean reduction request before I make my ruling?
>> I I wish I had that time machine you were talking about. >> Don't we all? >> Uh we had no idea that that this was going to happen the way it's happened. It's been five years since we purchased the
property and you know we're still trying to get into it and and it's just been it just seems like one one speed bump after another stop sign after another you know brick wall and you know
this is a a substantial um cost a as as it is right now and as I say that's I I I kind kind of picked the the $3,000 num number kind of out of the air. >> Okay. All right. Well, thank you very
much. Um I have taken all that into consideration. I am going to grant a lean reduction request. Um I am taking into account um the credible testimony that was given prior at the prior hearing, my reduced fine amount of $50 a day and then the uh credible testimony
that was given here today with regard to control the contractor etc. I'm also balancing that against the responsibility of the property owner to uh be in control of their agents and understand that just because it's their property, they can't see that responsibility to someone else. I'm also
considering the after the fact permit fee, which was triple the fee with the additional $5,900 um as a punitive measure for securing the after-act permit. With all of that being said, I am going to reduce the fine amount to
$6,000 plus the $448 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. Um, I am going to allow for 30 days to have that be paid. If it's not paid within the 30 days, then the fine amount will revert back and it will be within 30 days of my order. So, make sure I have your contact information and I will get
that out to you as soon as I can. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Um, >> magistrate. >> Yes. Um, can I just have you real quick? The code requires for lean reductions that you make a specific binding that uh no violation of a city ordinance exists on the subject property. >> That will be included in my order. That
was presented within the application packet. So, that will be included in my order as well. Thank you so much, Attorney Barryman. I appreciate that. >> Um, anything else from the city? >> Okay. Um, then we are uh our next meeting is scheduled for December 8th and I will see you all then. Thank you
very much.