##VIDEO ID:m-VtxeEQg-M## e e e e e e e e e e welcome to the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement special magistrate hearing for September 9th 2024 my name is Erica aello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases I am a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida bar and in board certified in city county and local government law I have been appointed to this position in accordance with the authority set forth in chapter 162 Florida Statutes and the City of St Pete Beach code of ordinances I am not an employee of the city of St 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 fundamental fairness and due process is afforded to all parties after hearing all relevant evidence I will issue an order the order will be reduced to writing and all parties will be provided with a copy so please ensure that we have your current address or email address Additionally you advised that I do not have the authority to Grant you a variance permit or special exception of any kind my role is solely to determine whether a city code has been violated and under some circumstances to provide a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever means are available to you please be advised that you may be subject to a fine and a lean may be recorded on your property if the violation is not corrected by the compliance deadline if one is provided if you wish to present any evidence today please sign in at the podium before you speak and it will be necessary that you swear or affirm to tell the truth therefore at this time I will swear in any Witnesses anyone wishing to speak today 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 whole truth and nothing but the truth so sworn are there any changes to the agenda this morning morning special magistrate there is a a change to the agenda case number 2024 0475 5501 Gulf Boulevard is continued to the November 4th hearing and my name is Pete D on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement this is agenda item 4 a or for what is it for D okay and this is the repres the respondent represented by Mr denhart yes okay right any other changes to the agenda uh we made an error in an address uh 369 U should be 396 instead of 369 case number 2C 202 40172 the address is 369 41st Avenue St P Beach thank you okay and Madame magistrate if I may on the first one just for the record um this continuous to November 11th we just include language that it doesn't preclude the city from adding to the evidence November 4th um there's no need to be redundant and said you can short-term rent because that's what our code says sure thank you okay and prior to proceeding I did receive three orders that were returned undeliverable to my office based on the last hearing so I will leave these with the city as they are public record thank you okay moving on to case number 2A or agenda item 2A rather uh case number 202 40011 city of St Pete Beach versus colonades apartment Condo Association thank you good morning special magistrate Louis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement this is a status hearing on a 30-day extension to secure an after the pack excuse me an after the fact permit for the fence um this was not done to its entirety City will be asking for $250 per day starting August 7th 2024 until property is compliant plus $325 in administrative costs okay so the permit had not been applied for as of yet it has been applied for but it has not been secured okay and I don't have a copy of my order in my agenda materials did it say that it had to be the order had excuse me did the order say that the permit had to be obtained secured okay mhm yes ma'am okay and you said $250 a day is what you're requesting from 87 until compliance yes yes ma'am okay is anyone here on behalf of the respondent yes okay could you please state your name and affiliation with the respondent for the record Greg Geral I'm the HOA president okay and you have the authority to speak on and represent the colon a department e condo association yes I do okay and what would you like to say um we applied for the after the fact permit um by the I think on August 4th it was denied um I think we are in the process of trying to secure a new survey because the survey didn't locate the fence according to what they needed for the permit office so we're trying to secure a new survey so we can resubmit the thing so we can get to the next step of getting this complet okay and um did you contact this the code enforcement department during that period of time once you got the denial of the permit and request additional time to comply I did not um I did send Lewis Cruz an email stating some of the facts that we had looked up in the case and our contractor said that get the survey and then he'll resubmit it does have a Target date of 919 on the denial I don't know what that means yeah neither do I yeah so I mean what I'm trying to do is secure a new survey company because the the past survey company that did the first one um I think it was in April didn't complete it and now they won't they're not interested in completed for whatever reason okay so I'm trying to secure a new survey company okay through our our current contractor and if I recall I nobody um from colonades there was a a resident here at the initial um administrative hearing but nobody from the HOA was present um we had a management change and a president change and a board board member change right in the middle of all this um our our last uh president um left for health reasons I then got nominated to do it um when I got this handed to me at the end of May I called Mr Cruz we discussed it on the phone he said I had until June 28th to submit for a permit that first contractor that they had hired prior to me um then skipped out didn't do nothing basically took the money from the HOA and he's gone so then by the eth I was not here because I he I was told that entire time that he was going to get this permit done it didn't get done I missed the eth I was I live out of state and then uh you guys gave us a 30-day extension I hired a new contractor we submitted our past survey with the new contractor on August 4th you guys denied it and here we are today so I'm currently looking for a new survey company to get this done okay and I think the issue is just locating the fence on the current survey or if the new company has to make a whole new survey to locate the fence but this fence from what I can tell has been there for maybe 20 years and alls we did was power wash it and then it got cited from him back in March and you know here we are today okay all right thank you very much and you you said you have you signed in on the okay perfect all right um any questions for the respondent from the city I just have one question Madam magistrate um so what what took so long from July 8th to August 4th to apply for the permit if you can just explain that for the record we uh hired a new contractor he had to get all his documents together and apply for it he applied for it on August 4th it was supposed to be applied for by the 7th and then it was denied on the 7th I believe okay so after the eth we were notified I think by mail or whatever it was two or three days and then uh we then secured a new contractor we had to get him paid prior to him doing it so then then I had to go to the management and all that and then by the time we got him paid then he applied for it as within a week thank you okay anything else okay anything further from the city no ma'am okay all right um I have already found that the property was in violation the property did not come into compliance with my prior administrative order I am going to assess a $50 a day fine starting on August 7th um running until the property is in compliance um and you can certainly get with the city on that and see whatever you can do after that but um until the property because of the time frame that it took understanding that there were challenges that's why I'm not issuing the $250 a day but but there was somebody from your community that showed up at the initial hearing um you had the ability to stay in contact with the city and asked for additional time none of that was done so I am going to assess the $50 a day fine plus the $325 in administrative cost and I will get you an order to that effect okay okay moving on to case number 2024 0287 city of St Pete Beach versus Thomas M C revocable trust and Thomas M C as trustee thank you madam special magistrate um this is a status hearing on a 30-day extension to secure an after the fact permit for the structure um property is not compliant the city will be asking for $250 per day starting August 7th 2024 until compliant plus $325 in administrative costs okay and again I don't have a copy of the order can you just remind me what this case was and this was for like the tiki hut structure that was built in the back of the the property right okay I do recall that okay and so has the permit been applied for do you know um not to my knowledge I don't know if he ever applied for it and if you did it just didn't get secured all the way to its entirety okay all right thank you very much is the respondent here or anyone here on behalf of the respondent good morning good morning please state your name for the record name is tomn k Mr Ki what's going on I applied for the uh permit two months ago over two months ago um I got a receipt from Joan Bolan thank you for doing business with the city of St P Beach and I thought we were done okay so you you're saying that you've applied for and secured the permit on this I've never I paid for the permit and never got any response except the rece from ban okay do you happen to did you contact the city to see where in the process they were because this was something that was already built correct and so you were just trying to get an after Thea permit for it okay um and you what day can you recall what day you applied for the permit it was over two months ago two and a half months okay I was here two months ago I'm I'm a patient up at mfet I had to go through a procedure up there and so you gave me the extra month right and the permit was applied for prior to that actually she paid for it got the receipt okay and you never heard anything back from the city in that per we were done okay all right any questions for the respondent no okay um on behalf of the city do you guys know I mean I understand usually some sometimes you have your building official or your someone from your planning department here do you know where they are on the permitting process on this no not to my recollection I just remember looking and then on our you know on our