Beach code enforcement special magistrate hearing for March 11th 2024 my name is Erica aello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's case cases I am a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida bar and am board certified in city county and local government law I have been appointed to this position in accordance with the authority set forth in chapter 162 Florida Statutes and the City of St Pete Beach code of ordinances I am not an employee of the city of St PE Beach and 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 comment related to the specific case that is being heard if you wish to speak today it is necessary that you be sworn in which I will do momentarily all testimony given will be done so under oath in all cases since the city has the burden of proof the city will present its case first the respondent will then be given an opportunity to refute the city's allegations formal Rules of Evidence do not apply to this proceeding however I will make sure every effort is garnered 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 fine and a lean may be re may be recorded on your property if the violation is not corrected by the compliance date if one is provided if you wish to present any evidence today please sign in before you speak at the podium and it is also 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 swarm do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so swor do we have any changes to the agenda this morning yes uh Madam special magistrate Pete derer code enforcement manager on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach we're adding case number 2023 0255 as a lean reduction 400 uh 471st Avenue thank you you said 2023 025 471st Avenue and that's under lean reduction okay thank you okay any other changes to the agenda this morning no ma'am okay so moving on to our first agenda item 2A case number 2023 0602 city of St Pete Beach versus pingpong Partners LLC the city like to give us an update please yes good morning special magistrate leis Cruz representing the city of s p Beach code enforcement um it looks like they are on track to get their permit they do need an nooc the notice of com commencement from the county um they also need to pay the fees that are associated with obtaining the permit as well as just app pending building review um but it looks like they're getting everything in line that needs to be done so they can obtain the permit to its entirety okay so at this time is the property owner in compliance per the city or still non-compliant still non-compliant until they actually fully obtain the permit for the dumpster enclosure okay and briefly remind me I do recall at the last hearing we had a notice issue and so we postpone it until today's date in order to give notice to the respondent to prepare any response to the city's um violation or to the prosecution have you been in contact with the uh respondent or do you know if they intended to attend today yes they are here today okay all right anything further from the city no that'll be just to clarify I think the city is going to request a just a continuance an additional continu yeah just because since they've done what they've done U maybe a status Hearing in April okay okay um um would the respondent like to please come up and if you have anything to add to that and please say of course say your name for the record Adam Harden 220 West 7th Avenue uh Tampa 33602 I was sworn in on behalf of the applicant pingpong Partners um we agree with the request for a continuance um to the next schedule hearing thank you okay and does this I mean do both of the parties think that it can be complied with by the next date certain in April yes the uh permit application has been made and um the Planning and Zoning approval has been obtained and it we're just p we're in line for the building approval or review okay and our next hearing is scheduled for April 8th is that correct that is correct yes ma'am okay so then I will go ahead and Grant a continuance until the April 8th hearing at 10:00 a.m. and we will reconvene for another status check at that time thank you moving on to case 2A which is case number 2023 0513 city of St Pete Beach versus April Elliot and David you know I got it last time and I don't think I'm going to be able to do it this time Ry Ry Ry barik yes okay uh do we have an update from the city on this case yes could you Louis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement um could you put on the overhead for me please um I do want to announce these are true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed nice um he's Lear just an update on the dumpster enclosure it looks like they haven't um done anything that they you know needed or were asked to do they reached out to me shortly after um the special magistrate hearing and then haven't heard from them since and it looks like they just reached out to me early this morning um a couple minutes before this this hearing today um asking if it says unfortunately neither my husband nor I are able to attend the morning um this morning's hearing um basically stating that they had a lot of s people coming in that for potential buyers from in and out of state weren't able to get it done they said they have conferred with a general contractor um they've gotten a quote for the project which they did not give to me um and he is able to complete the removal as soon as there is a lull in showings um previously the city had asked for fines for $250 per day from 15 2024 until compliant um and the city would like to steadfast with that okay and if I recall correctly from the last hearing there was a question of whether or not it could just be removed or if it had to be replaced did the city make that determination and if so what was that determination um they could remove it we we kind of were talking about it previously at the last hearing if whatever was financially viable for them since they are trying to sell it um and I told them whatever they would like to do just keep me updated let me know so I