##VIDEO ID:cuQKhTrsmc0## I am not an employee of the city of St Pete Beach and do not represent the city here today and I do not confer with the city's Code Enforcement Officers outside of the hearing process about your cases it is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters presented as such I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings today's matters will be heard in the order 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 every effort to ensure that fun fundamental fairness and due process is afforded to all parties after hearing all relevant evidence I will issue an order the 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 before you speak at the podium and it is 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 will please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the TRU truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so sworn um prior to proceeding I have some of my prior orders that have been mailed out through the magistrate's office has come back as returned to Sender um unclaimed so I am going to leave these with the city as they are matters of public record however I would encourage the city to be able to provide notice um I know in your PowerPoint presentations you typically provide a notice of posting chapter 162 does require notice by certified mail this kind of concerns me that if I'm receiving these returned what are you all receiving receiving returned um so uh perhaps including those certified mailings in your presentations would be helpful for me in the future um so we don't run into a notice issue um with that being said are there any changes to the agenda this morning yes madame magistrate Matthew McConnell for the record there is um two cases we're going to add to the lean reduction there's a stipulation amongst the parties um they are both David Green case number 2018 80146 property address for Al hamba Street and 2018 0145 property address 348 East debazan Avenue morning special Mist those are lean reduction cases um yes based on a stipulation amongst the parties okay good morning uh special magistrate Pete der code enforcement manager on behalf of the of the city of St Pete Beach we're adding or rather continuing case number 2024 381 six Mangrove point to September's hearing September 9th so those are the only changes to the agenda thank you can you can you tell me what agenda item number that is is that e I'm sorry yes that is five 5e so that's Jason uh gab and Janelle gabay correct okay that's continued until September 9th September 9th and would you like an order of continuance on that yes please ma'am thank you no other changes to the agenda this morning okay with that we'll go ahead and proceed to agenda item 3A case number 2024 0292 city of St Pete Beach versus Mina Investments LLC yes thank you special magistrate good morning leis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement um this was a uh continuance um due to previously with the business tax receipt um the property has paid the business tax receipt um so the city will be only for ask excuse me will only be asking for $325 in administrative costs okay anything further no okay I believe we have the respondent here so this is Joseph Kenny for uh Mina Investments we had communication with uh city council and uh we're not going to oppose the $325 okay and I will find that the property is in compliance and assess a $325 administrative fee right moving on to agenda item 3B case number 202 4305 city of St Pete Beach versus Family International Home Builders LLC Lis Cruz representing the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement thank you special magistrate um the property owner did not reach back out still has not paid the business tax receipt so we were going to be going with the previous recommended fine of $250 per day from 528 2024 until property is compliant plus $325 in administrative costs okay is anyone here on behalf of Family International Home Builders LLC anyone here on behalf of Family International Home Builders LLC 7210 Gulf Boulevard okay seeing no one uh I will go ahead and assess the fine of $250 a day starting on May 28th 2024 and assess until the property is in compliance along with $325 in administrative costs thank you all right moving on to agenda item 3C case number 20244 city of St Pete Beach versus stevenh G Parks yes thank you special magistrate Lewis Cruz with the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement this was just a status hearing to assess any authorized fines and cost because previously it was not able to be done um same day so the city will be asking for a recommended fine of $250 per day from 429 2024 until 78 2024 totaling at 17,000 $750 fine plus $325 in administrative costs okay and Mr Cruz if I recall this one this was the um basketball hoop no this one was where the the the property owner was parking the boat in the trailer like into the yard okay kind of on an angle as well as having fridges out on his driveway okay I do recall thank you very much all right is anyone here um on behalf of Mr Parks or is Mr Parks here anyone here on behalf of 420 80th Avenue Mr Parks okay seeing no one I will go ahead and assess the fine of $250 a day starting on 429 2024 running until 78 2024 as well as $325 in administrative costs all right moving on to agenda item 3D case number 202468 city of St Pete Beach versus Family International Home Builders LLC leis Cruz again with the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement thank you special magistrate um this was a status hearing on a 14-day extension to bring the property into compliance um the property owner did not reach I did check this morning and the property still is not compliant so the city will be going with the previous recommended fine of $250 per day from 424 2024 until property is compliant plus $325 in administrative costs okay I know I've already asked this but for clarity of the record anyone here on behalf of Family International Home Builders LLC anyone here on behalf of family intern National home builders LLC 7210 Gulf Boulevard seeing no one I will go ahead and assess a fine of $250 per day starting on April 24th 2024 until the property comes into compliance as well as $325 in administrative costs of the city right moving on to agenda item 3E case number 202 4205 city of St Pete Beach versus Charles Macker thank you special magistrate leou Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement this was a status hearing on an additional 30-day extension um to apply for and secure a permit um the property owner did come in last Wednesday I don't think he was able to actually secure the permit so the city will be asking for the previous recommended fine of $250 per day from 426 2024 until property is compliant plus $325 in administrative costs okay and is anyone here on behalf of Mr Macker yeah well is his is Mr Gray on the line as well correct uh Lewis do you mind unmuting yeah I believe his attorney Milton gray is on the line Mr Gray yes okay Mr Gray were you able to hear what the city uh had said with regard to your client's case uh no I've not I've not heard anything until just now okay so um what the the city is requesting is that the permit your client did come in and get the permit or apply for the permit but it has not been secured which was part of my order so they are requesting $250 a day starting on April 26th until the property comes into compliance as well as $350 in administrative fines or excuse me costs is that what I $325 oh said 350 did go in the last a couple times the last few weeks just getting documentation together to get these permits he's doing this on his own as a the homeowner contractor as he's not been able to find anyone to to to do this work for him so he's going to have to do this work on his own we have our mediation date in his insurance claim on August 27th of um at 12:00 p.m. we should have enough money at that point with a settlement offer to resolve this case we're just trying to find some time to get to that stage he's going to start the work on his own to at least fix the the major issues on his property but he's been doing this by himself until he reached out to my firm he's not having any assistance in getting getting his property back to back in order the insurance company has been no help up to this point um but they do seem eager to try to get it settled uh but he can't do this without money as it is he's having to take money out uh of the bank you know get get a loan from the bank just to do these repairs and just to pay for these burs you know we would ask that at least get to the end of the month before any fin start to being uh start getting applied to to this property um and your client is here Mr mecker did you want to say anything on your behalf or do you defer to your turn oh sure um I did come in Wednesday to uh to uh fill out the paperwork for the um permit and uh unfortunately the notary public across the hall wasn't here so I took the paperwork home and resubmitted it on Friday uh I think it's percolating through the system at this point and when I'm I'm saying not if but when I'm issued a permit then I'm hoping that my son and I which we've put uh the materials on will call at Home Depot will be able to start the job with or without a settlement from the uh insurance company um it's a little bit of a personal um problem but it can be solved you okay and have any questions for Mr maer or his attorney okay no Madam magistrate um I I do have a couple of questions Mr Macker so you came in on last Wednesday I mean I've seen you here almost every month since we've had this because we're trying to you know facilitate making sure that we are cognizant of what's going on with your insurance claim um in the meantime we have had a storm um did you take any I know last time we spoke you took some precautions to kind of temporarily fix the issue yes did you do anything else prior to the storm or how did you fear out after the storm is it worse just sandbags because I was flooded and um there seems to be um I guess the city must have permitted my next door neighbor who's passed away now but new people there there's a a wall that goes at a 90 degree angle to the wall behind my property that's a condominium wall and the rainwater used to go from the restaurant down seven backyards into the inter Coastal Waterway now it stops in my backyard so it is a little bit of an issue and I do get sandbags every time we have a long rain okay but as far as your roof and the sighting you're still I'm still okay with I mean the damage has already been done it's probably not didn't help it but it didn't uh create any additional problems my additional question is again as you pointed out you've been here the last two months is there any reason that you only waited in that you waited until last Wednesday to apply for the permit well of course I've been trying to get my insurance company to pay for this it's $3,500 just to start this out just for the eyesore that the city is concerned about and I don't blame them because if I were a neighbor I wouldn't want to look at it either because it's blown off uh some of the uh what do you call it vinyl siding and it looks ugly um but I was hoping that I wouldn't have to use my own money or borrow money to do this that's not the case I came in Wednesday so that my son and I could do this job um all I had been given was commercial um paperwork for another company to do this companies are not interested in doing this small job so um I mean you know 10,000 $15,000 they'll do it but it it's not that big of a job so yes I was buying some time hoping my insurance company would do the right thing and hoping I wouldn't have to come up with running myself to do this job point between our last hearing and this contact the city and ask for any type of an extension in order to facilitate getting the permit um I didn't realize I couldn't just walk in and get the permit immediately so I gave myself enough time for my son and I to do it Thursday Wednesday for Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday so that I could tell you Monday it was done but there is a process that I didn't know about whereby my permit application must be passed and I wasn't aware of that and correct wrong because I hear a lot of cases but my recollection was that when we spoke with Mr Gray and yourself last time that as soon as X happened the contractor was ready to go and ready to get started am I misremembering that no you're not actually I was promised something uh from a company that did not follow through with their promise because they wanted to sign promis that they could also have uh several other jobs that are coming up because of the storm and we weren't prepared to sign something until we actually had a sample of their work now that's not going to be possible they've gone onto something else okay which you did remember correctly that's a good thing um okay um you know I am my hands are a little bit tied because of my order I did give you additional time in order to secure the permit I understand the um the uh challenges that you have faced in that ultimately though you are the property owner you have the responsibility to make sure that your property is in with City's code um so with that being said I'm not going to issue a can you um Mr Cruz can you remind me um when when was the compliance date I don't have the order if it was I had it at 42 so that means the comp is my compliance date in my order I don't have the previous order here give me a second let me see if maybe she did include it which order are you referring to uh the previous order from the last hearing or the hearing before where it directed your client to secure to D drive I believe it was it was today Madam magistrate so so I'm looking at the order on July 8th they asked for 90 days right and you Abad the deadline of compliance issued on May 20th and set this and granted the continuance to today um okay so I read this as they had until today today okay okay what I am going to go ahead and do is I am going to assess a $250 a day fine but I'm not going to go back until April 26th I am going to assess that fine from today until the property comes into compliance I see all right um as well as the $325 um in administrative fines so $250 per day from today's date until the property is in compliance would it be possible to start that when I get the permit because I have no control over that well you know Mr you do have control over that I've seen you a couple times I've been fairly lenient because of your outstanding circumstances but ultimately as a property owner whether or not you're fighting with your insurance company or not you have a responsibility to be compliant with the city's codes and whatever that means for you on your side of things means you have to do I understand that you were trying to get a contractor that didn't work out