software program I can see if something's been opened and that they've obtained the permit um when I went to check it last week I did not see that there was a permit actually obtained so I'm not 100% sure on the exact details I should have brought that um but I I do not know all the way through okay um on this one because I have I have testimony that says it was applied for and that the city has been dragging its feet for the last two and a half months and I don't have anything from the city saying why that might be or any other information and there's no one here that I can ask on behalf of the city I'm going to Grant an extension on securing the permit um until the next hearing which will be on October 14th um so we will come back again on October 14th and see what the status of the permit is U Mr C I would suggest trying to contact the city um to see where your permit is and if there's anything that they need from you because it sounds like there's just a lack of communication okay so you want me to come back on October 14th as if we need to come back on October 14th you can we come back but I will give you until October 14th to get that permit secured and then we'll check in on that date to see what's going on with the city if you've gotten your permit or not go right now okay thanks thank you very much okay moving on to agenda item 2C case number 2024 0172 city of St Pete Beach versus NXT Acquisitions Court morning Madam magistrate Steve River on behalf of city of St Pete Beach code enforcement it's a status hearing for the 30-day extension to secure permits for work being done on the property I have here it's an online application only they have not secured the permits this was submitted on 87 on 88 we did send them uh what needed to be done to complete the permit so it says building application uploaded to the permit the whole scope of work needs to be on the application application needs to be signed and notorized by the owner of the property and contractor needs a FEMA packet nooc and subcontractor sign on there's been no communication since then since then okay okay is anyone here on behalf of the respondent NXT Acquisitions Corp have you heard anything from the property owner on this I heard from the one of the property managers um she said that they were trying to get another contractor to to fill out permit we kind of went around in circles they were answering their own questions it looked like there was so many people in the email that one person would ask and somebody from the same Corporation was answering the email but according to this they had 30 days to have it done 87 they waited till to the last minute to even get an online application in um but there's been no movement there I haven't heard since the last hearing I think I've heard from them twice and that's it okay okay just checking again anyone here on behalf of NXT Acquisitions Corporation okay and what is the city requesting uh based on the extension we're looking for 250 a day from 87 until compliant plus the 325 for administrative cost okay I going to Grant the city $250 a day from 87 until the property comes into compliance as well as $325 in administrative costs and I'll get you an order to that effect thank you good luck all right moving on to agenda item 2D case number 20243 68 city of St Pete Beach versus 3511 Gulf Boulevard LLC good morning again stevenh River on behalf of the city of St P Beach code enforcement this is a status hearing on the 28 day extension to cut the grass weeds and remove the palm frond and silt fence uh I did speak with the property owner um he did get the property cut in time I do have some photos of the overhead please so this is the lot here showing that the properties in compliance now I did talk to him forgot to mention to him again about the sil fence so we're willing on working with him I do have his phone number now other than that the property looks great the complaints the complaintant actually called to say thank you so at this time just looking for administrative costs and what amount are the administrative costs 325 I'm sorry okay is anyone here on behalf of the property owner 3511 Gulf Boulevard um just for the record I did receive a garal voicemail I have no idea what was said on the voicemail my pargal told me the gentleman was calling about 3511 GF Boulevard I did not speak with him but just for purpos of the record town he had hired a contractor contractor came once cut the grass never showed up again um he actually got back to me after the the hearing uh went out there the next day did an assessment hired another contractor and then came into the city to explain what was going on uh I went out did a followup inspection missed a silt fence during the inspection so I'm not going to hold that to him but I do have his number just a matter him pick up fence yeah okay great well then uh I will find that the property is now coming to compliance and I'm only going to assess $325 in administrative costs thank you all right moving on to 2E case number 2024 0157 city of St Pete Beach versus 108 Airport Road LLC thank you special magistrate leis Cruz representing the city of s p Beach code enforcement this is a status hearing on a 28-day extension to bring the property into compliance um this was where they had the dumpsters out that were exposed that needed to have a dumpster enclosure um that was not fulfilled um they put in for a permit but I don't think it me any of the the marks that needed um so the city will be asking for $250 per day starting 9924 until compliant plus $325 and administrative costs okay is anyone here on behalf of the property owner8 Airport Road LLC if you could please come up state your name and affiliation with the respondent for the record yeah I'm um Jonathan Finch the general manager over at Resort rentals and do you have the ability to speak on behalf of represent 108 Airport Road l y yeah have a power attorney I need to if you just put on the overhead that's fine okay perfect thank you very much and then um to be honest a lot of this stuff is um is is me 100% And my lack of understanding and never have gone through this before and so I'm just going to take full ownership of it so we did um originally when um when we got the first citation acted immediately and uh and I I called multiple contractors I need to get approval for the for that kind of stuff but I got multiple contractors had someone come out they they said uh I can do this but they looked it up and said no this needs to be a masonry uh enclosure and then um so I got a different contractor that person came out and said and I'm used to contractors and everything takes a long time it was during my busy season um the contractor I I ended up going with um I put her even I think on the email with uh Mr Cruz here and uh and she said yep I'm a I'm in contact with the the city I'll get this done um and what what else do I need to do my fault I should have went to him and not to the contractor I guess uh first time doing it but and then um and then fast for cuz I know how long it takes um I get something else saying hey it didn't didn't comply and I go wait hold on so I call her up I go hey I'm going through my busy season what's what's going on she said uh through the email I'm uh decided that we're too busy to do any of this so it went from I'm going to do it uh don't worry about I'll talk to the city everything on your behalf and do all that uh bill you for the hours to um I'm pass due and it nothing ever did it so I that day got another contractor um uh she uh just had to schedule multiple different appointments to have her walked a lot uh her name's uh Sonia with kitchen and bath she then um said she was going to speak to the city all that stuff now we're basically here which I actually I thought the permit was done as of the 28th but uh I again not knowing everything I need to do I didn't realize that uh so what I have here I guess doesn't doesn't mean anything so I thought the permit was actually submitted and done on the 28th of uh last month so um if it's not then figure out what else I gota do and I'll do that so I am in contact with Sonia she's awesome uh but apparently she did miscommunication that was sent via to her email saying that a certain document that was needed she filled that out and turned that in on I believe the 26th or 27th and then I got this email from her stating told me to bring this in and saying that the permit everything's good okay can you put that on the overhead so I can see what you're looking at it was good but I again if it's not I'll I'll do whatever it takes so okay can overhead please oh sorry you're good can me zoom in a little bit Yeah my eyesight is not what it used to be can we zoom in a little bit please you want just um yeah no it's the other way oh yeah yeah okay so it basically just says this is the online application everything's been submitted but it's not yet been it through and and some of the holdup was the original as you can see like the description the scope of work is the dumpsters um it doesn't it's but again it's also the on the leftand side where we need to do a variance for the laundry which isn't on there but it's it's a separate one but kind of falling under the same umbrella so they're they've been I guess they submitted for a variance I don't know the status of that but on the other side of the building we got to do that as well uh but it's right it's we're budded up against right up against a uh a house that has a 4ft fence so I guess we need the variant for uh six foot you can speak to that so um but again yeah it's I apologize for my ignorance on a lot of this stuff because I don't know the codes I don't know a lot of this stuff so I am I am learning but this just happened to be my trust in a contractor that didn't pan out and then I had to start all over okay any questions from the city of the respondent uh just one so you already to your knowledge you've already applied or they've already applied for a variance for the fence for the the fence height okay because we had to go we had to get um we had to do another uh site map I prob site plan site plan there we go had to do another site plan so we had to schedule that them to come out uh uh draw off the blueprints and and then then submit it but but I was told this this stuff takes a long time sometimes so that that was my fault for thinking the long time I was just good so putting the enclosure aside which is um a permitted item um you picked up the paint cans the debris equipment stored outside with public view all of that's been cleaned up yeah yeah absolutely actually two different uh the we picked up that stuff pretty pretty soon