can you know update my findings and and go from there and they they had not reached out until today this morning okay and is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent okay so my previous order gave them until uh today to confer with the city to determine if the dumpster enclosure could be removed or if it needed to be replaced and to make a good faith effort to complete the removal or replacement before March 11th um it seems to me that reaching out to you once during that time period to find out to let you know that there's a quote um not letting you know what the quote is not giving you a time frame just giving you a general there's a lull in showings to remove it um doesn't necessarily constitute a good faith effort especially if the determination was that it could be completely removed it seems to me that that shouldn't be a very difficult task to undertake um as as opposed to having to get permits and reconstruct so um because of that I am going to find that there is a violation or I have already found them in violation I'm going to find that they are continuing to be in violation as of today's date um and I am going to assess a $250 a day fine however I'm going to do that from today's date until the property owner comes into compliance um plus the administrative costs of the city and it is the respondents owner is the respondent's responsibility to notify the city once the property comes into compliance correct and Madam magistrate I just want to specify our administrative fines are $325 and $325 in administrative fines thank you thank you okay moving on to agenda item 2C which is case number 2023 0590 city of St Pete Beach versus Gabby 2022 LLC uh would the city like to update on this case yes thank you special magistrate leis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement um it looks like the property owner did obtain a permit you gave them till 222 2024 the permit was issued 229 2024 so the city will be asking for $250 a day from 222 until 229 plus administrative cost totaling $325 okay is there anyone here and the property is you said now in compliance as of 229 2020 yes yes ma'am 24 okay is anyone here on behalf of the property owner you could please come up state your name and affiliation for the record and if you have the authority to speak on behalf of the property owner good morning Bob Kenny certified general contractor 1469 Jack Aranda Circle South Clearwater Florida 33755 I uh you have my authorization from the January uh meeting uh we did obtain the permit on 229 it was 5 days after the deadline set the uh if we're to Bear the responsibility of the five days of fines I think an explanation is is part of that in that uh Personnel at the city have changed uh despite numerous attempts to reach the former um code compliance officer we got no phone calls back no help the sprinkler issued continued for Forever at some point the previous official was uh dismissed we got a new official met with him immediately mediately and he was very helpful in that I kept trying to explain the former official that based on the work that was done the violation was issued on sprinklers weren't required and we kept being told no sorry you're going to do it I said show me the code I could never get a response never get uh an accurate statement other than well we're not going to debate it I said that doesn't help so took him about 3 weeks but once the new official was in place we met him on site when over all of the work that had been done explained to him and he says look you don't need to do this you don't need sprinklers you don't need this finish this paperwork submit it to me we'll get it approved and so we did immediately just as soon as we could get the the requested changes and the accurate information he wanted we submitted and so we waited I'm going to say about 3 weeks for the permit to be issued uh made a few follow-up calls letting him know hey we're against the deadline here we'd like to get it issued so the delay in the problem that existed wasn't of our causing it was based on this building official and now that he's gone things are moving fine we've got a permit we've had two inspections since permit was issued um things are moving along just fine so I understand the purpose of the fines and the deadlines it's to force compliance but if we can't get cooperation from the city or phone calls back and we're dealing with a problem medic official then I would argue that perhaps those fines should be waved at least the the penalty fines if there's administrative I understand that I'm on the code enforcement board up in Clear Water and I understand how that works but that that would be my request okay thank you very much anything further from the city okay and and uh thank you sir um special magistrate this this was a problem um property I did about three or four stop workor orders on there this being one of them um and ever since the contractor did get on um things have been going much smoother than they were before when they were doing the unpermitted work um but I just want to State this had been multiple times we've had to to deal with this property sure I understand that and just for clarity as of the date of the first order in January 11th we had already had a new building official okay so it nothing changed from January 11th till today sure um well I am obviously I found that the property is in violation um I appreciate the appeal to have a reduction in the fines um or have no fines assess whatsoever however um the violation that was here was because of an it needed to have an after Thea permit the the fact of the matter is if the permits were secured prior to this there wouldn't be any code enforcement action there wouldn't be any necessary needs for the imposition of fines or fees it could have been avoided entirely um I do appreciate that you getting a contractor involved and moving the process forward um so I am going to assess a fine uh but only of $150 a day from 222 to $229 plus the $325 in administrative cost and I will get you an order to that