but you know the evidence is that you didn't apply for the permit until last Wednesday you've had a month to apply for a permit and at the last hearing you said you had a contractor that was ready to go so so I understand that things don't always work out I feel like I'm being Equitable in not assessing it from the addition the initial date this has been going on since April I understand that you know you've got an attorney you're working with the insurance but you could have contacted the city um through code enforcement and tried to work it out with an extension through them instead of doing it here today I see I didn't realize that okay so I am I am going to assess that $250 day fine but again I'm doing it from today's date until you can come into compliance with my order which was to secure a permit can I start the job before I get the you're going to have to discuss that with the city it Mr Cruz do you know how long it will take talk offline yeah that's something that you can discuss with the city after the hearing or you go to the building whoever handles that at this point very good but okay and I will get you an order to that effect Mr Macker anything else Mr Gray you'd like to say on behalf of your client again you know we we I understand your your ruling here uh we were trying to buy some time again we we have a mediation date you know we'll know if this case settles it should settle on the I was hoping to at least get to the end of the month before any fine start to apply but um I can understand that Mr Gray but there's no guarantee that that case is going to settle and that your your clients going to have money in the pocket to that anyway so as my statements were clear regardless of whatever Insurance claim or whatever litigation is going on he has a responsibility to adhere to the city's code so um I will get you guys an order to that effect and um Mr Gray you'll receive that via email thank you you thank you very much you guys have a good day all right thank you thank you Mr mercker all right moving on to agenda item 3F case number 202 4275 city of St Pete Beach versus hanani Capital LLC morning Madam magistrate Steph Rivera on behalf of St Pete Beach code enforcement this is a uh it's continued hearing on the 3-day extension you gave assani capital for the business tax ta receipt uh they have not secured the business tax receipt there's been no communication from the property owner uh with that being said we're going to go with the recommended uh 250 a day from 514 plus the 325 administrative costs until compliant okay is there anyone here on behalf of hasani capital LLC anyone here on behalf of hanani capital LLC for 355 Gulf Boulevard South okay seeing no one I will go ahead and assess a $250 day fine starting on May 14th 2024 running until the property comes into compliance as well as a $325 administrative fee thank you right moving on to case number 3G case number 202 4247 city of St Pete Beach versus sungold LLC morning Madam magistrate again steam River on behalf of the city of St P Beach code enforcement this a status hearing on a 14-day extension uh for the removal of debris and repair of Defense at the property the property is compliant uh they came in compliance before the or by the 14-day time period uh at this point we're just looking for administrative cost since they are compliant okay anyone here on behalf of sungold LLC anyone here on behalf of sungold LLC 3815 Gulf Boulevard seeing no one I will go ahead and assess the $325 in administrative costs thank you um Madame magistrate for this one when it came up last time um I had mentioned that luuk [Music] Lao was retained by the property owner so if you could email the order to him I will I believe I copied him on the last order I just wanted to make sure I will copy Mr Laro on this as well thank you I'm sure he will appreciate it okay uh moving on to agenda item 3 case number 202 4280 city of St Pete Beach versus William W Adams and Steven Rivera on behalf of St Pete Beach code enforcement this is a status hearing on a 14-day extension to bring the property into compliance for the overgrown vegetation the property is not compliant you overhead please a couple of pictures here still shows the overgrown vegetation uh the construction Fest is still up I believe last time there was an orange fence and maybe a white fence uh are they those are still erected you can see the orang oh I can see it okay thank you that gives you a sense of a height there with 10 City vehicle in the background and then the pile of PM fronts along the fence line here a photo of it it looks like those photos are dated July 23rd do you know what the property looks like as of today's date by chance there's no change it's actually a little bit taller than with the rain that we had from the storm okay uh but there's been no change there's been no communication from the property own either at all okay one more here uh being that there's no change we'd like to go with the recommended fine of 250 a day from 522 until compliant plus to 325 administrative cost okay is there any anyone here on behalf of Mr William Adams or is Mr William Adams here Mr Adams are anyone on behalf of Mr Adams 1805 pass a girl away okay seeing no one I will go ahead and assess a $250 a day fine starting on May 22nd 2024 running until the property comes into compliance as well as a $325 administrative fee or cost okay moving on to agenda item 3i case number 2024 0089 city of St Pete Beach versus Patrick Thomas MCN and Annette Weiss MCN morning steam Rivera behalf of St Pete Beach code enforcement this is uh so this is going to be presented for the first time this was one of those cases when we had the technical difficulty okay and then we had to continue it a few times Ryan can I have the PowerPoint please so just for purpos of the record it was continued only due to technical difficulty but no evidence was presented at the no uh continued once and then Mr MCN contacted me he wasn't going to be in town for the followup date okay so we continue to to second time okay case number 2024 z89 respondent is Thomas MCN and Annette wise mcnalty violation address is 10446 Av violation description the property is in violation of sections 23.4 f type and quality size of plant material 2311a 1 and two parking Construction and design requirements of the land of development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection is 27 2024 notice of violation dated 29 2024 notice of violation compliance date 31 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 522 24 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witness this is the Affidavit of posting this is a Google image of what it previously looked like this is from May of 2022 this is the front yard now it shows it's all shelled another picture of diard being shelled corrective action the property owner must obtain a permit to install adequate parking and restorative vegetation with approved plant materials to the zoning requirements property is not compliant recommended fine is $250 a day from 522 2024 until property is compliant plus 325 administrative costs and that concludes my presentation okay is anyone here on behalf of Mr and Mrs mcel you please stand up and uh state your name for the record good morning Madam magistrate my name is Patrick mcnalty Thomas mcel is my father uh for the record um my middle name is Thomas so it's just it's Patrick mcnalty and I noticed that it was Thomas mcnolty but not a big deal I just grab my my middle my middle name all right Mr mcel feel free to just State your case certainly um following the notice of violation I uh made an appointment with Brandon Barry and Sten Rivera here at um at City Hall and to better understand what the solution could be to bring us into compliance um this is a investment property I don't live there I live down the street um this is a a property that we purchased uh that was built in 1952 and as you saw the one photo that Stephen showed you uh this is sort of what everything looked like at the time of our uh purchasing of the property property the property was covered in PE gravel gravel shell dirt rock kind of scrubby brush um and it was um uh poorly uh neglected uh after the purchase price of a little over a half a million we put in you know $130,000 in renovations and there were ruts and divots and the use if you go back uh uh as far as you can with Google um the front yard has always been a little rough uh so what we did was we wanted to even out the property so there wouldn't be ruts I'm going to I'm renting the property uh 30 days or more uh and we don't want anyone to fall on the property and we want people to be able to you know use the property and to enjoy the property uh so I took a few um uh consultations with landscapers and we thought uh we tried to um get irrigation into the property so that I could sod the property I have quotes uh from Sunrise irrigation to add irrigation I've got quotes for uh fading the property um and trying to do a zeroscape where we uh are environmentally friendly I've applied for green lodging uh for this property um we've replaced all of the appliances we've replaced all of the windows with uh storm windows uh We've replaced um uh the floor you know it it and you know updated the the air conditioners so the the idea is to maintain the lowest cost possible for running as an investment property and to be as environmentally green as possible following the meeting with um M Mr Rivera and Mr um Barry uh they decided that it should be approximately 200 square F feet in additional vegetation would bring me into Code Compliance so you'll see the dates of these here I consulted with a Willcox nursery and I purchased about 600 square ft of vegetation that I had some help uh planting thank you and I used directly off of the notice violation the approved um vegetation that the city would pre-approve and this is a pre-approved vendor so I spent about a th000 bucks to get uh up into compliance uh also uh launched my children and I about 72 of those uh seedball bombs uh throughout the property uh the property now is well more than plus 600 square feet in vegetation vegetation has grown you know throughout the property so I think I'm I'm clearly you know caught up on that um in in just verbal U communication with Mr Rivera uh he let me know that he was going to seek for the administrative cost but uh there wouldn't be a fine but um so that was a little bit surprising to me now uh I think that's all that I wanted to say Do you happen to have photographs of the property as it sits here today well it's very similar to you know I I I meant to do that but I mean that's as it was mentioned the burd and the proof is on the city I mean uh I've made the purchases I've consulted with Willcox I went in saying I need at least 200 square ft of vegetation and I I want want this to absolutely make sure that I more than accomplish that so I overbought and overplanted so you know if anybody were to go there now you know you can certainly see it's well vegetated I'm still unable to have um uh there may or may not be uh uh reclaim water at the property I've applied for it last October and followed up a couple of times uh so we're just keeping it you know alive with rain and we chose plants that are kind of drought resistant and are Florida native and I think it looks just fine I mean it probably I've been leaving it alone because I wanted to not inhibit any of the growth it probably needs to be landscaped a little bit so it looks sharper you know for the next set of guests I have a family living now they're quite happy with the way that it is so you know uh I think that we've come a long way with on the Landscaping side of things um in regards to the parking structure we didn't change the use uh people have been parking on that property uh all the way across the front and on the side since 1952 so we haven't changed that we just uh got rid of the ruts made it even kept it clean and then we got into compliance in my opinion regarding uh the purchases of the plant material that have been planted and are growing throughout the property okay um so my next question is when I see that your receipts St um May 11th 2024 do you recall when the installation date on your within a couple of weeks okay and then as far as the parking I understand what you're saying is that it's always some you've always been able to or there's always been cars parked on the property because of the condition of the front yard but the city's code does require that um the parking areas be concrete concrete pavers or equal unless approved by the city and no slag Rock pea gravel or other loose type of material shall be used have you done anything to address that yes I've gotten three quotes for driveways in case the city decides that I've somehow changed the use of the property or that for some reason the city's decided that since 1952 that in year 2024 it needs cement driveways so I'm ready to go if that's what the city's decided I asked Mr Barry who explained that it may be possible that the gravel could be allowed under certain circumstances uh but I haven't received an answer on that and I would like to you know so whatever the city decides that I need to do to be compliant I will we want to be compliant it's a business we live here we like it here you know and this place from what it looked like in the photos that you saw till now incredible lift of you know it it's it's good for the neighborhood it's good for the tax roll uh the place is beautiful I'm getting great reviews you know I'm a responsible I've been an Airbnb host in medir beach and now here and in Chicago Illinois and in pomac Maryland uh for 11 years now uh my first property in madir beach is has been there for nine years you know and we've never shown up with the a city violation of any kind although when we bought our lot at 1100 book of sea when we own the lot we did get a code notice for the grass that was growing after we bought the lot after a couple of weeks or so and I had it mowed you know the next day and I'm you should could probably find that in the record so okay I have a record of being compliant and and trying to take care of our properties um if if the city um if you're not able to get an alternative approved by the city as far as the gravel for the driveway do you have any idea what your time frame would be in order to get um a concrete driveway or or another approved driveway installed with permitting I'd say I'm ready to go generally now I'd like to approach a couple of other ideas I've gotten quotes on this kind of grid system that holds uh shell or gravel or whatnot in place that is meant to be very environmental and with the vegetation and then from what I understand uh and then uh how the property is performed through the storms it stayed dry I mean the water runs through it um it doesn't leak the the the shell doesn't go into the street uh