after um within the within the time frame but recently we went even more above and beyond we actually did trimming the tree we we cleaned everything out over there so um I think we were to standards though very soon after the original citation um but uh I do have a quick question is the enclosure permit for the masonry dumpster enclosure um contingent on receiving the variants that it it was made I think it is um Brandon who came out and walked uh with me it that was made that I I think it is but I don't think anything was in writing that it had to be but but I was made to think that not maybe intentionally well it so I I don't I could be wrong on that I thought it had to be done at the same time um said hey you're doing this so you you should probably do this too okay Mr Cruz can you speak to that so for the dumpster enclosure he doesn't need the varing the variance is for a different situation that he's having with the um he has like bins sitting out there on the side of the road that need to be enclosed as well um that's a whole separate issue that they're trying to do at the same time so that's why he's kind of getting them bundled together now when the dumpster enclosure should have been you know kind of the number one thing to get done because that's what was cited sure but if he submits a permit to the city is the city going to know that the dumpster enclosure takes precedent over a permit application for a building permit that otherwise includes a site plan review or anything of that nature or they going to run them concurrently that that's what I would know that's kind of a permitting question for well that's why I'm asking you with the city to see if that's I I can let it be known to the permitting Department of course um but because of the contractor trying to put them together you know it's reviewed together so that's what I would know sure okay and I I will say one thing and again this is nothing not to be argumented at all it but it the the reason why they're put together is because every time I spoke to someone about it it was you well you need to do this also so I I just that I felt like that was a fair assumption I need to do both but I would have if it was just the dumpster that that's way easier job than than doing the left side of the of the building with the with the variant which which again my uh me not knowing I should have just I should have known that I guess that's right just sounds like they were running them concurrently okay um based on the testimony here today I am going to allow for an additional 30-day extension until the October 14th hearing um to since the permanent has been applied for to let it go through the process and then we will reconvene on October 14th to see if there's been a good faith effort to secure that permit I'm not going to issue any fines or uh award any costs here today um but we'll come back on the 14th and see what the status of the property is and I will get you guys just make sure we have your contact information um because I am going to send an order to that effect so just sign in if you haven't already yes may I ask uh one question yes are you opposed to B ating the permits if need be to get the dumpster enclosure squared away while you work through the variants I'm assuming that separate the two that word is today so that's good um yeah that's I have no no issue with thank you okay all right and and I one one final question because I know um uh Mr Cruz talked about before but I heard kind of two different things um in the mean like there was we're supposed to do the enclosure but I was was just a question on the um every contractor we brought out numerous contractors we brought out said why why didn't you just put a fence right you know from here to here covering that why does it need to incl so all the contractors were telling me man this doesn't need the enclosure and when they looked up the code it was kind of uh iffy on whether not if there was a if there was a fence there you didn't you you shouldn't have needed one so that's why a question that you should bring up with the building department um with the city of St Pete Beach they're going to be able to interpret their code and let you know exactly what needs to be done but this is something that's come before me before inde depending upon where it is it needs to be a masonry enclosure for dster well thank you so much thank you okay moving and special magistrate real quick you said November 14th October 14 October 14th okay thank you yeah yes did you see permit needs to be SEC we we will come back on October 14th to to do a status check to see where you are in the process but if to Mr McConnell's point if you can go to the city and separate those two permits so that you can actually secure the masonry dumpster one I would do that so that you can come into compliance the code case will go away should next door um Madam Clerk yeah uh October 14th is the city's open right I know it's uh Columbus Day it's Columbus Day but that's the day that it said that that was the next year yes we are okay I can never remember I believe it's indigenous people indigenous people day yes thank you for the clarity yeah Matthew my whole childhood just I know okay moving on to 2f case number 202 40265 city of St Pete Beach versus Barbara McMahon the estate of thank you special magistrate this is a status hearing on a 28 28-day extension to bring the property into compliance um this was the property that had like overgrown grass in the RightWay on the property outside storage I had a junk vehicle which was removed um I went by this morning it is still out of compliance the city will be asking for $250 per day starting 9924 until the property is compliant plus $325 in admin costs okay have you had a chance to speak with the property owner's daughter I know she was the personal representative of the estate yes um she hadn't reached out most of the time I was talking to her husband who was doing most of the conversations that I've had with the pertaining to the property um she has not reached out he has not reached out since the last special magistrate hear okay so nothing from either of them okay all right is anyone here on behalf of the Barbara MCM estate okay seeing no one um did you have something question for Mr Cruz have you Pro did you go out to the property at all yes this morning and it's still yeah still out of compliance has overgrown grass has still piles of dead uh vegetative debris stacked up against the house um and still some trash and stuff scattered in the backyard what about the vehicle that was on the property the vehicle was removed the fence was fixed it was all rusted he did get that fixed um it looks like they may have mowed at some point but again just not taking care of the property looks like it may have overgrown again as well do you have any photographs of that by chance yes for this is the property at 579th Avenue okay so they've made some efforts but they're still not in compliance and they have not contacted you to tell you that the property is otherwise in compliance or or any no usually he's pretty responsive the husband would reach out and he hasn't even contacted me at all since okay um I will find that the property is still not in compliance uh with the city's code or the Magistrate's order I am going to assess a $50 a day fine from 99 until the property comes into compliance and award the $325 in administrative cost okay moving on to agenda item 2 H case number 2024 0150 city of St Pete Beach versus Russell Zimmerman Mr Cruz I think we skipped one did we yes G oh we did uh moving on to 2 G case number two 0 24281 city of St Pete Beach versus Richard Allen long revocable trust and Richard Allen long as trustee thank you special magistrate this is Lewis Cruz representing the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement this is a status hearing on a 20day 28 day extension to bring the property into compliance um the property was to submit for a permit um for the sign that was there for like breakfast lunch bar sign that they have there um either remove it to come into compliance or obtain a permit it has not been REM removed nor has a permit been applied for so the city will be asking for $250 per day starting 99224 plus $325 for administrative cost until compliant okay anyone here on behalf of the property owner Richard Allen long revocable trust or Richard and Richard Allen long as trustee anyone here on behalf of Richard Allen long revocable trust or Richard Allen long as trustee 6800 Gulf Boulevard okay seeing no one I will find that the property is still not in compliance with the city's code or the Magistrate's order and assess a $250 a day fine starting 99 2024 until the property comes into compliance as well as $325 in administrative costs right now moving on to agenda item 2H case number 202 4150 city of St Pete Beach versus Russell Zimmerman thank you special magistrate leis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach Cod enforcement this is a status hearing on a 28-day extension to bring the property into compliance this with the property that had like outside storage on the porch had deteriorating wood on like the fascia boards rusting on metal um post that it has on the porch and an unregistered vehicle I did do a reinspection this morning I have the pictures if you would like to see but it is not in compliance so the city will be asking for $250 per day starting 99 2024 until compliant plus 32 $5 in administrative costs and have you had any communication with the property owner at all he has not reached out since the last time I talked to him probably a week before the previous special magistrate um he has not reached out to me at all since okay and has there been any movement on bringing the property in compliance SS in the exact same state that it was previously at the exact same state it was at previously the only thing was and I'm pretty sure it was the the same thing as last time I can't remember but he did have overgrown grass which he has been staying on top of there was no overgrown grass it was just everything else I think there was the last time we were here for that I think you got that taken care of okay anyone here on behalf of Mr Zimmerman or is Mr Zimmerman here anyone have be here on behalf of Mr Zimmerman or is Mr Russell Zimmerman here seeing no one I will find that the property is still not in compliance with the city's code or the special Magistrate's order I will assess a $250 a day fine beginning on 99 2024 running until the property comes into compliance and assess a $325 administ R of costs thank you all right case agenda item 2 I case number 202 4381 city of St Pete