effect thank you consideration all right moving on to new cases agenda item 3A case number 2024 one01 city of St Pete Beach versus Jesse head the city like to make its presentation yes good morning Madam magistrate steam River behalf of the city of St P Beach code enforcement case number 2024 0101 respondents Jesse headed violation address is 3510 Casablanca AV violation description the properties in violation of section 9.2 permitted principle and uses of permitted uses and structures of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection was 23 2024 notice of violation compliance date was 224 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted 215 2024 just for clarification the compliance date there was a two violations on the property one of them was I and I so and I put that in there so that's why the compliance stes different okay the followings are true and accurate representation of what I witness this is the Affidavit of posting this is the listing on Airbnb shows the uh the host Jesse shows here uh three nights you could book at 3.99 minimum stay shows here also three night so this was for the initial uh notice of violation that I gave the compliance state to fix the uh listing but there was two rentals in November showing for the inii corrective action the property is in ru2 zoning district and can only be rented monthly the property is compliant recommend it fine 500 per stay in November for the irreputable irreputable and irreversible violation plus the 325 administrative costs and that concludes my presentation okay I do have a couple of questions so um my understanding is so there were the two you're saying the compliance date was different because there was a violation for the actual rentals and then violation on the advertising so we yeah I gave him an option to correct the uh listing for it being less than monthly uh I did put it in notice a violation that the two rentals in November was considered ir reable and irreversible uh and that it was going to be scheduled for uh the March magistrate March 11th 2024 yes okay and then okay so they complied with the advertising is correct saying but they did not comply well they can't comply with the okay they couldn't comply with the rent the November rentals but they complied with the advertising correct got it and and I believe Mr Cruz is grabbing the the review policy but I do want to mention um Madam magistrate I spoke to a Josh Bernett who's the attorney for Mr head um he admitted to the violation and we essentially the magistrate deems this irreparable and irreversible um which we believe it is um $500 they've agreed to the $500 per comment um plus 325 administrative okay okay and is there anyone here on behalf of Mr head of Jesse head attorney or otherwise okay if we could just for the is that the review policy if we could just for the record thank you have please okay will be accepted as evidence thank you all right I am going to find that find that the property was in violation of the two rentals as they are irreparable and irreversible I am going to assess a $500 fine for each of the two rentals in November of 20223 plus the administrative cost of 300 you said it was $325 yes Madam magistrate if 325 and I will get you an order to that effect thank you okay moving on to item 3B case number 2024 0021 city of St Pete Beach versus Steven D lower the city like to make its presentation yes thank you special magistrate leou Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement and responded is Steven D lower violation address is 50 567th Avenue Unit Number 10 violation description the property is in violation of section 98-12 3.1 permits required and 98- 65 unsightly conditions 1 B and C of the code of ordinances of the city of St P Beach case summary the initial inspection was 15224 notice of violation dated 111 2024 notice of violation compliance date 21 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 227 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed Affidavit of posting at 50567 Avenue Unit Number 10 February 27th 2024 this is a bathroom remodel that was left in disrepair from an open permit the shower enclosure was never finished not sure using the bucket to possibly use the toilet properly there's mold and water stains over the floor and the walls the sink was unfinished and the corrective action property must have the permit reinstated or a new permit opened by a new general contractor for the bathroom remodel that has been left in a state of partial construction beyond the valid time frame of the previous permit the property is not compliant the recommended fine is $250 per day from 222 2024 until property is compliant plus $325 in administrative cost just to clarify Mr Cruz you said 222 did you mean 22 I believe the notice of violation gave them till February 1st yes yeah February 2nd 2024 yes sorry about that okay I do have a few questions um first um there you had referenc there was a previous permit that was pulled for the construction yes um you cited them for permits required meaning they had done previous work under a permit which was required and given to them do you have any evidence to support that they did un they did work under without having a permit not not that they did work without the permit but they didn't fulfill everything that was needed obviously they obtained the permit but you still have to do your inspections to complete the permit all the way to its entirety on the building division end sure um and they were not able to do that due to um it looks like from my knowledge from what I gathered from the the property owner that it was left like that by a contractor that he paid unfortunately and it is very unfortunate but um that was left like that and and the reason this was brought to my attention is from HOA president um reaching out it looks like that shower may be leaking into the unit underneath him um and that's was the reason that I was out there at that time they didn't do the work while not having the permit but they didn't fulfill it all the way to its entirety