The most notable case revolved around a property at 121 129th Avenue East. Grace Mills, a code compliance officer for Madeira Beach, testified that the property, owned by NJ Properties Inc., was subject to a proactive code compliance investigation initiated in January 2024. Mills discovered that a sign on the property had been replaced without the necessary permit. This discovery led to the issuance of a courtesy notice of code violation to NJ Properties Inc. on January 31, 2024, which outlined the violation and provided a compliance deadline of February 14. The notice, citing ordinance 10246, stated that “no person shall construct maintain alter relocate demolish repair or paint or do any work upon a sign for which a permit has not been obtained.” Despite this notice, the city received no response from the property owner prior to the compliance deadline.

Mills reported that while tenants at the property made contact, they had not filed for a building permit until March 2024, and the permit remained pending due to missing documentation. A second notice of code violation was issued on March 5, extending the compliance date to March 19. This notice was sent via regular and certified mail, yet no permit had been obtained by the date of the hearing. Mills presented an affidavit of service confirming that the notice of hearing was sent by certified mail and posted at both the property and City Hall on September 13. She confirmed that there had been no changes to the property since the initial courtesy notice.

Dustin Griffin, identified as the tenant of the property, addressed the magistrate, explaining that he was unaware of the violations due to the notices being sent to the landlord. Griffin expressed frustration over the lack of communication, noting that his wife had been in contact with Mills to resolve the issues. He acknowledged that although they had attempted to provide the necessary documentation, they had not received confirmation of compliance, leading to the current situation.

Mills estimated that a reasonable period for the property to be brought into compliance would be 30 days. If compliance was not achieved within this timeframe, the city requested a daily fine of $150. The magistrate confirmed the existence of a violation and established a 30-day timeframe for compliance, with a potential fine of $150 per day should the property remain non-compliant beyond that period.

The second significant case involved a property located on North Bayshore Drive. Grace Mills provided testimony regarding a code violation related to unpermitted electrical work. The case was proactive, initiated after receiving a report from the building official, which included photographs from December 2022 and February 2023 showing the work done without a permit. Mills confirmed that the property owner, Anthony Caras, was informed of the violation via a courtesy notice dated February 19, yet compliance was not achieved by the stipulated date of March 4. Consequently, a formal notice of code violation was issued on March 5, which was sent by regular and certified mail.

Communication with Caras’ brother revealed that Caras was dealing with health issues and could not address the violation himself. Despite this, the brother was made aware of the necessary steps for compliance, which included obtaining a building permit. The city had not received any application for a permit, leading Mills to issue a statement of violation and request a hearing.

During the proceedings, the magistrate took judicial notice of the relevant code sections and the evidence presented, which consisted of documentation of the violations and the photographs taken. The magistrate reiterated that the property was in violation of section 86-52, which governs the requirement for permits for electrical work. Mills requested a fine of $250 per day if the property did not come into compliance within 30 days, citing safety concerns related to the unpermitted electrical work. The magistrate agreed that 30 days was a reasonable timeframe for compliance and confirmed that a fine would commence if the property remained non-compliant after this period.

Throughout the hearing, no members of the public were present to comment on either case. The discussions remained focused on the factual circumstances surrounding the violations, with the magistrate ultimately determining that both properties were indeed in violation of the respective codes, agreeing with the city’s recommendations for compliance and penalties.