I had considered adding a uh a bumper but uh it was just under discussion I have something like that at my home because we have sort of a pretty substantial drop from the driveway to the street that could hold the shell in but the shell seems to hold the um the vegetation you know has grown a timeline for driveway uh if I'm compelled to do it I would do it as quickly as a company would be able to pull a permit and do it okay and I certainly don't want to pay a fine I was told that there wouldn't be so I'm a little shocked that that has come up to be honest uh I understand the administrative fee and uh so I think your point just so that you know today is just my I'm making a determination whether or not you're in violation of the code and then a fine if if and I'll give you time to cure and then if you're not cured in a certain period of time then we can come back and assess if a fine is warranted sounds fair so just understanding that's what the city's request is but that's not going to be addressed here today so that you don't have any concerns over that that's why I was asking how much time you would need if a concrete driver would be need to be installed I live here permanently uh I have contractors with quotes some of the quotes might need to get updated because they're only good for 30 days but for me the tricky bit I'm trying to find environmentally friendly uh alternative to concrete and I thought I had found one with the shell because it is working I mean I park there U my my kids park there to go to the beach you know we our guest park there we use the place ourselves when we don't have guests I it's functioning fine you know in our opinion and our neighbors opinion uh you know it's I mean the city saw the shell it looked very white you know from the photographs that you saw now it's vegetated you know it's uh I think we more than did the vegetation and if we need the driveway we'll do the driveway okay you know I mean I think I've definitely proven that I've step up to be compliant and uh had uh dialogue with with Stephen you know from the time I got the notification to understand it better to meeting here you know with both of them and then uh you know took what I thought was um a solution okay and you said a couple of weeks on the vegetation from the May date would that have been prior to July's hearing well I was here um for the first hearing and the city had the technical difficulties my daughter's a synchronized swimmer in the Junior Olympics and we were in uh Gresham OR again and so that's when Stephen referred to uh when it when the city had I was here uh from June when the city pushed it because of the technical difficulties that ran into the date we looked up the date and I knew we had already made plans we'd be out of town and I wasn't going to miss that for the world so then was the vegetation installed prior to the June hearing oh my goodness yes I mean it was back in May it was definitely I I was ready to present this in information um I'm sorry I was ready to present this information in June okay and really nothing's changed except it's just grown out Fuller and more perfect okay anything else Mr mcel you'd like to no' any questions the city has for Mr mcel I just have um one question um you said you use this for Airbnb what are your minimum rentals 30 days thank you um Madame magistrate we haven't had a chance to reinspect I don't know if the property owner notified us of the Landscaping so we would like to go out just to confirm that the landscaping's been okay and the only point I want to make with the driveway is you may get creative um Mr MCN but the only way for the city to process this is through the permit application which has not been provided correct so once a permit's applied for then we can work with the property owner on determining what needs to happen with the driveway and does the city have any indication of how long those types of permits are cycling through understand Mr MCN has kind of already had some conversations with the city with materials I think applying for the I I would say generally 30 days but if he's going to if the property owner is going to come with some creative idea on how to I mean it may take a little bit longer but okay I would say that applying for the driveway permit will at least get the ball rolling our window and door permit uh Electrical Plumbing and windows uh took uh 5 and a half months yeah one is a building permit one is a zoning permit so they might be a little bit different as far as timelines are concerned which is a benefit for you um okay if you want to make the day requirement based on submission then I mean the city's okay with that um with the understanding that we would have to go back out either prior to the next meeting or the meeting after that to reinspect the vegetation um Madame special magistrate Pete der on behalf of the city the permit application would help with the ISR ratio once he does the driveway so it would help us to um if we can combine those two things it would help sure I mean I feel like I have credible testimony that says that he's got 600 square I mean the man's under oath and he's saying he's got 600 square feet of the vegetation that was purchased on May 11th and that was installed prior to the June hearing so I'm not necessarily concerned about the vegetation being there I do wish that I had photographs to see it but I have no reason not to believe Mr MCN installed that vegetation um understanding that compliance is determined by the city but I'm here to determine whether or not there was even a violation to begin with so my concern is less on the vegetation although I do understand the ISR issue um but the again the credible uh testimony here today is that Mr mcmolly met with Mr Rivera and Mr Barry and that he was told 200 square feet he went to 600 square feet so so um I all right does does the city or Mr MCN have anything further before I make my ruling no ma'am nothing from the city okay um I am going to find that the property um has come into compliance as far as the vegetation is concerned with the caveat that the city needs to go out and inspect uh to verify the as the ISR uh ratio only because they don't have a photograph and well I do find your testimony credible um I think that the um the ISR is is the ratio is important and so um I am going to say it is not in violation but the city should go out and just verify that the ISR ratio where I am going to say is that the property is in violation for the uh section 231 for the parking Construction and design requirements as I don't have any evidence to show that an alternative was approved by the city um or that there's a concrete driveway that being said I'm going to give you 90 days in order to come up with a solution that's through permitting so 90 days to apply for a permit and come up with a solution for the driveway to come into compliance ask you a question yes um in what status was that property between 1952 and 20202 so my my I can only consider the evidence that was given here today and the evidence that I have given here today was that the city doesn't have um it looks like there was grass and then there was a a way for people to park whether or not that there that alternative was approved by the city when you Chang the property to all shell that's a new material altogether so whether or not that Grass Drive was approved by the city your shell Drive was not approved by the city well um one point fact here if you look at this Photograph uh all of the property to the right of those automobiles doesn't belong to me and that fence line is uh Robert um San's property uh the owner of the resort the dolphin not the dolphin the Bonair I think it is you guys all know him well I know you know who I'm talking about um so we lost our driveway uh because I'm not going to use his property and there is an agreement between Robert and I to uh replace that fence and move it onto the property line so I was compelled to be able to have my guests uh have use of the unit and not park in the street uh by inviting them to park left of the palm trees which has been done many many times before in all photographs mov sure on a grass area which may or may not have been improved by the city but you've now made improvements to the property yes with the shell construction and that is not you have no evidence to show that that was approved by the city and the city has said it has not been approved I see what you mean so that would be the difference the there was all of the material that you see in this Photograph uh around the house in the area uh uh the that orange pvel uh gravel Street got construction gravel uh River Stones Shell Rock and dirt I added I think the just to make it uniform so I guess my Improvement was to pick one and make it look good instead of look like and I'm not disagreeing Mr MCN that you have improved the property what I am saying is the improvements were done without the consent of the city through their permitting process which un unfortunately or fortunately however you look at it there's a code that dictates it needs to be so I'm not saying you won't get approval from the city and that what you have as far as that parking is not going to will not otherwise be approved it may very well I just my evidence here today is that the code says it has to be concrete or concrete P pavers or an alternative that's approved by the city and because you improved it you changed the nature of what was on the property and I don't have an approval from the city for that so I'm going to give you 90 days in order to get that approval from the city so at the very least to apply for but apply for I think with 90 days I can safely say apply for and secure a permit um in order to to to come back to me and show me that the driveway is in compliance if in that period of time there are delays with the city as far as permitting you can certainly ask for you know an extension of time on that it's no fault of your own um and I will get you an order to that effect and just make sure that I have your email address if that's the easiest way to get to you yes it is okay perfect it's on the uh registration okay and does does the city under understand the order it's apply for and secure a permit for the driveway correct and you're going to find the vegetation and compliance with the caveat with the caveat that the city goes out and verifies the ISR and if the ISR is not in compliance then we can address that at the status hearing which will occur and see now I got to do the math 90 days what we let's set it for the December meeting to give us yeah that's what I was trying to say for the December meeting to give us time so just to clarify how the city determines ISR when there's a driveway permit applied for is we use the permit for the driveway it's all kind of concurrent there's a survey except for if the fact if there was you you have cited this man under two separate sections right if if he didn't do anything with the driveway and there was no driveway parking it was only street parking in this hypothetical and he had just changed it from whatever vegetation was on there to Shell then you'd still have the ISR problem whether or not there was a driveway permit applied for or Notre so they to me they're two separate issues even though there there may be a policy or procedure with the city that the driveway would include the ISR so to me those are two separate issues so verify the ISR if there is a problem with it you're going to find it on the the the driveway permit anyways and we have the 90 days and then you have the 90 days to make the determination and work with Mr MCN in order to find either an alternative solution or so he has time to install a concrete driveway so I'm going to need some assistance from the city clerk because it looks like the November meeting falls on Veterans Day December 9th yeah oh you said December December 9th 90 days would okay 90 days will still fall before that date that will just be the date that we have the status hearing so if it's not compliant within the 90 days understanding okay although we should probably address that November 4th date after the hearing or at the end of the hearing okay um so there will be status check then on uh December 9th uh to see if the property came into compliance by the 90 days my order will have the date where the 90 days is is included you will receive a copy of that Mr MN okay okay I'm sure that was as clear as mud hopefully a written version of that will be better thanks kindly thank you for showing hopefully I don't see you in 90 days and all this is resolved but if not I will see you in December thank you moving on to to agenda item 3j case number 202 4278 city of St Pete Beach versus yeah uh I apologize ahead of time um no savic savic and goic go no so sorry goich I'm not I apologize I need to be better thank you 6901 golf win drive that may help for clarity and I'll apologize ahead of time as well if I do botch this um Louis Cruz representing the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement um special magistrate I just want to give a heads up this was a continued case from last month that was an agreement from the city as well with the owner and to the PowerPoint presentation thank you Ryan this is Code Enforcement case number 2024 0278 respondents bloi Sav and jubir Savage and slobodin Jo jokovic violation address 6901 golf Winds Drive violation description the property is in violation of section 8.2 a permitted principal uses and structures of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary the initial inspection was 66 2024 notice of irreparable or irreversible violation dated 66 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 66224 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at 6901 golf Wind Drive June 6th this is the air BB excuse me Airbnb listing for 6901 golf winch Drive this is the front of the property on the Airbnb listing this is an actual photo of the front of the property at 6901 golf Wing drive and before I get to this could we go to the overhead please Ryan um I did speak with the property owner um obviously we talked about you know the notice and everything um but he continued to do short-term rental so since I already had this locked in since it was continued I would like to show the evidence over the overhead please that's one two and three short-term rentals there can I see that one more time Mr Cris yeah I can't really one second um thank you Ryan April April May oh one second so so so number two Madam magistrate says stayed a few nights and then from what I can see the comment in May says um had a great time at this home for a long weekend just to confirm Mr Cruz you're saying that these comments you found these comments on the website after notifying the property owner these first I think up to and don't quote me cuz I couldn't I can't remember cuz I've changed it so many