and how were you able to access the unit um the I was given access by the property owner okay so the property owner did give you consent yes yes ma'am um did you have any conversations with him with regard to the state of the bathroom in disrepair yes I had talked with him when he had let me in he kind of let me know a rundown of him kind of getting um um left high and dry by the previous contractor that he paid to do the work properly um he does live in California and he does come here quite frequently but um I don't know if he was here at the time while this was going on I have no idea but um he is trying to do civil litigation against him for what was done or technically what was not done um in the name of the permit and the name of the money that he had given to him and um it unfortunately been left like this the permit expired 51 2023 notice was given out to the contractor who is the contact for the permit um and the contractor was also um given notice about this as well as being referred to the pcclb for not finishing out the permit properly okay right I may I ask a question the city may I do have a question um do you know or does Miss bowan know what the initial permit what work the initial permit was issued for and if you don't that's fine I'm just curious here thank you we'll have Miss bowlan to that please good morning good morning if you could just kind of state your name and position with the city for the record Joan Bol and permanent administrator uh initial permit 220 2202 description scope of work bathroom remodel tub to shower install new kitchen cabinets and Hardware um they never submitted a notice of commencement the reviews were approved they never had an inspection uh expired letter was sent out out to the contractor and also to the um subcontractor arrella plumbing and the contractor was reported to the pccl lb I believe in May and do you know if any there was any contact or any notification sent to the property owner as well um not to the property owner just to the contractor who owns the per okay may I ask a question you may so miss Bolan the permit that you just stated for the work that was can I just assume that it was specifically for bathroom bathroom remodel tub to shower and install new kitchen cabinets kitchen cabinets as well and new hardware okay no further questions Madam magistrate okay is there anyone here on behalf half of the property owner Mr lower yes ma'am I'm the property owner okay if you would please come up um just state your name and address for the record and anything that you'd like to say to respond to what the city has stated my name is Steven low uh the property is 505 67th Avenue Unit 10 St P Beach uh 3376 and I'm the property owner okay do you want to add do you have anything to say in your defense of the code violations um the obviously I was taken advantage of by the contractor um basically took off I Parts Unknown uh since and left it in the state it was actually a little worse when I got back here from California it was chest high in uh debris um which I I did work and got that taken care of and cleaned it up as much as I could um and it's definitely not um because I don't want to be in compliance uh going a year and a half with uh basically living off my savings because I couldn't do I couldn't move in I couldn't rent it I couldn't sell it I couldn't do anything with it in the state it was in so I basically have run out of money and uh I was unaware of the uh like I didn't receive any letters or anything I was in California I've been back since I believe last week November first week of December back here and uh I have not yet started the Civil complaint against them because it's still in the hands of the state's attorney which we did notify in the Department of Professional and business regulation they do have a active case against it the case the investigation has been concluded it's been referred to their General Council to decide basically I think whether they're going to actually charge him uh in a criminal court in which case I would have to wait till that was res uh resolved and then I can take civil action from that point on so I haven't started actual civil litigation yet as soon as the state finishes which I don't know they say it'll it'll be when it it'll happen when it happens and uh in the meantime uh since I spoke with the investigator Mr Cruz I have obtained a loan finally and uh I have hired um to finish the bathroom and that I should get the final uh word they said early in this week so today I guess Tuesday Wednesday I will know when the work can actually start they will pull the new permits uh to complete the work complete the work it will and I will do everything according to the way it should be done have the city to inspect whatever they wish to do and uh I'm trying very hard to be in compliance do you how much uh time do you think that you would need to in order to get the permit pulled based on your conversations with the new contract um as far as I don't know how long this the the process takes once it gets to the city but it should be I assume by the end of this week or the beginning of next week to at least apply for the permit to apply for the permit yes ma'am okay um anything further you'd like to add uh not that I can think oh just the uh I maybe a clarification on that one violation of uh the appearance of it I'm a little confused on that because no nobody could see it it's like on the inside of my apartment so I don't that was kind of confusing other than that no I don't really have anything and that wasn't a complaint I just didn't understand how that was all okay I understood and do you have any questions for the respondent yes and I will answer that question but I do have one question um when did your contractors stop doing work at your property roughly I have no idea I'm going to guess the last summer and of Summer maybe September of last 2023 yeah so past in your in your opinion past May 1 past May 1 yes okay and I was unaware obviously that he didn't respond to apparently the city uh sent the