Beach versus Jason G Gabby and Janelle Gibby thank you m magistrate St River on behalf of the city of St P Beach the PowerPoint please this case was continued from the last magistrate hearing uh was unable to present last time case number 2024 0381 respondent Jason and Janelle gabay violation address 6 Mangrove Point violation description the property is in violation of 98 123.1mi required of the code of ordinance of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 73 notice violation dated 73 notice of violation compliance date 718 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 722 2024 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed this is the affidavit opposing six-man grow point this is the unpermitted fence that was erected close to the structure this is a picture of the fence that's now removed corrective action property must obtain a permit or remove def fence near the dwelling property is compliant recommended fine 325 for administrative cost only and that concludes my presentation okay is there anyone here on behalf of Mr or Mrs gabay morning magistrate my name is Charles geris with law firm of keen Reese geris in St Petersburg 1766 6th Street North s 205 uh I represent the owners Jason and Janelle gabay and as you've seen the uh property is in compliance this this was a result of a mistake uh when my clients purchased the property in August of 2023 it was an eyesore rundown hadn't been taken care of there was some if you're familiar with lattice work um boards at Lowe's or Home Depot crepet boards my client believed that he could just replace those with these gate with these fence panels I'm sorry fence panels he was wrong uh as soon as we found out about the violation I reached out to Mr der I reached out to Matthew McConnell at the city attorney's office we had some back and forths about after the fact permits we decided the best way to go was to remove it just take it down it was gone um I I asked the mag R to either wave the administrative fee or to reduce it in half or something we I right away started communicating with the city and the city attorney's office to try and resolve this quickly I think we resolved it certainly to the satisfaction of the city defense is gone so the violation is gone and I just ask the magistrate to take that into consideration thank you certainly I do have a question for you um understanding you're asking for a waiver of the administ ministrative costs the city had to go through the steps in order to bring this case before me is there a reason that you know of why your clients were not able to remedy the situation either by the notice of the the notice um in the notice of violation or I believe this was previously continued so by the last hearing it was previously continued because I requested that I had a conflict with another hearing so I appreciate the city doing that um otherwise uh the the back and forth between myself and the city in terms of why the permit was required uh what's the best thing to do how long would it take those kinds of things um yes uh my my client you know is paying my hourly fee the city incurred some costs uh I would just ask the magistrate to take into account um that my client um did the right thing and tried to address it right away anything from the yes do you know when your client came into compliance what date I I don't know the exact date but it was obviously prior to July 29th the picture is dated July 29th so it was obviously prior to that I I believe it was a few days before that um I had asked uh Mr derer if we could dispense with the hearing Al together after the fence came down I was told that that that wasn't appropriate there still needed to be a hearing I was was hoping to get rid of the necessity for a hearing but um it it was within 5 days of the July 29th picture Council okay may I just confirm that with um Mr Rivera yes I'd have to go back and we wouldn't be here if it was in compliance before the compliance date so violation went out we passed the compliance date there was communication after shortly after the compliance but by that point the property was already posted yeah I'm not sure had stated to me on the phone that he didn't know about it until he saw the posting on his property and that's what was stated to me from your I I can't tell you today sitting here in all cander I cannot tell you that it was done by the 18th of July right but I can tell you it was done prior to the 29th obviously I will say once there was communication started there was Swift movement but I we were not comp and the city has obviously an objection to waving administrative fees um this was a 60-day process from start to finish I was involved multiple times I'm not even charging for all my time to be honest with you um I think it's fair if if you want a reduction then we can recalculate and charge exactly what was charged and maybe maybe address it that way but I think 325 is more than fair well and I'm also taking into consideration that the property wasn't in compliance by the compliance State and under chapter one 62 the city does have the ability and the right if it so chooses to ask for a daily running fine from 718 until the property came into compliance on the 29th and they're not doing that so while I appreciate the request um I do find that the property is now in compliance with the city's code um but I will find that it was not in compliance as of the date of the the deadline within the notice of violation which was properly addressed and received by your client so I will award the $325 in administrative costs thank you magistrate thank you very much for your time thank you okay we Have No Agenda items under three repeat violations moving on to agenda item 4 a under new cases case number 202 4429 city of St Pete Beach versus cast Holdings LLC Mr Rivera thank you madam magistrate stevenh River on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement case number 2024 0429 respondent cast Holdings LLC violation address is 3612 Golf Boulevard violation description the property is in violation of section 12.2 permitted principal uses and structure of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 723 2024 notice of irreparable or irreversible violation dated 7:24 2024 notice of hearing dat it and post it to the property 724 2024 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witness this is the Affidavit of posting at 362 Golf Boulevard this is a screenshot of the Airbnb listing so it shows the reviews here may 2024 May 2024 April 2024 we have June 2024 stayed About a Week May 2024 stayed about a week can you go back one slide Mr Rivera just want to make sure that iris is a new one thank you bless you thank you and we hear July 2024 stay about a week June 2024 stay with kids number seven June 2024 stay about a week corrective action the property can only be rented monthly recommended f is $1,000 per review for eight reviews plus the 325 for administrative cost can you my presentation back I didn't I'm sorry maybe my math is bad I saw four reviews not eight so are the three that you initially did those were the three they're allowed to have correct this isn't this isn't in the uh pass area they're monthly rentals only okay because my agenda packet says are are they not RM it is RM it's the RM 12.2 says transient occupancy less than 30 days is only permitted three times within a 12month period correct correct oh boy thank you I was about to make the same distinction and I do want to clarify if we can go back um from the beginning please all the way to the front first just to the where the review start okay so may may April May May those are all three allotted and accounted for correct so they're allowed to have those okay technically no further until May of 202 so there's there was actually there's there's three in May there's three how are there three in may go back again oh the no go back again iris is different so you have one in April you have Vicky Zach in May and then iris is in may as well next slide please so iris is right those are two so the 1 May 2024 is the first violation correct and then June so that's two that's two go ahead back or forward forward three four five and then one two so that's five and can we include the Airbnb policy because the one in the middle of the screen says stayed with kids the city's position is because the one preceding that says say State about a week you wouldn't be able to get a 30day correct I agree I accept airbnb's review policy into evidence thank you so then by the city's count there are five that are in violation of the code and correct that is irreparable irreversible asking for $1,000 for each of the five violations city is also requesting proof of rentals and no short-term rentals until July of 2025 July 2025 which is a year from the last comment and the 325 in administrative cost correct okay anything further from the city no ma'am all right anyone here on behalf of cast Holdings LLC if you could please come and state your name and affiliation with the respondent for the record uh John castana good morning magistrate um I apologize but I had no knowledge of this rule um there are uh a lot of folks in the neighborhood that are renting weekly um that um I've known of and and I've basically following their action uh upon finding out of what the actual code was I've changed all of arbnb I changed my website updated everything so I would not violate any rules or don't want to cause any problems um OB I don't want to you know have any issues at all so um I was unaware of it I made every corrective action I could to prevent it going forward okay any questions from the city um you said your name was John castellana and I'm assuming you're the manager registered agent of the LLC um I don't have any questions besides uh do you have any addresses or names of the people that you know in your neighborhood that are doing it um yes do you mind providing those to the city I prefer not to okay I'm sure if the city looked into it they it was worth a try it was an effort I was going to be real surprised if he was like yes my neighbors are and my name and address is right right thank you it's like did you kill that guy yes I did no no nothing further um do you understand what we're what we're doing here today is because you're allowed three so what what we're requesting is that you can't do it for less than 30 days for now a year yes I understand and then once that year is up then you're allowed three less than 30 days in a 12-month period correct I I spoke to Barry I believe yes he said that it's uh actually 28 days or 29 days depending on the month 30 days February is always yeah an interesting okay I