times now but I think I had about four so these top four this fourth I'm about to show you right now um was part of what I initially seen and then the ones after were after I had talked with him and spoke with the property owner so about four or five of them were from when I first initially did my inspection okay because just to clarify I do see these three as part of the five in the PowerPoint mhm okay yes I just okay so it's eight is what you're saying the five in the PowerPoint that are included and these are all that's why I didn't want to go through the PowerPoint because I I basically just screenshotted all of them to its entirety so I could show it all together with the overhead so it's going to be nine so these are okay got it okay so those are included yeah these aren't the additional ones this is just to its entirety here this is what's on here okay perfect yes okay I see what you did that is four five and six okay one y May June two weeks ago at that time that is seven and8 two three weeks ago six days ago and this last one was taken just this morning for the nth and those ones behind it are all the ones that I have shown previously can I see the additional for 6 Seven 8 and N if Noy okay and then S8 n okay n n July tell me on nine how that is indicating that it's his first short terminal because if the previous one was showing two weeks ago oh then it would have still fell in July and this was just taken this morning so the one was two weeks ago which would have been in July as well as this one being a week ago still in July as well possibly right and isn't the Airbnb review that they have 14 days in order to leave a review yes okay so the other previous ones they were all in July as well or at least the end of June to but up to the 14 days yeah okay okay and to the PowerPoint thank you Ryan and the corrective action property can only be advertised and rented monthly recommended fine is $1,000 per stay nine reviews plus $325 for administrative cost totaling 9,325 okay and you said you did speak to the property owner after the first couple and then after speaking what was that conversation um just letting them know hey you know you've been cited you know I I've dealt with him previously so we kind of had that report so I have his number talk to him hey um we had talked about initially continuing because he was going out of the country so I said okay we'll set it for this date um for you to come in um and I also told him hey you need to stop doing it as of today you can obviously rent your property but you can only do it on a monthly basis um but you do need to stop running at a short-term rental or it can continue to go against you on your own behalf okay and and Mr Cruz was that before the last meeting in July yes well before that last meeting in July so then it's your testimony based on the evidence that you had that conversation we agreed to continue this because he was going out of town yes and then he continued to rent shortterm yes thank you okay all right is there anyone here on behalf of the respondents um special magistrate real quick would you like me to do the Airbnb policy please I I I don't need to see it on the overhead but I'll take into the record yep anything has changed on this no okay perfect thank you okay anyone here on behalf of the savic or goj Co I'm sorry I'm just my family's Eastern European but I still cannot pronounce any of these uh if you'll just come up and state your name and affiliate with the property owners for the record there you go you were right you were right well I I a little bit give myself an A on that one um okay and what would do you have anything to say on your behalf you've seen the testimony and the evidence from the city um anything to rebut that yeah uh I exchanged a few emails with the officer Cruz and uh we said we shall comply with no issue issues uh the reason why we actually did this uh uh in April I believe we had a one month family with two big dogs and those dogs actually disturb all neighborhood and make big damage in the house so also the our uh agent she went for vacation and another took over and that second one they she start advertisement on Airbnb without our uh knowledge that she will be doing the in in short term and after the officer Cruz told uh me or I believe received the email that uh we had to stop this one we shall we said no problem we shall comply and uh we understood that we will get let's say today um decision as to when to stop because it was short period to to cancel all those uh those uh uh guests so another thing we didn't uh thought that this is a really big violation uh in terms uh the city has zoning uh established like a long long time ago and today is a new technologies like Airbnb Uber or whatever uh and um uh it's not uh applied there uh because uh we we believe we are not compe competitor to all these hotels and uh because we this is completely different accomodation like a lamp maybe okay okay oh was your computer so like uh bottom line we shall comply as as soon as you tell us like if you may ask let's say this month because it's short period Al only two weeks left whatever we have guested one or two I'm not sure just to finish and let's say start with September 1st we shall come well my understanding from the city is that based on the conversations um with the city is that they said you needed to stop renting immediately because even though you had future bookings you needed to cancel those bookings that's what we misunderstood unfortunately yeah okay so if it's possible to start let Year from September 1 that would be you know no problem do you have any questions for the respondent well I mean do you do you know how much you made from these rentals idea because they keep Lots like over 30% the airb keeps but okay do you have do you have any sorry my apologies yeah so you don't no I I don't do you have any uh bookings confirmed in the future no it's uh like everything just started basically this year and uh um um we had I think few month monthly rentals I think till April uh uh and then as I told this exchange was came like sometimes in May so I can I I can I can provide all those information okay but but you do realize that your property was rented for less than 30 days in June and July yes I I realized but I really we misunderstood that we will get today date when when we have to stop otherwise we would stop right away but you know did you receive the notice on June 6th that was mailed to you I believe I believe that uh I received the email uh from officer Cruz okay zoning District yeah I have no further questions but um I mean I think the city I do do you know what your average nightly rental rate is sorry your average nightly rental rate it usually pops up on the Airbnb advertising but I don't see it on any of these um that the city is screenshot do you know average what what per night you charge for that rental uh I believe uh 250 something per night 250 per night okay but it's not fully like rented let's say in a month maybe it's like I would say 10 days 12 days 14 days max okay um okay and so that you understand the city is saying that these are reparable right so the the idea is that you can't rent for less than 30 days in your zoning district and you were Renning for less than 30 days you had a misunderstanding thinking that you were going to get a date to stop but you were already in violation of the code and there's no way to go back and stop that you had already rented them there were one time we don't have a time machine we can't go un rent them right um and my have testimony from Mr Cruz stating that you had a conversation where he said you weren't able to rent it in the future and to cancel those bookings is that correct Mr Cruz did you specifically say that they would need to cancel those future bookings no I I didn't know cuz he didn't bring it up about how many bookings he had you know already on the book okay but your conversation was that he needed to immediately stop renting the property for less than 30 days and that occurred in June yes okay yeah and also sorry one more things this was supposed to be scheduled I believe in beginning of July but I could not make and ask to change because I had a like a trip over mhm so that's was only available this day today after my trip okay and then your testimony also is though once you found out that you couldn't rent it anymore then you had your uh property rental agent change that it could only be 30-day bookings but then a new agent came in and didn't honor that is that that correct and put on Airbnb without your consent yeah okay so then I am confused because it seems like there's a little bit of a a discrepancy in either you knew you couldn't rent it for less than 30 days and told your property management company and they took care of that and then a new property manager came in and didn't adhere to that and started doing things without your consent or you were waiting for today to find out when you needed to stop those bookings so I don't know which one it is I think for today we thought we understood that today will be like set date when we'll be like stopped and okay otherwise we would stop right away you know you know even for the the damage to the guest and everybody you okay all right I think I can I understand enough and I can make my ruling um I am and how long have you owned the property for uh two years two years years but we had like renovation more than year almost okay and you said you do have a property management company no it's just real estate agent and uh the another one is not uh licensed a real estate agent you know the the first one was renting a month per month uhhuh but this second when she left for the vacation the second one took over she started renting Airbnb after the family we had like family for one month it was like big dist disturb all our neighbors we didn't like to do that and you know okay um well and that might be something that you want to work out with that real estate agent if she did something without your consent but unfortunately the evidence that I have here says that you had a few short-term rentals that occurred theity spoke with you and understand that there was a misunderstanding but then there were continuing to have short-term rentals so um you know based on the evidence they have I am allowed to weigh some of the uh the evidence uh in in line of equity but I do find that these are all violations they are all nine of them they are irreparable and irreversible in nature I am not going to assess a ,000 fine for each but I am going to assess a $250 fine for each stay um so that's 250 times the nine stays plus the $325 in the administrative costs um and and that is just based on the testimony that you've given here today with a misunderstanding but understand if and there have been many of these that have come before me and I've been lenient before but understand if I do see you again for these types of of rentals they I will not be as lenient um you know this is it's a it's it's it's a way of making money it's a business operation I'm not trying to put people out of business kind of thing but you do like any other property owner in the city of St P Beach have the responsibility to adhere to the city's code um we have also house next to that house and we are not renting that they just keep and I can understand that I'm not here on that house I'm here on this house and I understand that you and if you do have any future bookings from now until September or whenever those need to be canceled or you're going to get in trouble for those again if the city finds out about them so then needs to be ceased renting for less than 30 days immediately okay um and I will get you an order to that effect just make sure that I have your contact information down um or I will send it via mail to where the notices were mailed to Madam M can I ask for um in the order can we get proof of rentals yeah I will do the standard order that says within 10 days of my order um proof that there are no more futural rentals that are less than the 30 days um and then um you all will get copies of that order from me okay all right thank you very much all right I don't have anything under agenda item number four for repeat violations so moving on to new cases agenda item 5A case number 2024 342 city of St Pete Beach versus BR Mariner dolphin Village LLC thank you Madame magistrate St Rivera again on behalf of for the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement case number 202 4342 responded is BR Mariner dolphin Village violation address 4665 G Boulevard violations description the properties in violation of section 26.25 R all districts and 26.4 E and F prohibited signs of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach summary initial inspection 530 2024 notice of violation dated 71 2024 notice of violation compliance date 76 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 718 20124 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witness this is the Affidavit of posting this is the liquor store showing the uh advertisement violation on the Windows this is the sandwich boards there's several of them that were scattered throughout the uh property this was a follow-up photo then another Sandwich Board that wasn't previously out before corrective action property must remove all sandwich boards and the window advertisement shall not exceed 50% property is compliant recommended fine is $250 a day from 77 2024 until 81222 excuse me 81222 4 plus 325 administrative costs and that concludes my presentation okay all right is there anyone here on behalf of BR Mariner dolphin Village LLC anyone here on behalf of BR Mariner dolphin Village LLC 4665 Gulf Boulevard okay um I will find that the property was in violation and is now compliant I will assess the $250 a day fine starting from and you said 718 uh I think that was the complaints 77 through 812 77224 to 812 2024 along with $325 in admin admin ministrative costs okay moving on to 5B case number 202 4368 city of St Pete Beach versus 3511 Gulf Boulevard LLC thank you madam magistrate Steven Rivera again on behalf of St P Beach code enforcement case number 2024 0368 responded is 35 Golf Boulevard LLC violation address 3511 GF Boulevard violation description the property is in violation of section 46 46- 332 and three enumeration 9865 4 unsightly conditions 9866 a b and 20 residential and Commercial Property Maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 71 2024 notice of violation dated 72 2024 notice of violation compliance date 716 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 718 2024 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witness this is the Affidavit of posting at 3511 Golf Boulevard this is the overgrown vegetation just Pon front kind of scattered along the property line with the overgrown vegetation silt fence that's and disrepair corrective action the