information to you which I heard earlier um but I wasn't aware of that till today okay um and not directly to you but Madam magistrate his question about unsightly conditions sub paragraph 1 C specifically says left in a state of partial construction beyond the valid time frame of the permit so it was wasn't actually visualizing it but the code allows for this specific situation which is why it was cited than the notice of violation okay okay anything further no ma'am okay um this one I find a little bit difficult the two-sided code sections I do have a little trouble with Section 98-12 3.1 says any applicant who intends to undertake any development activity basically needs a permit um you intend ended to have an inactivity your contractor secured a permit things went a wire and then construction stopped there's been no testimony to suggest that work was done after the permit expired just that the permit expired um so I don't find that there's been a violation of section 98-12 3.1 however I do find that there has been a violation of section 98- 65 unsightly conditions with the caveat the codes section says that it applies I had the same question that you did Mr LW the code section says that it applies to structures that are left in a state of disrepair or left in a state of partial construction um I will have you know that that section of the city's code does not define structures and says anything in that section that is not otherwise defined you refer to the floor to building code the Flor to building code defin structures as that which is being built or constructed so the bathroom is being built or constructed um in this case I guess it would be more like a Rec constructed but that falls under built for me as far as my interpretation of the Florida building code or of what those plain words mean so I will find that there is a violation of 98 point or 98- 65 unsightly conditions um and I am going to a lot um do you guys know how is your building department running pretty quickly on permitting if if everything is submitted um we're basically at 30 days right now 30 days in okay so I will allot 45 days for the respondent to apply for and secure the permit and then we will do a status check um at the May will that give us enough time when is the May hearing set for uh that one would be May 13 let's do it for the June hearing well may hearing gives us 60 days right correct so let's go ahead and set it for the a status check for the May hearing um to see where we are at and making sure that a good faith effort is is had to secure the permit by that time period thank you ma'am I appreciate that and if I just want to make one yes point of clarification because I did ask the property owner a question as to when the contractor stopped doing work and he stated if I'm not misspeaking for you September of 2023 yes yeah the perit that's what I was being told whether he was lying to me cuz I wasn't here I have no idea I just wanted to make that was the point of the question is the permit expired May 1st of 2023 okay but there's okay that's a good that is a good point um I understand your point I really to be honest it's speculation on my part because I wasn't here physically and if he told me he was working and I understand the permit ended on May 1st I understand your point but I I really have no way of knowing if he was actually working past the permit date or not and does the city have any evidence to support whether or not there was work going on during that period of time because now I have evidence that suggests that it may or may not have occurred were you told by your contractor that he was working on the bathroom after May 1st no I was only asked requested to pay the final draft payment it's the only thing so he didn't give you any status updates past May 1st no except I kept asking for them but I didn't receive it the only communication I got from him was a request for more money okay yeah I'm going to keep my ruling as is based on that evidence I understand um thank you for your honesty thank you very much and then we'll be back like I said at the May hearing I will get you an order just make sure we have your current contact information to get you the order okay yes ma'am thank you very much okay moving on to case three c um case number 2024 z51 city of St Pete Beach versus Philip Parsons and Suzanne L lambot thank you lambot the city like to go ahead and make it presentation thank uh St Rivera again behalf of the city of St Pete Beach case number 2024 z51 respondents Philip Parsons and Susan lambalot violation address is 4043 B Vista Drive violation destion the property is in violation of section 9866 residential and Commercial Property Maintenance a b 22 B1 2 and three of the code of ordinance of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 123 2024 notice of amended violation dated 1 124 2024 notice of violation compliance date 28 of 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 25 2024 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed this is the affid of posting this was the overgrown vegetation on the 41st AB side of the property corrective action the property must be cut back must cut back the vegetation so it does not impede vehicular traffic the property is compliant and recommended fine is 325 uh administrative costs I do have a picture of the property being in compliance you see it's a pretty significant difference and do you know what date that property came into compliance uh I believe it was I don't want to guess yes it was right after I uh not long after I posted the property was it before the date of compliance in your notice of violation it was not and uh the uh the it was the 15th it was posted and the eth was the compliance date which is why it's in front of you madam M yeah I yeah I got that okay thank you very much is there anyone here on behalf of the property owner okay if you could please come up and just state your name and address for the record and if you have any response to the city's allegations hi Susan lambalot and my address is 4043 V Vista