just want to make sure you understand thank you sir it was uh pretty specific on 30 days would sound little weird okay thank you well very good um I do find that the property is in violation of the stated code section um I am going to assess $1,000 per each of the irreparable irreversible violations which of there which of which there are five um plus the administrative cost of the city of $325 you will receive an order to that effect um and I would consult with the city to see what you can do about that if anything um and also make oops make sure we have your information you do so I can send you that over thank you very much okay so there's a $5,300 fine it's $5,000 for each so $5,000 in fines $325 in costs so $ 5325 if my math is correct you can work with the city there's a a lean reduction process and other things that you can do in this situation you can work with them offline okay moving on to agenda item 4B case number 202 4358 city of St Pete Beach versus babet Simone or Simon morning Steven Rivera again on behalf of the city of St P Beach code enforcement case number 2024 0358 respondent babbit Simon violation address is 305 goway violation description the properties in violation of section 44.5 A1 2 B1 2 3 4 5 6 and 7 standards for existing beachfront lighting of the code of ordinance of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 523 2024 notice of violation dated 72 2024 violation compliance date 716 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 8119 2024 the following are true and accurate representations of what I witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at 305 go way this is a picture of the property from the beach this is the lighting violation that light picture there is on the north side of the building it's another light toward the backside that could be seen from the beach on the north side of the building on a followup inspection there was uh three more lights that were visible the two are facing are on the west side of the building in the front there on the bottom and then the one to the right that's on the south side of the structure same lights in the front front and then the two on the side both lit during this inspection corrective action property must turn off lights Shield lights or replace the bulbs to be Turtle light compliant between the dates of May 1st through October 3 first property is compliant recommended fine is 325 plus administrative cost I do have pictures of it being in compliance so this is the property now the light that is seen here can't be seen from the beach at the time of my followup inspection they're replenishing the dunes so I couldn't get out to where they were working at this is actually right from uh where the Dune starts so I'm on the street side of the Dune out on the beach side of the Dune in this photo here but you can see it's completely dark um another picture from the other angle so she is in compliance now and that concludes my presentation okay is there anyone here on behalf of the property owner beet Simon anyone here on behalf of Miss Simon did you happen to speak with her at all so yeah we spoke with her uh myself Mr der I actually spoke with her attorney um Miss Babette isn't uh she's an elderly woman okay sometimes has a hard time remembering things sure so we were trying to work with her it was after the fact that the property was posted um had we had gotten communication prior to that we probably could have avoided been here um but I did speak with her attorney uh he did promise me it would be done so I actually went out on Thursday Thursday night was my last day before the weekend and it was in compliance like he said it would be so okay do we know if they just shut off the lights or if they've replaced the bulbs the lights weren't on when I did a day inspection I did see a couple lights were uh like the bug style Turtle compliant lights I think the other ones they just turned off some of the lights are motion censored they weren't on at the time of inspection um but again that's part of the corrective action they said they can just turn them off right so at this time I'm I'm going to say it's they're compliant okay okay I am going to find that the property is in compliance with the city's code AS of the date of the hearing um and I'm not going to assess any fines but I will assess the $325 in administrative costs thank you moving on to agenda item 4 C case number 2024 0430 city of St Pete Beach versus Christopher and Briana Smith thank you special magistrate Louis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement this is Code Enforcement case number 2024 0430 the respondent Christopher Smith and Brian s Smith violation address is 7700 B oh excuse me basa Drive violation description the property is in violation of section 32.5 prohibited uses and structures of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary the initial inspection 724 2024 notice of irreparable or irreversible violation dated 724 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 7:24 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at 7700 bokaa drive on July 24th 2024 this is the Airbnb advertisement of the property hosted by Briana which I'm assuming is the property owner just a little synopsis of the property owner just some shots of how I did my research and found the property and as you can see here there are a lot of different stays and I can go back if you would like just want to go through some some of the photos due to there being so many I kind of have at the end I know a total of the short-term rentals in 2023 in June there were two stays July there were five stays August there was four stays September three stays October five stays November two stays in 2024 there was one short-term rental stay in June can you show me the June one again and tell me how you determined that was a short-term stay say a few nights okay I missed that when you were flipping through them if you would like me to go back further I can no okay that's not necessary and that was a total of 22 short-term rentals corrective action property can only be rented monthly recommended find is $11,000 per review for 22 reviews totaling $22,000 plus $325 for administrative cost and that concludes my presentation thank you okay and just so for my purposes how are you alerted to this property or was this something that you actively found actively found sometimes when we have you know certain periods we we look through we see what we can find on Airbnb verbo sometimes Facebook stuff like that because there's so many different ways you can actually rent now so we don't have a software program for it so we do our own research okay and in finding this property that's when you determined that you went back as far as you could and found the other short-term rentals it wasn't something that was already on your radar that you just waited to prosecute no this was something that when I once I found I went back a whole year so I went back as far as I could to the time that I found it which was July 24th so I tried to get around that ballpark so I'm not going you know where's the line of how far you go back so we did we went about a year okay all right and have you had any conversations with the property owner at all no the property owners have not reached out at all okay thank you very much thank you is there anyone here on behalf of Mr and Mrs Smith Christopher or Briana Smith if you could please state your name and affiliation with the Smiths for the record uh Christopher Smith all right Mr Smith and what do you have to say um so we when we bought the property we we didn't know um we were told by our agent uh back we also live on the property but we were told that it was commercial Corridor so uh we share the same zoning with a with a brewery with restaurants um so we we just we just weren't aware um however we we do occupy one of the units um the other two units are they were rented shortterm but we also uh periods of time we would do long-term long-term stage just whatever we could really get it um and all that was really doing was helping us offset the costs of the property um once we were alerted about this and I you know looked into it more uh did more due diligence on on the zoning and the codes and such I realized that that we were in the wrong um so we've since rectified that uh within a week of the notice we we do have uh one unit's uh vacant so we are actively looking for uh you know long-term long-term tenant to place the uh set the third one uh is currently being occupied under lease agreement so that one's uh like a six-month so we you know again we just weren't aware uh first-time home buyers uh were on a single income so we I really can't afford to pay $22,000 um and I just again I just was not aware of that so um again we are you know we do have one lease in place One units occupi vacant and also upon the uh the notice we also did remove those listings uh you know from pretty much everywhere uh so again it was I do acknowledge that I was in the wrong there we me and my wife were both in the wrong but again we we don't have the money to pay the the amount of the violation so we'd ask for uh you know leniency on just the first first offense um and now knowing what the what the codes are so okay any questions from the city no okay and Mr Smith you said that you is this like a because I only have the Airbnb um advertisements is this like a Triplex or yes yes your honor it's a Triplex me and my wife uh live in the uh one of the units so we live downstairs and the other two we uh we we rent out so um again it's it is it's a partial Homestead too so we you know we're on the property we actively you know manage it and stuff like that but again we you know upon notice we we did Rectify it as soon as possible um we just again we weren't clear on the codes and we didn't really know about it we just um you know call it being naive and just not doing the proper due diligence but we uh you know again we've since rectified that okay and um how much were you charging for each of those STS on average um so there were there were a long periods of time where one of the units was was one like we were renovating it and we just weren't getting bookings but I believe one of the smaller units and it's it's like 400 ft I think we were charging between you know really depend on seasonality but it would go between like 115 to like maybe 160 170 a night on average maybe the average being like 140 to 145 okay I do have one question yep go ahead um when you say rectify the situation was there any rentals that you had that you've canceled for future like any short-term rentals that you had booked that you canceled