property must cut and maintain must be cut and maintained on a regular basis silt fence and palm frons must be picked up and disposed of properly property is not compliant recommended fines is $250 a day from 7117 until compliance plus 325 administrative cost and that concludes my presentation okay is there anyone here on behalf of 3511 Gulf Boulevard LLC anyone here on behalf of 3511 Gulf Boulevard LLC property address 3511 Gulf Boulevard okay I am going to uh find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections I'm going to allow 30 days for the property owner to clean up the property bring the property into compliance and we will come in for status check on October 14th as the September 9th date is outside the 30-day window Madam magistrat if I could for this property um Mr Rivera I understand it was a prior property owner but has this property been in Code Enforcement before yes there was a the previous owner had the same exact issues um this time I I understand it's not relevant but but this property is is an issue and has been for years regardless of the ownership so I would at least request compliance by the next meeting September all and I can understand that but you've just also told me that there's a new property owner which we serve this is a new this is a new case on the new property and I understand that but you're telling me the faults of the prior property owner should now impact the duty of the pre of the current property owner and their timelines in order to comply no I'm not but I am saying that through the closing of that property we notified them of outstanding I mean the new property owner knew of what was going on with the property when he bought it so I mean there's constructive knowledge there that we did what we had to and we started a new case I'm simply asking for 28 days to get us to the September hearing instead of 30 all it is is mowing the grass okay I don't have any testimony to that fact have you talked to the previous property owner because you are not under oath Mr McConnell that is the previous or the current the the pre or the current property owner with regard to closing and knowing the status of the property I I I I can't say that I have okay look it's two days 28 days in order to bring the property into compliance and we'll come back at the September hearing if they if they need two days they can ask for it at the next hearing have you been in touch with the property owner at all no ma'am um and it in all fairness yeah I've been kind of proactive with it saw that it changed hands I thought the previous owner still owned it so I thought it was going to be a repeat violation saw that it changed I sent them notice but I I do get constant complaints about the property okay have you tried to reach out to the property owner other than a mailed notice have our system right now we don't have any upto-date information besides what's on property appraiser okay all right so my order will give them until September 9th which is the date of the next hearing we have 28 days to clean up that property thank you uh moving on to agenda item 5c case number 202 4382 city of St Pete Beach versus Nicholas Brian kersch and Stephanie kersch morning again steam Rivera on behalf of St Pete Beach code enforcement case number 2024 0382 Nicholas Brian kers and Stephanie kersch violation address is 2130 East Vena delmare Boulevard violation description the property is in violations of section 9865 4 unsightly conditions 9866 a b 20 and 21 residential and Commercial Property Maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 73 2024 notice of violation dated 78 2024 notice of violation compliance date 722 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 724 2024 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting 2130 East Vena delmare Boulevard so silt fence and disrepair overgrown vegetation some PM frons in the back there more of the silt fence that was failing uh shows a view of the overgrown vegetation followup photos corrective action the property must be cut and maintained on a regular basis silt fence must be picked up and disposed of properly property is compliant recommended fine is 325 for the administrative cost only I did do an inspection of the property this morning um property owner reached out said that they were we going to try to have it done before the hearing uh which they did and I think they're going to continue to keep it maintained until they build okay is there anyone here on behalf of Nicholas kersch or Stephanie kersch okay if you could please come up state your name for the record Stephanie kers Nicholas kers do you have anything to add um for a presentation to me no ma'am just it's been fantastic um everybody's been well helpful we barring our ignorance and understanding Florida conditions and growth factor which now we know we have procured uh weekly services for taking care of the property um I just like to add when you mentioned earlier before we started uh the returns we never did receive our first letter um the first notification we did get was the certified letter which we signed for and we just put bullets down of how all that went down the phone calls so as soon as we didn't find out barring the the storm Debbie we immediately reached out and tried to manage the situation so that's really it okay and um when when was the first time that your that you had your property uh motor when did it come in compliance I guess is my question was it before the date in the notification well we yeah the not the notice of violation went out they didn't meet the compliance date I posted the property they got it cut between when the property was posted in today's hearing the hearing I don't know exactly which date but trying to be proactive I went out this morning did an inspection did see that it was in compliance sure and you're saying you didn't receive the first notice of violation under I swear we did not receive the first letter put together a little outline exactly how everything happened and so we received it at 10:08 on the 1 on August certified started for the notice of hearing yeah notice and so soon as we got that we took the action pretty seriously and started contacting and getting um local people who we knew to to help us out and get down here as soon as we could get an airline ticket with the storm and stuff but yeah definitely want to be good neighbors thank you and Mr Rivera do you have a copy of the certified mailing that you sent to them for the notice of violation I can look it up I don't have it on me but it's it would be in ourc spot it's in the it's on the compu computer for thank you Ryan so this was the certified mailing that went out for the property this is the banner page that goes inside the right in the window okay yeah and then it shows it was return the under on claimed okay and that address that's on the Corpus chrisy address is the address that was on the Property Appraiser's website or the tax collector's website either one okay perfect okay um so I'm going to find that the property was in violation is now in compliance there will be no fines assessed but there will be $325 in administrative costs yes um sorry that that exercise was if there was not proper notice then I would have waved the costs as well but it looks like there's proof of proper notice so um so you guys will receive an order to that effect just make sure I have your contact information and good luck all right thank you all right moving on to agenda item 5D case number 202 4157 city of St Pete Beach versus 10008 Airport Road LLC thank you special magistrate leis Cruz representing the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement code enforcement case number 2024 0157 violation address 810 blind Pass Road the property is in violation of section 46- 33 enumeration 2 6.12 commercial accessory and temporary equipment structures portable build buildings and trailers dumpsters and Commercial tents d2a B and three 9865 unsightly conditions 4 and 9866 residential and Commercial Property Maintenance a b and e of the Land Development code and code of ordinances of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 312 2024 notice of violation dated 315 2024 notice of violation compliance date 45 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 71 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at 810 blind Pass Road on July 1st dumpster is not placed in an enclosure outside storage and debris this is just an updated photo dumpster is not in an enclosure outside storage is still there as long as Breeze as well different shot there corrective action property must erect an enclosure for the dumpsters on the property clean debris from the side area and remove the outside storage property is not compliant recommended f is $250 per day from 46 2024 until compliant plus $325 in administrative costs and that concludes my presentation thank you is there anyone here on behalf of8 Airport Road LLC anyone here on behalf of 108 Airport Road LLC 810 blind Pass Road have you had any communication with the property owner not with the property owner I did get to speak with the uh property manager um he was new to the area um I helped him above and beyond I've went out there I brought both of our Planning and Zoning officials went out there with me and individually on their own you know f with the homeowner um to try and help him understand exactly what we're looking for and to get the contractor I've talked to three to four different contractors now um he still is not able to convey at least it seems to the to the contractor like what we're asking for even though we've had emails we've had phone calls we've had officials go out there to the property to let them know um and I haven't heard from him in a while and I haven't heard from him since I posted the property so unfortunately that was the last time okay um I am going to find that there is a violation stated code sections I am going to give 28 days to bring the property in compliance and set a status check for September 9th thank you that's correct math Mr McConnell 28 days I don't want to have to do that again okay now you're making me want to count yeah if we could just verify that 11 28 okay good well done well you came up with the math so um all right and uh I will get an order to that effect uh case 5e has been continued until the September 9 meeting yes moving on to 5f case number two 2024 0281 city of St Pete Beach versus Richard Allen long revocable trust and Richard Allen long as trustee thank you very much Lewis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement this is case number 2024 0281 Richard Allen long revocable trust Richard Allen long trustee violation address 6800 Golf Boulevard violation description the property is in violation of section 26.1 sign permit requ re ired C and 2635 cc-1 and cc-2 districts E1 of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary the initial inspection was 429 2024 notice of violation dated 57 2024 notice of violation compliance date 524 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 71 24 and these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting on the property at 6800 Golf Boulevard this is the sign that is in question being unpermitted sign that was erected on the building corrective action proper property must obtain a permit or remove the sign on the building property is not compliant recommended fine is $250 per day from 525 2024 until compliant plus $325 for administrative costs and that concludes my presentation can I ask a y question so Mr Cruz um is the reason in the delay in bringing it to Cod enforcement have has a city tried to work with the property owner yeah he came in previously to the front desk um and then I think he also reached out to Brandon Barry but unfortunately it sounded like there was going to be some type of movement on getting a permit taking it down um which he can easily do it's just reaching out to our Planning and Zoning officials for this type of permit um but kind of got you know caught in the calling the weeds here and haven't heard from them at all and he hasn't reached out to me specifically but he has reached out to other City officials so is it safe to say that but for him coming in and showing some intent to address the issue you would have added him to the next special magistrate me yes which would have been prior to this date yes thank you okay is there anyone here on behalf of the Richard Allen long revocable trust or is Richard Allen long here anyone here on behalf of the Richard Allen long revocable trust or is M Mr Richard Allen long here anyone here on behalf of 6800 Golf Boulevard okay seeing no one I am going to give the property owner 28 days to bring the property in compliance whether that is with getting a permit securing after the fact permit taking it down whatever it is uh bringing the property into compliance uh 28 days and we will meet back here on September 9th thank you moving on to 5G I just saw um sorry I just saw someone walk in I don't know if that's happens to be okay no okay my apologies uh moving on to 5G case number 202 4265 City St Pete Beach versus Barbara a McMahon the estate of thank you special magistrate Le Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement this is Code Enforcement case number 202 24265 respondent is Barbara a McMahon State violation address 579th Avenue violation description the property is in violation of section 46- 33 enumeration 1B 12 and 13 9865 unsightly conditions 4 and 98- 66 residential and Commercial Property Maintenance a b 20 and 24 of the code of ordinances of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 429 2024 notice of violation dated 430 2024 notice of violation compliance date 5117 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 72 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at 579th Avenue on July 2nd there's a rusted fence and debris in the backyard that are visible from the street these are tree debris and dead palm frons and stuff like that that are packed up on the side of the house there was dead palm frons and trees and overgrown grass and weeds there was an unregistered vehicle on the property expired tags just a different shot there it is in the driveway piles of dead palm frons branches things of that nature dead Palm FR and trees rusted fence debris overgrown Reeds and grass just a little bit of updated V uh pictures overgrown weeds and grass in the right away overgrown weeds and grass in the front yard corrective action property must cut and maintain grass on the property and in in the right away fix clean paint the rusted metal fence clean the piles of tree debris cut and maintain the dead palm frond in the trees and the vehicle on the property must be removed or registered property is not compliant recommended fine is $250 per day from 518 2024 until compliant plus $325 for administrative costs and that