Drive um my response is that the first time I was notified was the 15th which is the day I moved in the property um so I got the notice on the door and I called to speak with the representative to tell him I'd received it and I'd take care of it immediately so I took called the tree person and took care of it within 3 or 4 days so I think it was on the following Wednesday so I was in communication the whole time but anyhow I was not did not receive this first notice via mail even though I was checking the mail since I received the you know owned the property 111 and the trees are not actually on my property but um the original letter that was sent to me certified mail didn't actually get to me till two days after the amendment was posted on my property so I just wanted to say that I'm was not technically in violation because I did everything I was told to do when I was notified okay hey does the city have any response to that I mean you don't have to I'm just asking if you have any response it out uh you as process gave time for compliance and posted the property with a copy of no of violation okay um and you said the trees are not on your property no but I mean I I took care of them it's done but they're not on I brought my survey with me as well okay did you want to submit that as evidence to show sure I think I put that properly on the thing oops sorry okay this is harder than it looks okay and can you just tell me on this where the trees are located if you know so the trees are on uh right here on 41st this Spa so right here yeah in between the where you see the side of it and then your your property line yes and they were overgrown with the previous owner I just I didn't move in until um the 14th the 15th excuse me so yeah so can I ask a question you may right where you're pointing ma'am um I'm assuming that's your driveway extending past your property boundary correct um that that two that that Wishbone looking yes and the trees are right next to the driveway uh no they're near the stop sign right here this is the little stop sign and it's like a little dog park right here okay okay can I've got the pictures of the and I took pictures the the same as he's shown that the work has been completed okay if you don't own that property do you know who does um between the my property and the street I the city I assumed and they're in the city right away Madam SP mistr mhm may I speak you may um property that is normally contiguous to the uh curb is maintained by the property owner do you have a code that suggests or that code that dictates that because under general property law that's not the case unless the city dictates that via code I'm just trying to look in the cited code section to see if that's have I don't think because the cited code section says that the property owner is responsible for trimming shrubs or Shrubbery trees Etc that are into the right of way or that overhang of trees sidewalk or otherwise imped or obstruct but the argument here and the evidence presented by the respondent is that she doesn't own those trees and I don't see anything that suggests that she should be responsible for maintaining trees on uh City public RightWay that she does not own unless there's a code that dictates that was there a right way we get a closeup of that survey um well then yeah Madam can is there a rideway permit I'm assuming there was a rideway permit because the confusing part for me is her driveway extends past her property boundary as get tighter and I mean real realistically if her driveway was you know damaged the city wouldn't fix it just because it's in our property there must have been some kind of rightaway permit prior to her purchasing the property that allowed that there along with the vegetation well or there could have been a a permit that allowed the driveway to be constructed in the right of way but not necessarily to allow for the vegetation to be planted now that being said that doesn't mean that there isn't I just don't know if there's a city code that says if you've installed you know in many jurisdictions if you install vegetation in your away that abuts your property that's fine you may or may not need to get a permit but you definitely have the the responsibility of maintaining it if you install it or if you purchase it subject to it having previously been installed um I don't have a RightWay permit in front of me I don't know if it and I don't have any testimony to suggest all I have is testimony saying I don't own that um do you mind if we take a 4minute recess no I do not is that okay with you if we just take a brief yes I mean sorry I and I know this is needs to be worked out I just my reason for coming here was to say that I did the work immediately when I was notified and I would not have disregarded any other notification I was provided so that's really what I called and told um the representative in the beginning so I think that's what I wanted to be cleared is that and what I'm trying to is if it if it's not your property and there wasn't a right of-way permit then it there may be other issues but I don't want to assess you $325 worth of costs if it's something that you're not necessarily having to pay unless you'd like to go ahead and say I just want it to be done with I'll pay the cost and move on it's up to you no I mean I would rather not just because you know I moved in and this was my welcome to St P Beach notice on my door so oh yeah okay yeah if we could just take a brief um let's take a a five minute recess and we will be back in 5 minutes um thank you to finish this thank you understand you guys we can we can continue okay yeah we don't need thank you um back on the record then back on okay as of um right now there is no record of of any permit for the driveway or for the Landscaping so the city will withdraw its okay case okay so at this time the case um case number 202 40051 um has been withdrawn by the it is dismissed and can I just can we just make sure that we get a copy of the survey yes can you you left one with us okay um I am actually