uh yes we um I I believe that once we we did do that we I think we might have had like one or two that we we had cancelled um but I think at the point in time we we were pretty much one of the units was completely vacant the other one was um I think it maybe had again one or two that we canceled immediately as soon as I got the the notice on my door thank you so okay anything further from the city at all okay okay I am going to find that the property was in violation of the stated code section um and I'm going to tell you what I for your benefit because you've not been at all of these magistrate hearings but it is the property owner's responsibility to find out legally what you can and cannot do with the property when you purchase it in any jurisdiction um taking your realtor's word for it is not enough um so that's something you may want to bring up with your realtor um based on what I'm about to say because you do have 22 short-term rentals uh the city could have gone back as far as they could have uh they didn't they did it within a year it's very obvious you haven't negated the fact that you have violated the city's code um I consistent with all my previous rulings I am going to assess a $1,000 fine for each of those 22 rentals which will amount to two $222,000 plus the $325 in administrative costs with that being said um you can get with the city there is a fine reduction or lean reduction process that you can go through but to stay consistent with my ruling ings um based on the fact that you know you talked about you were able to renovate some of those properties that you were using to offset the costs and the fact that you didn't do any due diligence at that time that is right I am giving the ruling that I am but again get with the city after and there may be some ways to alleviate the cost to you okay thank you and make sure I have your information so I can send you an order to that effect okay we have continued case 4 d four yeah moving on to 4E case number 202 449 city of St Pete Beach versus Alberto Espinosa yes thank you special magistrate leis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement this is Code Enforcement case number 2024 0409 Alberto the respondent is Alberto espanosa violation address is 5960 Bahama Way North violation description the property is in violation of section 6.2 23 docg and 98- 65 unsightly conditions 1 A and B of the land Land Development code and the code of ordinances of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection was 717 2024 notice of violation dated 7:23 2024 notice of violation compliance date 8:15 2024 notice of hearing posted and and dated on the property 823 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of poon at 5960 Bahama Way North August 23rd 2024 there's a dock in disrepair on the back side of the property at 5960 Bahama Way North this is my first picture little bit zoomed in the dock that was in disrepair this was my reinspection of the property August 22nd comp property must remove the dock or fix the dock in which both situations require a permit property is not is now compliant I did go over and I spoke with the property owner this morning so there will be no recommended fine the city will only be asking for $325 in administrative costs if you could put on the overhead for me please property owner has removed the pieces of the dock that are in disrepair I thought it was the whole thing but it looks like there were some that was still structurally sound um so that would not require a permit um the property is now compliant and that concludes my presentation thank you okay anyone here on behalf of Mr Espinosa okay if you could please come up state your name and affiliation for the record Alberto Espinosa owner um the only thing I'd have to say is is I just got the notice a week ago I was out of the country for the summer and as soon as I did get word from a tenant who saw the posting I I he sent me the posting plus the first page of the violation letter so I didn't know what really had to be done but as soon as I got it I called Mr darar and then Mr Cruz and I got back and I immediately fixed it when I returned back in the country which was this weekend okay I did not know about it so understood okay well I am going to find that the um property is now in compliance with the state of code sections I am not going to assess any fine but I will assess the $325 in administrative costs okay thank you for your time Mr Espinosa moving right along okay moving on to 4f correct yes uh case number 2024 0391 city of St Pete Beach versus Diana Street Properties LLC thank you Madame magistrate Steven Rivera again on behalf of the city of St Beach code enforcement case number 20 24391 respondents Dana Street Properties LLC violation address is 3614 Golf Boulevard violation description the property is in violation of 46333 enumeration and 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 was 79 2024 notice of violation dated 710 2024 notice of violation compliance date 725 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 8828 2024 the following are true and accurate representations of what I witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting 3614 Golf Boulevard this is pictures of the overgrown vegetation corrective action property must cut and maintain vegetation regularly property is compliant recommended fine 32 25 for administrative cost only I did get a well I got a phone call and then I got an email over the weekend from the property owner uh explaining that they had sent someone out to cut it and change contractors uh this is a picture of the property now in compliance show you a half of the yard they did say that they were going to have a new landscaper cut and maintain it regularly apparently it was only being cut once a month according to the phone call I got but with all the rain we've had lately no kidding yeah that concludes my presentation okay anyone here on behalf of Diana Street Properties LLC good morning if you could please come state your name and affiliation for the record hi um Gita danani I am the LLC member of the dynasty Properties LLC good morning Mr I believe if I've seen you before me before all right um and not an attorney yeah um do you have anything else uh to contribute it looks like the property is in compliance now do you know if it was in compliance prior to the compliance date or so I want to show you what it looked like so when I received the citation the second citation the initial citation when he's referring at 710 it was corrected and if I can do that thing where you can see it up there overhead please I was just the you can and you can put your phone on the black mat yeah yeah um no the black mat right in front of you yep right in the Square okay so if you see this I'm go slow can see okay um can we zoom in a little bit maybe please not you screenshot and then I can zoom in um we were we were asking the camera operator oh there's somebody yeah no worries it's the voice above us the wizard um can you see it uh yes yes no but you can't see the the date can you can just testify to the date yeah or you just drag to the left on the message it won't show you date it will show you time time Fair dat up top you see here can you see the date now no just tell me what date oh I see it okay July 2th yeah okay so July 24th 915 uh that was the origin um from the original citation I had asked if that was taken care of and that's when it was taken care of July 24 you know what I didn't show you um can you see this date now you can just yeah just tell July 12th the 12 oh I see it now the 12 if you look at this I had asked my landscaper hey can you swing by 364 he said yes ma'am can you make it a priority if that was if you look at the date and he said he would make it a priority and then July 17th cuz he had said on the 12th he would take care of it on the 17th I asked again and he you swing by and then he said he's heading there now that was 17 the same day he responded and then on the 24 that I asked him he was taking care of and then that's when he sent me the pictures which you saw uh these are the pictures and the date I know you can't see but that's July 24th um and then I'm going to go forward and I got another citation which was August 2nd when the first July citation the 29th and when it was resolved I had called the officer PRI you know before the violation expiration date you need to give you 10 days to take care of it it was taken care of even though I had to like we have several properties here and I can't I liveit I I I can't come like every week to check this if grass was cut if this was cut and they're all long-term rentals so tenants usually manage that process if they need something they call the landscaper directly um they're not short-term rentals so we don't get calls on them we don't get you know they're responsible we do take care of the maintenance for this reason so the landscaping and pool we take care of um because I do know the city is extremely particular uh um but so I had called the officer Rivera and and left a voicemail I didn't get an answer back uh and I explained that hey this was taken care of you know um then I got another citation which was 3 weeks later um because July 29th as you can see it was taken care of and then on July 10 I mean August 10th is what the second citation was dated for within that 3 weeks of 21 days we had 17 days of rain and as you can see in the 10 days how much I had to chase him to make sure my lawn what did he take care of it because I don't know if you you probably didn't read the text but I said I want to have pictures documented so I can present it to the city in the event I have to come back for this for this particular reason because it's just unnecessary I truly feel like the and within that three weeks and he and he called me and he said we've had excessive amount of rate we can't you know I've been trying to get the guys go out there but every time it rains or thunderstorms we can't go out there right um anyways the second time it was taken care of show you so I have a question you did all this on I saw the dates on that the pictures were from July 24th and on that date you said then you called the code enforcement officer and left a voicemail yeah he never called me back so when I got the second citation immediately I called and he said he never went out to close the first citation and when he went out there the second time um it was overgrown it was overgrown again and then I went out there again so on that day I'm like there's no way in that time it overgrew so I drove myself out there and I want to show you pictures from that um I mean his pictures look for that