concludes my presentation thank you okay is there anyone here on behalf of Barbara McMahon if you could please come up and state your name and affiliation with the property owner for the record um my name is Aaron McMahon I'm the representation for her estate it's my grandmother's home or estate I guess and I'm Philip poner aon's husband okay and you said you do have power of attorney or personal represent of her State yes ma'am okay um so we have made some changes leis um Mr Cruz made is aware of the property we have sold the vehicle that's been removed we've been trying to maintain the property there is a little bit of miscommunication between our state attorney and getting us notified of these things um so we have spoken to her about that the certified copy of this hearing went to her office which all of these are dated to her office they don't come directly like to the property um she didn't send it to me till 7eleven and she received it like a week and a half prior so we have spoken to her about that we know that's an issue but we are working on just getting this rectified okay do you happen to know um a time frame where you'd be able to bring the property into compliance definitely within 30 days I would say by the end of the week we could can we do 28 days yes already sold the the house or the the car vehicle yeah we are waiting for the like d transfer to be put into my name so that I can take like full responsibility of the home yeah okay but you think 28 days would give you sufficient amount of time to clean up the rest of the property and bring the property in compliance y okay perfect so then I will find that the property is in violation of state of code sections however I will give you 28 days to bring the property into compliance please notify the city when the property is in compliance so they can go out there and reinspect um if I if it is not I will see you on September 9th hopefully I won't see you then because the property will be in compliance please just make sure I have your direct contact information I'll send the order with the information in that there to you directly instead of the estate attorney if like me to copy her I can do that too but it's up to you truthfully no I'd rather it just come straight to us then I will send it directly to you just make sure you signed in and I have your contact information okay thank you so much I just had a question did you bring a copy of the orders and letters by chance I have uh yeah I mean I have we have some evidence here the or like I meant the letters of administration or the order appointing you um I have them on my phone it's yeah if you could just show show them yeah because I'm assuming you are Aaron Marie McMahon yes okay not that you have to hold up here as long as you can just email us that at some point okay yeah okay just so that we have it for our record I appreciate I took it as credible testimony I do as well okay an email okay yeah I don't know anyone that would lie under oath to accept responsibility to clean up a property but I know who knows okay moving on 5H case number 2024 010 uh 0150 city of St Pete Beach versus Russell Zimmerman thank you special magistrate before I start um Mr Zimmer Zimmerman I do want to be transparent he just reached out this morning probably about an hour and a half an hour before the special magistrate hearing um I did give him ample time I did post his property but I did have a conversation with him 101 um over the phone um he is in another state I'm pretty sure he's in Ohio um and I've also had a three-way conversation over the phone as well with my supervisor letting him know you know what time the date was I've been trying to get this rectified for quite some time since March I've given him ample time due to like health things and things going on with his family which is understandable um but it's gotten to the point that he's just I don't know when he's coming back he was supposed to come back in July um he did technically ask for a continuance the city is not agreeable to that and obviously we' leave that up to you to to make that determination did he do any type of written submission obviously he's is not here to request the continuent so I don't really have a request from him I have a request through you okay and you do not represent Mr Zimmerman we were just we had talked about this before and out of fairness we were going to mention it but we did not get an written request or anything it was more of a voicemail that Mr Cruz happened to check this morning okay then as far as I'm concerned I don't have anything from the respondent before me to consider as far as continuances are concerned okay um so please feel free to move forward with your case thank you code enforcement case number 2024 0150 respondent is Russell W Zimmerman violation address is 327 72nd Avenue violation description the property is in violation of section 46- 33 enumeration 12 and 13 98- 65 unsightly conditions 4 and 98- 66 residential and Commercial Property Maintenance a b 2 A and B 7 9 20 and E of the code of ordinances of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 311 2024 notice of violation dated 312 2024 notice of violation compliance date 326 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 7:18 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at 327 72nd Avenue on July 18th this is the exterior of the home it looks to have rotted wood on the exterior wall and a lot of faded and deteriorated paint just a farther shot out on the side of the property there with the rotted wood on the exterior wall and the deteriorated paint this is the porch having outside storage and debris that are visible from the public this is faded and deteriorated paint underneath the porch area this is the front porch yes yes ma'am the window there deteriorated paint flaking don't know if it's rotted or not but it does look warped there on that that piece of 2x4 there that I'm assuming is there just a different picture of the front porch of the outside storage debris faded paint all over rusted metal surface looks to be the beam for the front porch and The Faded paint just different shots of that on the front porch deteriorated paint rusting this is the window sill on the front of the property as well deteriorated this is the vehicle that is unregistered and in and in an inoperable State on the property corrective action property must paint all deteriorated or faded paint fix the rotted wood on the exterior walls clean and paint the rusted metal columns clean and remove all debris and outside storage and the vehicle on the property must be removed or brought into an operable condition and registered property is not compliant recommended fine is $250 per day from 718 2024 until compliant plus $325 for administrative costs and that concludes my presentation thank you okay is there anyone here on behalf of M Mr Zimmerman anyone here on behalf of Mr Zimmerman 327 72nd Avenue okay and Mr Cruz you said that you spoken with the property owner just an hour or so before the hearing today without disclosing whatever his health conditions are you said he's in Ohio yes he's pretty sure he's in Ohio he's he's kind of went to a couple different states because as you can see there has Virginia tags yeah so he's having problems getting the title and getting over there he's you know he was getting ill as well as a family member so he was there trying to help so I tried to give him you know as much much slack as I could give him sure is this his primary property do you know if it's his supposed to be but it looks like he hasn't been there in quite some time now um because of you know all his personal situations okay all right um I am going to find the property or the respondent in violation of the stated code sections I'm going to allow 28 days for the property owner to come in compliance with the stated code sections and if he does not we will see him back on September 9th 2024 at 10: a.m. thank you nothing under agenda item six uh agenda item number seven case number 2024 0081 city of St Pete Beach versus 4401 Gulf Boulevard LLC Madam special magistrate Pete dur code enforcement manager on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach this is a fine challenge so um I guess we leave it in the of the respondent yes as they would be the affirmative can I just confirm that you received notification within 20 days from the property owner to yes thank you okay is there somebody here on behalf of 4401 G Boulevard LLC if you could please come up and state your name and affiliation for the record and you may present your petition for fine challenge um Jackie Bates landlord uh Mike Bates a member on the LLC um so we did receive notification back in February about the fine um this is a newer property investment property that we own and we are uh we reside in Michigan um we've had or I personally have had conversations with Mr Ramirez um and emails going back and forth as well um with the contract that we have in place the tenant which is Walgreens is responsible for the repairs and our emails and correspondence with them started um within a couple of days of us receiving the violation notification um at which point there was not any responses coming back we've we've had several you know attempts with several different people within the Walgreens organization however um I think about three weeks ago maybe four we did finally get through to somebody over there and they have sent out contractors to give estimates um I and basically just to cut to the chase I did have correspondence with them just this morning to receive an update in which they said the engineer completed the survey today which was Friday and has all the information needed to create the drawings I believe that they have also been in contact with you is what they have told me UHA okay and um they said that there will be a the scope of work will include concrete repairs and redoing the railing a more detailed scope will be provided once the drawings are completed and we will submit to the jurisdiction for the permit so that is what I have up to date um and we are just here as the owners of the property because we were told that in order to seek a um reduction in the fees we we needed to we were the ones that needed to appear okay um does the city have anything in rebuttal ye yes Madam magistrate I just want to clarify what we're here for which is challenging the fine amount not reducing the fine because the property is not compliant therefore we can't process a lean reduction reduction correct um and I do want to just reference 22279 which limits this to new findings necessary to impose an appropriate fine um very limited scope here when you're challenging the fine that's been imposed so I just want to mention that and can someone tell me what the fine imposed was it was 250 per day beginning March 1st until the property is compliant and 325 for reasonable administrative cost because in July I don't believe anyone appeared on behalf of no nobody appeared either time which is the the code doesn't give any criteria as far as what I can consider with regard to the appropriateness of the fine being challenged um I will say it was a first offense it wasn't built as repeat violations the maximum amount of fine that I can assess is $250 per day um at this point I there were two hearings that were held no one showed up on behalf of anyone for either of those hearings and so the request at find out $250 a day was issued um I understand that you're having some problems with your tenant or it was at least a communication issue with your tenant that may be something proper that I can consider an alen reduction hearing um as far as the challenge to the find I don't see anything in what you told me that would have changed my mind to reduce um the amount of fine imposed it maybe would have given me um the ability to extend the day to cure the violation but again nobody showed up at the first administrative hearing and nobody showed up at the administrative hearing imposing the fine um so those would have been proper arguments that I could have heard at that point and maybe have avoided this to here today um but do you have anything else that you'd like to um there the yes there the the address and notification um I don't know how the initial notification came across uh I initially spoke to somebody okay I remember conversation yeah and then what happened is through acquisition we had address changes so were you no of did you know there was Prior hearings yes oh I was told that that doesn't really help the argument address and and for your edification any legally the the notifications need to go to either the Property Appraiser's address or the tax collector's address so whether or not you had legal mailing changes if those addresses don't get updated there that that we don't have any other the city doesn't have any other way to figure that out unless they go on their own means and try and find out the property address yeah yeah so with that being said I am not going to Grant the challenge to the fine amount but you can certainly discuss with the city some of your other options there's a lean reduction um but process but that doesn't come into play until the property is in compliance so that's going to be the first thing um that I can consider if if type of a request ever came before me okay is if the property is in compliance so I would say work with the city I will get you an order denying this lean challenge Mount but or the the fine challenge but um hopefully you guys can work something out okay and I don't see you again or maybe I do who knows thank you okay moving on to agenda item 8 a case number 20249 city of St Pete Beach versus Jeffrey T week this is a lean reduction request that's correct Madam special magistrate Pete Dart just so everyone is aware whenever we hear that sound it's like a power surge that knocks our system offline so if we have um if we need access we are offline currently but we can ask Ryan to help us so we are recording we are whatever we are just not you're not able to access your correct at this point cool at this time nice but we we we're going to use overhead as you mentioned um this is a lane reduction application for Jeffrey weeks and the request is to reduce the lean $325 and the city is agreeable to $3,325 because of the case being a violation of short-term rental policy and we have a zero tolerance policy as okay so the city would not be willing to accept any type of a reduction so you're CH your the petition it's a better way to say it yeah the petition is what it is the city would not be accepting would not be amendable to accepting a reduction in the fees okay thank you ma'am right um is Mr weeks here Mr weeks if you'll please come up and remind me uh State the basis for your petition and remind me what was going on here I've U I acquired a property um in the latter part I think it