going to do an order of dismissal just so that we have a record of what happened unless the city somehow unless the city objects if you could just base it on the fact that we had no that it was voluntarily withdrawn I don't want to be prejudiced in the future if we find anything okay I can dismiss it with without prejudice yes please I will do so thank you all right thank you very much okay and now moving on to agenda item 6A we're on to lean reductions case number 2021 0517 city of St Pete Beach versus Kesh bakarian maybe would the city like to leis is this present the oh Pete gonna Mr derer would you be presenting the lean reductions yes ma'am [Applause] okay morning Madam special magistrate Pete D code enforcement manager on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach case number 20215 517 the city and the applicant has agreed to a total of 14 4246 you said 1442 $1,442 46 please and that's with the administrative costs or is that s with the administrative cost okay how much clarify it's we've agreed to 10 10% of the total fines plus admin cost thank you if you could please provide the magistrate the total administrative fees because I think the ones in the application are wrong [Music] $467 even and 46 and 46 Cent okay and the total fine amount was the original Total fine amount um $9,750 there no violations on that property as well as the gentleman paid his taxes okay so it's a reduction to $1,442 46 that's inclusive of fines correct okay is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent Mr is it Mr batarian I'm just butchering everybody's name left and right anyone here on behalf of the respondent okay um then it is agreed I will go ahead and order the reduction in the fines including cost to $1,442 46 and get you an order to that effect thank you thank you all right moving on to 6B case number 2021 0528 city of St Pete Beach versus 3503 Gulf Boulevard Holdings LLC Mr deer [Applause] overhead [Applause] please overhead please go to the overhead you're on it it is on the overhead um M Madam magistrate that case came before you no 8th and you ordered on December 1st $250 per day the total fines came up to [Applause] $1,966 195 cents if you could Mr der I think it's easier to separate the lean and the administrative fines all right I'm sorry $ 46695 is the administrative fine and the lean is $10,000 $10,500 and so the city is going to ask the respondent for I think the respondents here the respondent is the one asking for the reduction in the lean I think based on the application they're asking for zero um well that was going to be my question because the application doesn't list it says just the administrative fees so you have that in front of you part of the agenda this one was on the agenda the other one is not um okay so um if you could please just state your name and your address for the record please all right Chris witz 3503 Gulf Boulevard okay and um because this property is owned in the name of an LLC what is your affiliation with the LLC I'm with the uh the other half of the LC family first I work for Family First with Elson is the primary holder of and so you have the authority to negotiate this Lan okay and what what is it that you're requesting and can you give me your basis for that no just that we did I mean um with talking to Pete on you know a couple of occasions that we did come compliance immediately when we found out the situation and this is embarrassing that we're here we should have been here a long time ago getting this resolved and just simply got busy didn't been a little embarrassed about the whole thing okay but just would like to see the best we could to uh reduce the fine as much as possible you know asking for none but you know maybe a TH or 2,000 would be preferable okay may I ask a question you may how much did you make on the rentals that you were found in violation I would honestly have to go find out what's your nightly rental it was it would vary back we have it hasn't been rented in two or two years two and a half years that would go back to when it first happened because immediately after the notice we we got the place cleaned up a little bit we put it on the market we actually own it with some friends of ours and at this point we put it we put on the market for basically 2022 got a couple lowball offers didn't take it and then subsequently we're looking to purchase it uh from the other partners and uh just working on some financing now understood I have no questions I just need to confer with the city real quick okay you make confer thank you very much am I done up here you are done up there yeah I'm not going to make you stand there while they um so I think the city's position for for short-term rental since it's a zero tolerance policy um we are willing to reduce it to 25% for the fines which going say can you do that math for me are you going to make me do the math no it's the total fines were 10,500 25% would be $2,625 plus the 466 or plus the admin cost which I believe for 46695 thank you is that agreeable to you all okay and I understand the city's position um you know there was a violation we're looking for I mean at least I'm looking for evidence of a good faith reason why the total fine shouldn't be had um it was a violation of the short-term rental ordinance um and I understand your position but I I am willing to Grant the reduction to the $2,625 um and the administrative costs of$ 46695 and I will get you an order to that effect um on all of these I'm giving 30-day time frame to pay is there anything no okay 30 days is exactly what the city wants um and I actually like that language if you could keep it in that if they don't pay it then it comes back yep okay anything further I think we're good on that one correct and then we're moving to the additional agenda item 6C case number 2023 0255 for 471st Avenue and I do not have any information on this so please pull up um what we have on before you start can you can you pass out or at least to Madam magistrate the packet thank you Mr der thank you and it's on the screen