reason I was like maybe he'll show pictures that look little extremely like overgrown so I went out there and measured it and yes there were some weed up to 21 in but like when I say just one one week that was 21 in everything else was probably around 10 to 12 in um but it is taken care of even then I chased my guy and I was like please go out there I had him had his office manager sent me a text to confirm that they're now going out there twice a week I understand that they're committing to going out there twice a week and I want to show you I just don't want to be out here another 3 weeks because he went out there and he saw 12 Ines of grass well and my question is you know if you called the code enforcement officer then the over the overgrown grass that you're seeing was something that developed from July 25th to the date whatever date you went out there is that what you're saying uh July 24th what you saw when it was cut to August 10th August 10th this was cut so now if you so this is from the office they messaged me this hey this is Taylor Bill's landscaping or it would be $60 to cut1 120 a month they were charging me $100 a month to go out there once a month now they dropped it to it's only 120 to to go really not that big of a deal and I said yes can you please email it to me um the agreement cuz I wanted to forward the email to him but they never emailed again the I know there's so many people come in through here and um I'm sure you've had work on your house done it is impossible to for contractors landscapers to I mean they do go out there and do their job but to the extreme of managing something because they do five of our properties out here um and I don't hear I haven't heard a single complaint from any of my tenants that hey this is an issue or overgrown um or you know landscapers not doing their job they are I mean out of in the last you know six years we've been out here this is the the only landscaper in the last year and a year and a half that I've had is actually very good and receptive to this level I mean I know that it doesn't feel like I'm harassing him every other day I'm like did you go out there because I don't want to pay $375 or $250 fine per day right um but yes um so now you can see that it has been resolved and there's proper procedures he recommended you need to go twice a month instead once a month it is just a lot um but you can see and then I for more pictures I like please send me pictures if you went out there and this is what it looks like now oh you can't see can we see the overhead again thank you okay did you see yes okay any questions from the city I just have one question probably for Mr Cruz or Mr Rivera what notice is she's speaking on on August 2nd there was a notice that went out I believe in November was a courtesy notice was the first time November okay let's discuss November that was almost a year and a half ago okay sorry sorry so November is the first Coury notice this time we actually sent out it was in August it was an actual notice of violation thece I think you're refering to is the affid posting on property so the only notice of violation I have in the packet is from July 10th so are you Prosecuting a July 10th violation based on a not violation that you're now saying was issued in August no no I'm sorry the notice violation was in July August I went to close out do a followup close out case and I was property and do you recall receiving a voicemail from Miss Dan I do remember talking to her last week right after the property um and then I've had several emails from her saying that she was going to have the property maintained regularly um um I don't remember getting a phone call but again around that time frame I was out of the office I did explain that to uh the respondent that's why I didn't get closed out I don't remember getting a phone call on 24th that's the day July 24th July 24th July 24th remember getting a phone call on that date um and again when I did go to Clos it out it was almost a month later and it was overgown again anything from the city let me but there I mean there's a pattern even if it was two weeks before that she stated she was only getting the property cut once a month it would probably been two weeks before that probably still and that's fine but you have a compliance date of July 24th and I have credible evidence saying that and demonstration that it was July 24th and that she called you and you just can't recall if you receiv received the call or not the one on the citation Mr McConnell yeah I'm gonna try to mediate this situation if if I may so Florida statute chapter 162 does allow us because technically speaking if she came into compliance prior to the date we would not be here but 162 and I can find the reference allows for a reoccurrence right so if there's a reoccurrence prior to a hearing then you can still bring them to the hearing which is why we're here today so um but I appreciate the evidence presented I think the city's position is finder in violation repeating the future no cost at all no admin costs no fines um just close out the case she clearly has a two-e issue going on I can find the citation in 162 because if that citation if magistrate doesn't agree with that citation then technically we shouldn't be here at the hearing yeah I'm going to look for that I just because it rings a bell but yeah just there is I've used it so it does say in chapter 16 2.06 subsection 2 if the violation is corrected and then recurs or if the violation is not corrected by the time specified for correction by the code inspector the case may be presented to the enforcement board even if the violation has been corrected prior to the board hearing and the notice shall so State and the notice says can't read the notice of hearing because it is a photograph the the continuation of the violations of the city C okay okay anything else yes Mr the notice that he the original notice he's speaking of that was a year ago over a year ago when we demoed the home so there were debris on the property um not significant but yes and we needed we were asked to landscape it because we couldn't leave it in the condition of just like bear cuz there were no grass before when the house was on there it was just papers and then they you know um so we did we put brand new Landscaping there um so we just grasped all the way through that was over a year ago when property or maybe yeah of the previous year November of the previous year right 2023 okay 22 22 could been we demoed it but you didn't oh no I sent a notice a courtesy notice in 23 November of 23 as well okay regardless we're not here on it was cut before you're right the home was demoed before January 1st 2024 okay yeah you're right so there was a home on the property on 23 we bought it yeah and then we tore it down in 2023 yeah okay um they the city does have the right to bring the property back toward to me because of a continuing violation in the interim however I do believe that there's credible evidence to demonstrate that even in the interim the respondent has made every effort to make sure that the property uh remains compliant with the code as well as the fact that there is no there is credible evidence to suggest that there has been a lot of rain and landscapers can't get out there when it's raining or if it's lightning um so I am not going to find that there is a violation of the stated code section and I'm not going to award the $325 in administrative costs based on the credible evidence um I will get an order out to that effect just Mr s make sure that I have your email address to send that to um I will say that to say this please be vigilant because if you come back before me and there's a continuing even if it gets remedied before the hearing but it's continuing I'm not I'm not going to be able to I may not be able to make the same ruling um because then that creates a pattern no I understand I I you know I am doing the best I can landscaper to go out there and this is the most credible company that I found like people that I found on our any of our other properties we haven't had any issues okay and I understand I just want to make sure that you know because I you know I just don't want to be interest of gr right understood okay thank you very much Mr son have a good day thank you um moving on to agenda item five no cases complied six there are no old cases seven lean reductions uh case number 20220 487 city of St Pete Beach versus oh no again um I apologize L limski ah I'll just stick with the last name the libis uh Madam special magistrate Pete dur on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement this is a lean reduction request and so you have a packet up there yes I do and so so the city is agreeable to a 90% reduction the request is for the entire um fine to be rescinded and so the city is asking or agreeing to 8750 $88,700 5050 I'm sorry $8,750 plus the administrative cost of 446 okay may I ask you a question M yes sir or Madam magistrate my ask Mr D um because the lean reduction application states that the total fine is 16696 but it's the city's position that the total fine is actually 87500 yes the plus the admin cost of 446 for a total of 87 946 you sure you guys don't want the 160 okay so this by the city's calculation the actual lean amount which looks like it runs $250 per day for 350 days beginning November 7th 2022 through October 23rd 2023 is $87,500 Plus $446 in administrative costs which differs from the applicant math which looks like it's $160,000 and the city made the yes the answer to your question Matthew is that the um amount that the respondent indicated is incorrect based on could we go to the overhead please based on uh what Madame special magistrate just mentioned $250 times can we zoom out a little bit which is calculated or thank you um is calculated from November 7th 2022 as indicated on that mhm and the property came into compliance with the certificate of occupancy do you have the first page of that order Mr derer n23 20123 the first page of Mr than's order order the first page is first page overhead um so from November 7th through um November 7th 2022 through October 23rd 20123 is how we got to 350 days times $250 can I see page mad are you still reading page one may I go to page two page two you said yeah the order says the previous orders finding the respondents to have been in violation of the cited provisions of the city code are reaffirmed as they were not Abad by the compliance date set in either the August 8th or the November 12th orders and Page Three says that the respondents of direct property into full compliance with property requirements I guess I I'm just trying to