was September of 2023 and this is my main residence this is where I will eventually spend all my time um I've been taking care of family and um and also working up in the St Louis area um in the meantime I was I rented the place not aware of what I was supposed to do we um I rented three on three separate occasions uh to terms that were less than the 30 days that that were required um I I picked this spot this this city because it was a friendly area it was a uh it was uh it ju it just seemed to be a good good fit for me I I didn't intend to come in and make any um Ruckus and um and had the the uh rentals were and violation of the the code I I immediately changed the listings to to uh come into compliance prior to the hearing and immediately upon notific ification um I've done all I done done I did all I could and and like it says it's irreparable so uh it it just seems to me that the the $150 a night that I made renting the the place is is um it it's it's not uh it doesn't seem to be in in in in line with the fine okay and I see here on your application it says rentals wore with family and with knowledge right you had your family pay to stay there I did because we listed them on verbo uh and um I wanted the um the good reviews okay and so and if I recall correctly the intention was to I think you had friends and family say and the intention was to have them write the reviews so that you could build Goodwill and it looked like people it had been a good rental is that correct my yeah my relevance on them okay any anything further from the city as far as challenge I know you guys said that you were not willing to no I'm just kind of curious um how much did you make for each stay total I think the the posted amount was it was either 120 or 150 a night for how many nights what is each day I'm trying to look at like the total for each of the three stays that were less than 30 days how much did you charge in in the end of things the money was NE never never given to me it was returned to the family members and in uh except for a uh cleaning fee which I had a cleaning company do okay okay so was rented to family and friends they had to pay something because you went through the VRBO platform right um and it was basically a pay to get reviews and you said you're eventually going to live in this property but you were using it as a way what is the purpose of renting it at this point just to make up some of some of the expense that I have outlaid did you purchase it as an investment property I did not okay so it's purchased as a second home or as a primary home primary residence primary residence and you are living in it now yes okay and when did you I I know you said you purchased it in 2023 when did you start living in it I've been here off and on again I work in St Louis okay so it's it's um I come down here as often as I can i' I've been here a dozen times in the past so my question is how can it be your primary residence if you don't live here fulltime I do live there I just don't live there fulltime fulltime right so when you're not there do you rent the property out still it's it's uh up for rent but they're 30-day rentals I have uh I have two pending rentals uh one for 30 days and one for 90 okay I I do have one more question do you do you claim homestead on this property no okay no further questions okay I you know I do recall this one I recall you know there's not any real strict criteria for me to consider in in the code it is a first offense I understand what you were saying that you refunded the money back to your family members I understand the purpose of generating business and income while you're not here um I also understand in the city Zero Tolerance policy I've not seen you here before me like you said you just purchased the property um I would be willing to do a 10% reduction in the lean amount no reduction in the administrative fees um to give you you think I could do simple math like 10% um 10% off would so it' be 3,25 right is that correct so 10% off would move the fine to 2700 right plus the 325 correct okay if if I may you may I I'm I'm working to update the the uh the property spending money bought hurricane resistant windows or impact resistant Windows uh We've uh I've worked within the HOA to improve the residence the uh the exterior of the the property um this is this is all money that could be better spent where there I I understand there is irreparable harm to some degree there I guess for rentals that could have been elsewhere in the in the and and look my job is not necessarily to be punitive my job is to consider the evidence that's presented to me and make an equitable decision based on what I have you were here at the hearing we had a conversation I do understand what you were doing but sometimes you take risk and they don't pay off you know I'm going to tell you I think I've probably said this before I say it darn near every hearing when you purchase property in a jurisdiction is your responsibility to know what you can and cannot do with that property um I understand your situation is a little different in that you are renting it to family to Garner Goodwill so that you could rent it again in the future but the the that was all considered at the last hearing my fine reduction considerations are based on any new evidence or first offense whatnot anything else that could be considered I've considered everything that you said at the last hearing and so there's nothing new really for me to consider except that now you're living in the property understanding it's not your primary residence but you're here as often as you can you're still intending to rent it but you have rentals for 30 or 90 days coming in so I I I've taken all that into consideration um you know I'm I'm giving a 10% reduction know that may not seem like much to you but based on the evidence the new evidence that I have that is that's kind of how I felt it was commensurate with the evidence that I already previously considered um and so uh I will get you an order to that effect and my standard order gives 30 days in which to pay that or it reverts back do you think you might need additional time to pay that amount my understanding is that if I don't pay it it results in a lean against the property with right if you don't if I re if I grant I granted the reduction and I give you x amount of time to pay it if you don't pay it within that x amount of time then it reverts back to the full fine amount and then it's a lean against your property unless it's already been filed so um my question to you is is 30 days sufficient for you to pay the 2700 plus the 325 fine or cost yes okay then I will put it for 30 days and I will get you an order to that effect thanks thank you followup the order shall State $3,025 correct the order will state $2,700 in fines and $300 $325 in administrative cost thank you ma'am okay uh moving on to 8B case number 2019 0452 city of St Pete Beach versus lingl and Z mam special magistrate um oh you're here on okay I was wondering who was here on their behalf um but the respondent has someone on their behalf here so this is the finding a fact and the order was for $1,000 and administrative fines um the request came in for a reduction [Music] to the amount you're requesting that reduced to as $100 this is the request from the city is that they pay the full amount of 1563 as as was ordered because again this was a situation of short-term rental so the city is agreeable okay first of all I have a power of attorney here that uh I'm trying to figure out is not signed well I mean it's notorized maybe maybe what's your name sir I don't I mean there's no do you have aign po of attorney okay I mean there's dates on it I I see it it's it's not great so that so you are that person so um Mr do you have any challenge to the durable power of attorney I see where they've dated it yeah his under of testimony I'll be fine with that but Mr dur was was this already on a hearing yes I've already ruled on this you ruled on this right so can you just explain to the magistrate why we're back here when this was already brought for a lean reduction i' I've already considered this application yeah the property owner didn't show up so we're here again because we're nice I guess the property owner didn't show up as you're correctly pointing out um she she then called and and made a plea to me to have it reheard um because she was not able to make the first um case and so here we are um I guess yeah yeah I just wanted to clarify because I remember seeing this Cas well I I was actually going to mention that that I've already ruled on this there's already an order out there I and this is not a new application this is a second this is not even an amended application this is the exact same application that I've already considered she called in and put in a request that she the city is okay with me considering the same application and so I think at the end of we do need to have a broader conversation because people Miss deadlines and we don't know what to do and then people like this and and I'm happy saying that it's one of those things where they're here we gave them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't get the notice of hearing which it was their request is kind of odd but um the city has no objection to you hearing this if you're okay with it okay I mean I I will consider this and like Mr McConnell just said it's a matter of us being courteous by providing and acquiescing to their request which I I appreciate but there's nothing in your code that allows me to reconsider an application that's already been considered and ruled upon um and we would be okay with you just saying that yep okay and I I and I I appreciate the time um that this gentleman has put into coming up here however I I have already considered this application I have I was contacted by the respondent after I sent the order out deferred her to the city because that's an experte communication uh or could have been if there was anything of substance discussed I've already considered this there's there's nothing new for me to consider here I've already ruled on this I just want to point out um that the only reason why she didn't show up for the last hearing is she did not get a she was never given a written notice um apparently she had spoken to it's it's her application correct it wasn't it's not the city's hearing it's her application to the city right and what happened is that the application had gotten rejected the first time that she sent it in because it wasn't notorized and she understood that she had to sign the notice for the for the reduction but not that it was that it need to be notorized at that time so yeah I'm yeah I'm not inclined to reconsider the application that's before me based on that information I considered the application that she submitted um which is this exact same application uh which is signed and notorized I considered it I Ruled on it it's her application it was her petition it was her responsibility to be present at the last hearing um which I also think was continued if I'm not incorrect maybe I am incorrect but I don't know about that one um but no so I am not inclined to reconsider an application I've already ruled on so my order stands thank you okay moving on to agenda item 8C case number 2230 685 city of St Pete Beach versus Billy G Lambert thank you Madam special magistrate the request is to reduce this lean to zero the city is agreeable to a reduction um not to zero though um reducing the lean to from $9,750 to 24 3750 plus administrative cost of 325 for a total of 2762 250 okay give me a second Mr derer yes ma'am okay so the present lean is for 9750 plus 325 in administrative cost yes ma'am and you're looking you're willing to acquest to is it a percentage reduction or just a straight dollar amount reduction percentage uh what's the percentage reduction so I can 7 what is that 75 you said 20 24 3750 24 3750 plus the 325 yes okay that is correct okay so that would be willing what the city is willing to so that would be yeah 25% got it which would be a 75% reduction red got that understood okay um is uh anyone on behalf of Billy G Lambert here I miss Lambert if you'll pleasee state your name for the record I'm Billy Lambert okay and I do see your application for reduction in the lean here um you have heard that the city is willing to reduce it by 75% to the 24 3750 plus 325 um do you have any any additional information or evidence for me to consider for any type of a further reduction or are you okay with the reduction the city no I mean I appreciate the the reduction but I don't feel like it's Justified I feel like I've um since my first notification I did everything in order that I was supposed to I applied for a loan I looked for a contractor everything takes time I mean even getting a permit from this city took three and a half weeks and then they said well now you have two weeks to finish everything but my contractors aren't ready the day after the permit comes you know every everything takes time and the place looks beautiful I just put $144,000 into Landscaping two weeks ago so I acquired this place and I'm grateful for it and I want to be a good resident of the city of St Pete Beach but you're your welcome wagon's not really very welcoming so far um but I don't think I don't think a fine is deserving I think um I missed my last court date and I apologize for that that was not out of ignorance or Defiance um it was it was an honest mistake so okay um but but I've been the place looks so pretty have you been in contact understanding that there can be delays with contractors etc etc were you in contact UM with Mr Cruiser was Mr Cruz was your okay with Mr Cruz during the process to let him know you might needed more time yes and I actually um the day I missed court I called Mr Cruz at 10:00 that morning I was in panic mode that I missed um and he just said well um it would have been in your benefit to have been here so you'll we'll see what happens you'll have to wait now so then two weeks went by and I I came here personally into the um office to see I'm sorry I get so nervous no don't worry about it I came in and spoke to Pete der and the same thing I said I don't I don't know what to do from here I haven't received anything in the mail and he said the same thing well you should have been in court and I said I I understand it wasn't it really was an honest mistake and he well I'll tell you what he said he said well if the special magistrate is in a good mood that day then she she may reduce your fine but you'll have to see what happens on that day so are you in a good mood on this day H we'll see my coffee might kick it in I've done I really feel like I mean I've done everything I'm supposed to do and things take time but I don't think it I don't think it deserves a punishment I really don't and I think this is a punishment for for doing