um the application [Applause] last6 and the taxes that were paid the owner of the property at the time um provided a power of attorney I think the owner is here M Miss Jordan her representative the fin totaled um thean was $42,500 with administrative costs of $449 and the details of the property um indicating compliance with the requirements for lean reduction okay and my quick question is this property the violation was under correct previous owner and the reduction is being asked by the new owner is that correct so and I can clarify that yeah if I may um I also have the prior order if you want me to show it on the overhead but essentially what occurred is on October 9th 2023 um Madame magistrate imposed a fine this was one where if you remember Miss Jordan had a realtor she said she had a contract she didn't it was it was one of those situations um so you assess a fine back to May 23rd 202 three um my office was contacted a couple months after related to a potential sale we agreed we did not release the lean but we agreed that we would allow the prior property owner to do this with the understanding that they would hold money in title for an additional 90 days of compliance for the new property owner we haven't initiated code enforcement proceedings on that because a new property owner has applied for a permit and whatnot but this money was withheld from the prior owner okay so we're allowing her to ask for a lean reduction now that the ownership has changed and we feel comfortable with the compliance steps that the new property owner is taking okay so the reduction would apply to the previous property correct so the money withheld is for is for Miss Jordan correct could we go to the O drive please and what you're looking at is your order I'm going to start from page one for okay yeah I recall this one very well thank you and and I won't speak for the title company I believe her representative is here but I believe they withheld 40 60 60 something thousand um again based on the compliance deadline that we're working towards so okay if you could please come up and state your name and address for the record uh my name's SE NE I'm with Monument title I'm Kimberly's power of attorney for today okay um My office address is 11307 Little Road Newport Richie okay and since this is Miss Jordan's uh lean reduction request what is she seeking to have it uh it looks like just $3,000 plus she is seeking to have it bring brought down to 3,000 she had to sell the house at a significantly lower price because of all the work that had to be done and withholding the 66,000 I withheld almost all of her proceeds um and unfortunately she she misspoke at her own hearing I had already started the work for the title when she came to that hearing prior um and we did close 30 days later we closed on November 8th to the new buyer who started working on the property okay okay so she's requesting the $3,000 and you said it was 66 held in tile and those are okay okay any anything else that you'd like to say on her behalf just that she she did everything she could to sell it because she knew she couldn't maintain the property or repair it um and she's tried to do the right thing by selling it to somebody she knew would would benefit the neighborhood yeah okay do you have any questions for the no no I don't I I don't um anything further from the city I think yeah we're we're I'm just working on the numbers Madam magistrate real quick um based on the direction I'm getting getting from the city so we understand um and just I do have one question actually so whatever once we reduce this whatever is paid to the city the remainder will go to Miss Jordan correct correct all of it yes okay um for consistency purposes Madam magistrate and and understanding Miss Jordan's situation and what she's trying to deal with the is agreeable to 10% um so I know she said 3,000 but uh 10% is is as low as we usually go for these types of things um that would bring the Total Lean to 4,250 plus the administrative cost um all right and the costs were the $4.49 and then I guess with this one if you could which I believe you already add language like this if the Magistrate's agreeable to this this the moment we're paid the city will release the lean on the property when the yeah I think there's language in the order that says when it's paid and once it's cleared cleared then then the lean will be release okay okay okay um I will I'm going to Grant the lean reduction I understand Miss Jordan's position I do think 10% of the the fines is um reasonable um and especially having had so much time for Miss Jordan to to bring the property into compliance or sell it so um I am going to Grant the lean reduction to the $4,250 plus the $449 in administrative costs um typically we Grant 30 days to release the funds however this is being held in title you have the ability to pay that as soon as I have instruction I can release it today I am going to reduce that to 2 weeks um you shouldn't need that much time but that seems reasonable enough to me in case there's a hiccup so you will have Miss Jordan will have two weeks to pay the reduction in fines and upon payment and clearing of the payment uh the city will release the the lean on the property and I can get wiring instructions from you yes from the city right after this okay thank you thank you ma'am and I will get you an order to that effect and um Miss uh is it Nadler yes did you want me to send you a copy of this order to give to Miss Jordan or should I send it directly to Miss Jordan um she's bouncing between family right now until she gets the rest of her proceeds so if you can send it to me okay and that's the email address that you put on the application okay I will go ahead and send the order to that email address then thank you thank you I do not have anything further on the agenda is there anything else that needs to be taken care of all youall have me that's it ma'am thank you all right then I will see you all in April very good thank you see you in April be more winded on these no I wrap up these