everything I was supposed to do and I get so emotional I cry I'm sorry no worries I can understand okay all right well thank you for your application does the city have anything in response no I would just say the the reason I mean we just had two cases where we set no reduction so I will say her effort is what got us to the point where the city's agreeable to the 75% um so it doesn't go un notice and we appreciate it place looks so pretty now it really does I wish I could consider that when it's a it costs so much money and I can understand that too um I do appreciate your application I appreciate your thoroughness um and and I do think it's fair that the city is reducing it by the 75% I see that your your request is just for administrative fees is that correct just the 325 okay I think she actually said zero I I forgot about you guys sorry well in that case now I'm no longer just kid oh it does say zero okay um thank you for the claric Mr McConnell um I am going to Grant the lean reduction but not as requested I do think that the city is being generous in a 75% reduction I am going to honor that um and reduce the the lean amount to $437.50 with the administrative fine amount of 32 5 and I am taking into consideration everything that you said I just think 75% is a is a um an equitable reduction based on everything that's presented here you feel any of it is even Justified I mean yes I was at both of the hearings there were violations of the code there were and they and I was on it immediately and I can understand that but there are you know as side understanding you missed the last hearing if you were coming up against that date which you had the order you were here for my first administrative F or the first administrative hearing and we discussed what the time frame would be if you needed additional information you could have asked the city for an additional inform for additional time in order to comply understanding contractors and things happen um but contacting the city and asking for additional time was always one of your options I believe we even talked about that too so you know the these are those are things I would have con you know I would have considered at the fine hearing and said okay maybe we give you some extra time or you work with the city on that um we could have done that at the outset too so I'm am taking everything into consideration I do think that they can be justified based on the evidence that was presented and I do think a 75% reduction is fair and Equitable in this instance um so I will go ahead and reduce it 30 days is that sufficient enough for you to pay the reduction okay so I will go ahead and get you an order to that effect with the reduction and give you 30 days in which to pay okay I can go yes you can go and hopefully I don't see you again all right moving on to 8D case number two is 0 24133 city of St Pete Beach versus the Patricia e little trustee yeah yeah yes Madam speci Mist streate um this request is for admin findes only the city is not in agreement with that request and would be agreeable to 7 75% reduction bringing that number to 6500 plus $325 okay the respondents are here okay and I'm sorry Mr dur you said you're not agreeable to reduction is that correct we not to not to zero not to zero ad correct all right if you could please state your name for the record good afternoon my name is Jacqueline Smith my my name is Patricia little thank you miss little and miss little miss SMI here is here to assist you on your behalf is that correct Miss Smith is here to assist you on your behalf oh Miss Smith is here to assist you on your behalf I don't even I can't hear you okay you're here to assist miss miss little on her behalf Miss SM you better tell her yes I'm here to assist her she has a problem hearing hearing okay that's my bad ear oh she's here to assist you yes okay perfect thank you you all right go ahead Miss SMI you can present Miss Little's application um Patricia little owns the Blue Parrot she's owned the Blue Parrot for 36 years she has a tenant in there Frank Ty Tyson he is very hard to deal with I have here I have Patricia deal with him because I can't um he's been in there since 2004 and part of the lease is right here I'm going to put it up on the third compliances he's in charge of all of sorry he's in charge of all federal City and anything that does with rules and so he he's the one that he's the one that has been complying with all of these things that's been coming in so when I found out about what's been going on in two days I took care of the problem I paid his business tax I I took care of it in two days there was a car that was sitting in the in the parking lot for 20 years and I had it come I I towed it but I took care of it okay and I'm sorry that it came to this Patricia is now going to sell the Blue Parrot because she just doesn't know how to deal with Frank when he was supposed to come here today to deal with this and Patricia's been telling them so what are you going to do about this fine this fine this fine you know it's $26,000 P Patricia's daughter 62 years old just passed away she had 12 people just pass away just now since December 28th so she's been deal with a lot of death so I've been trying to deal with everything so she hasn't been home so she didn't really know anything in her mailbox it's it's true but so we we took care of the problem but Frank should have been here today so we're here to to face up to see what we can do and we are going to sell the Blue Parrot we're going to get get rid of the eyesore down at the end of the street and we're going to make everything we're going to pretty up St Pete Beach down there okay and um you've heard what the city is willing to reduce uh the amount to is that something that's agreeable to you or no well that's better than $ 26,32 uh does the city have any questions or any but I think Frank should be the one that pays it but it's just a shame He's a Bully so and I I'm not necessarily sure that I disagree with you my issue is you have a lease between yourselves as you as the property owner and a tenant um and so that's a civil matter between the tenant and the property owner yeah so that's up to the the property owner to enforce the terms of the lease against the tenant while I appreciate that and he could be considered the Violator that's not who the city chose to site the city chose to site the property owner um and I do understand that that they're extenuating circumstances um my next question would be we've had a couple hearings on this matter I understand that there's been some death in family was there any reason um she hasn't been I know she hasn't been home to accumulate all the mail and when we did see the mail it was like oh my God we missed all of this okay she's been staying in Gulfport with me at my house and it it's it it's my fault for not going to check the mailbox too but it's it's it's both of our fault okay and I can understand that okay and Mr deer you said the reduction that you were that the city was comfortable with was to I apologize we were agreeable but we'll do whatever the magistrate thinks is proper um we would be agreeable to 75 % the 75% reduction but you know there's math is never my strong and when he found out we're selling the building because he just found out because they went in there the other day to uh do an environmental check on the um property he's not even going to pay any more rent he's done so he's just we're just going to be just hopefully he doesn't destroy anything before you have ugly you know so we just got to keep an eye on him yeah um city so you know what I'm saying I and I appreciate all that I can understand where you're coming from I for consistency sake you know your property owners within the city you have the responsibility to take care of your property so I am willing to reduce um I would Grant a lean reduction to $1,000 for the lean and $325 in administrative costs um and I is 30 days sufficient enough to pay that yes okay I will go ahead and give 30 days to pay and I will make sure that you get an order is do we have your contact information there for the best place to send that to I I have my email your email there so I will email a copy of that order it will be 30 days from the date of the order so $1,000 uh fine and then 325 in administrative costs I can pay that now if you want me to pay that uh you'll have to get with the city and figure out how to do that but thank you so much and I'm so sorry thank you has come to that good luck to you both thank you so much everybody thank you have a good day thank you for being patient sitting through the whole hearing all right moving on to the LA oh no not the last gen item moving on to AE case number 20230 559 city of St Pete Beach versus Lake Meritt Partners LLC Madam special magistrate this request is to reduce the lean to 9,437 which is an exact 75% reduction thank you Mr der so I'll take it from here got it um there's a stipulation amongst the parties and I won't speak for Mr Kenny but he's here this uh case was kind of put in a batement a batement if you will because there was an appeal um parties have stipulated to the lean reduction amount with the understanding and and we can talk about the deadlines as long as the magistrate feels comfortable with including um you know payment standard 10 to 15 days and also a notice of of voluntary dismissal um oh okay uh Mr Kenny uh yes so we did speak and and have agreed to the um to the reduction or the 75% reduction um I can if if uh granted we'll go ahead and uh get the um dismissal on the appeal out uh today if not uh today tomorrow um as soon as my assistant can go ahead and and get it filed um the only thing what we'd request is uh 30 days to go ahead and pay um so this way we could go ahead and um accumulate the the funds okay is that dismissal with prejudice yeah it's it's an appeal so it's yeah yeah y that is what it is okay and the city is agreeable to that yes okay so I will go ahead and Grant the lean reduction to $943 7.50 plus $350 in administrative costs payment terms within 30 days from the date of my order and I will include verbiage in there with regard to a con contingency with regarding dismissal of the appeal um do you guys have the case number on that appeal thank you actually had a feeling you'd ask um 24000000 z07 AP penel County wait 240000 57 AP yeah a okay perfect and do you want the case St uh no I can pretty much think I can search Lake Merit properties in City St P Beach and come up with something um I will get you an order to that effect and I have your email address appreciate it thanks for your patience okay we have two more um kind of it's up to you we can they're Consolidated if you will they were Consolidated appeals as well um so if I may Madam magistrate yeah can I call the case numbers for please case numbers 201846 and 201845 these are both apparently for David Green correct who's who I do not see no um so Mr Loro represents David Green this is um stipulation based on a settlement agreement that's on the city commission agenda tomorrow okay um so all I'm asking for is this has already been agreed upon um but because of our code we wanted to clarify so once I explain it I am going to ask for a favor in that if could if this could be the first order you provide us we'd really appreciate that I can get it to you today yeah um so the specifics of both cases is both the outstanding fines are the same for each case okay which was $16,669.24 for both with for a total of $ 33,38 okay both cases combined are being reduced to $115,000 Total any administrative costs that's inclusive that's inclusive okay correct so is a 16664 so the 16664 is is is I have the breakdown 325 for administrative cost or 350 no this one's a little bit more because so it was 155 each for the lean amount and then 1164 for the administrative fines for each okay um and then it's being reduced to 15 even for both inclusive of costs correct so if if it is easier for you you could do 7500 each um but it's yeah I'll just split it down the middle and call it what it is so two different or or I can do a Consolidated case style it's up to you they were Consolidated appeals as well um I'll do Consolidated case style I will put all the information for each lean each code case Consolidated one to 15,000 even any other terms or conditions I need to include 30-day pay window um or is going to be contingent on the settlement agreement the settlement agreement has already been signed and actually says um it'll be paid in 10 days 10 days okay 10 days first settlement agreement contingent that the settlement agreement is ratified by the city commission correct for execution of the settlement agreement ratified by the commission okay because it hasn't been signed by yes the commission yet or the mayor and by commission which will be done tonight so you want tomorrow so you want the states to present to them tomorrow please um okay I can do that and Mr Loro would like a copy I'm assuming he will but I'll also be in it as an exhibit to the settlement agreement okay all right I will get that I will grant that obviously and I will what if I just said no what if I said I don't AG to it I'm blowing up your settlement thinking you have power this but what if I just said I don't agree um okay I will get that out and that'll be the first thing I'll send it independently thank you um as a oneof and you will receive that I do have a new um pargal so it will come from my new paralal her name is solar so be on the lookout solar solar missing the page okay um next meeting is scheduled for September 9th 28 days from today yes did you want to talk about November 4th real quick yes let's speak about November 4th since that is apparently Veterans Day I or the 11th is the 11th is Veterans Day correct okay so um yeah that's now where I'm because for November that it is I think it was scheduling so you can't do November is that I don't know yet did you I don't have a problem with November 4th I actually don't have a problem with November 11th I mean technically my office is closed but I can be here so okay then we'll just keep it for November 4th okay if that changes let me know we'll do um but think we're good and December 9th shouldn't conflict with anything um thank you uh but I just want on the record I'm handing these to you yes those are for you um and then I just like to reiterate because I don't like I don't want to run into that again I will hand those back to you every time I receive them because they are public records and I am not the purveyor of public records but um you know I just Ed the the addresses that were given to me on the notices um so I'm not sure why I'm getting them returned unless you guys are also getting them returned which um you guys can figure out yeah um thank you for this yep and uh and anything else we need to talk about great then we're adjourned no adjourned thank you e