understand what full compliance means not to put you on the spot but at the time it included the um is it just maintenance or did it include a CO the co both the maintenance and Co because we had to um make arrangements with the respondent to have a construction plan the city would the the property sat um without a CO for several years and so we uh required that the respondent get the CO in in included in the um order and maintain the property at the same time yeah Mr thanos's order says only that the respondents are directed to take all action needed to have licensed contractors complete the work in accordance with permits issued by the city and in accordance with the letter from Mr Anderson dated October 10th 202 2 I don't have that letter so um but Mr derer you were at this hearing yes and is your testimony that the city's position was not only bringing it into maintenance requirements but also receiving a certificate of occupancy for the unpermitted work I mean that is correct the property set as I said um without being completed including not having a and so that was part of the requirements not just the maintenance right cuz it was chapter 98 just to sum up I think although there's 160 the city's position is it is willing to take 10% of 875 8750 plus admin cost of 446 thank you okay um is there anyone here on the behalf of the bskis yes okay if you could please come and state your name and affiliation for the record my name is Costa Levi I'm the owner co-owner with my mother and father Dom Chan Linda okay and um Mr lbbki if you'll just walk me through your request for a lean reduction sure um I was underneath the understanding from the special Magistrate um this all started with there being um the property being used with cars parked on the lot without us having a CO we were building the house and we were within our permit time during the entire thing we never violated that um and so we started to receive citations we corrected those immediately and then when we came to the special magistrate the idea was that the city did not want the construction to be taking uh too long so we had to hire we hired two uh General Contractors that were licensed and an attorney at the same time and we got everything done within 11 months of that special magistrate hearing which I I believe was within a reasonable amount of time um any other um code infraction we were completely compliant with we responded immediately anytime we had a list of anything to do we did what was necessary um and worked underneath the idea of possibly being fined but the impression that we all had was that if we completed the construction project which again was demolishing an old home and building a new one and we ran into a lot of problems with covid and things things as such and my parents were dealing with the construction process and we're being swindled a little bit there in their 70s um so I came out here and within 11 months the project was completely completed and we received our certificate of occupancy and we were only made a aware um that there we thought it was already rescinded because that was the agreement a year later after the certificate of occupancy we get an email saying uh you still owe $160,000 and $250 a day because you're not compliant in order to get the certificate of occupancy I had I myself personally did and also my attorney checked you you have to have be free of any leans or you don't you can't owe anything in order to get your certificate of occupancy and we checked at that date and it was zero so a year later this appears which is two years after this initial Court uh this initial uh special magistrate order that said yes you're completely compliant but we want you to uh Rush the construction we want you to get this done it has taken too long and uh if you do it within a reasonable time well we won't have to this will be forgiven that's what what I was operating the Assumption on there we already had to pay two general contractors for what they called emergency case situation where we had to pay them extra we had to pay two different attorneys to get this done within the 11 months since the court hearing so okay and then you so understanding all that and because I don't have the benefit of having been at either of those hearings all I have is the Benefit of Mr thanos's orders were you in you or anyone representing you or your family at any at at all of those hearings I was okay everyone okay and so then you were aware of what needed to do to in order to seek compliance with the the last order okay um and so at this point a certificate of occupancy has been issued the the case is closed and then now the city sent you a notification saying you have an outstanding lean amount um and so do you understand that the city's one their lean calculation is less than what you've come up with so I hope that this is the I have the email I could show you that Mr um D sent that was from I wouldn't argue that because you have that you want to request $160,000 fine to be reduced their calculation is it's only $887,000 to be reduced and they're willing to reduce that to 800 excuse me $8,750 plus the administrative cost the the point of that is once we get the certificate of occupancy they can't find us anymore correct the number that we were given was a kind of a ridiculous amount because it included a whole year that we were Beyond compliance so well and so that's my question Mr der what was I yeah that's that's the issue because that's probably where the 160 came from but if you look at the worksheet the fine stopped on October 23rd 2023 which is the date the co was yeah but the city the city sent me an email saying you owe us6 sure so the city's email that that it got sent was likely based on a different calculation as of today your fine reduction is it is this I'm assuming the city made a clerical error and the the actual amount of the fines is $887,500 yes okay verical error we did not know that he obtained a CO so the fines were running up until the date he got the email sub we found got a year prior okay understood and keep in mind too that I'm not reading Mr thanos's order but I'm pretty sure it's standard that you know in order to come into compliance you need to make the city aware it is a little bit confusing when you make the city aware because you receive the certificate of occupancy from the city you assume so two different departments had a lawyer dealing with it too yeah I saw Mr Dion was in there from okay um all that being said um I understand that you would like a zero reduction in the fines the information I have sitting here today is that you had representation or you had represented yourself throughout the entire process um that there was a validation in making sure that there were code viol and there were was a fine assessed with that um and that the city says that the the total amount of fines was 87,000 they are willing to reduce that by 90% totally understand that but the the the where where my question comes in is the code violations were dealt with immediately in the special magistrate hearing it turned into we want you to get your certificate of occupancy so if you get this done a reasonable rate you won't have a fine sure and I don't I don't have any problems with that but I have an order that says in order to comply with the violations of chapter 98 which I believe have to do with permitting that the way to comply with that is is to the order says hire two general contractors the order does not say receive a certificate of occupancy it just says to come into compliance the city is the one that determines whether or not that's what is compliant apparently the city is testified that the compliance would have been a receipt of a certificate of occupancy which you have done so on that date you complied but it was after the date of comp C in the order understanding like again I wasn't here I don't know what that testimony is I only have what I have here which is you're asking for zero but you're also telling me that you know you you received a certificate of occupancy x amount of days after the order said so I the wait and I'm I'm very confused I just want to clarify sure please do I am also so feel free so the yeah the at at the special magistrate meeting they said this is what you need to do you need to no longer have uh no longer be the general contractor yourself or anybody in your family we said we're not okay well then hire a general contractor we did that and get this project done as fast as possible all of the other things like moving a car or the grass or the the the the um the infractions were dealt with the next day and those are not part of the order that I'm I'm not I'm not understanding what we didn't do in order to receive any fine so okay I reread page one because this was obviously almost two years ago um if you look at subparagraph 4 where am I looking um the order from the special magistrate yeah so sub paragraph 4 says get either it says the respondents were notified that they were in violation of section 9865 and 9866 of the code of ordinances by not maintaining the property in compliance with applicable standards and were in violation of section 3.7 of the Land Development code for not for not having a certificate of occupancy we could never have had a certificate of occupancy we it was a new construction project we demolished the house and built the house how could we have a certificate of occupancy the argument was that we had a car parked on the property and that would be that we were maybe using it and we moov the car how could we how could we not I don't understand it and and then we have to get our certificate of occupancy when we're done building from the city so all of those delays were on the city's end to try to get that done I'm not sure I'm not sure how we could keep in mind find that we didn't have a certificate op we never did well that paragraph says instruction right and that paragraph says that you were notified that those were the violations not that that's what you were found in violation of so I think that's a distinction that's necessary um I we got to I remember build and then at the end of the build you get a certificate of occupancy I understand yeah and so how could the only thing I remember and I'm not testifying is I remember you being here and me being here three or four times but I cannot recollect recollect what it was about unfortunately I I don't know I don't know if Mr der does well you could help if you wanted to if you go to page two it'll summarize some of um oh I'm looking at page two the city's case which includes the fact that as Mr lowski has just said there were maintenance issues which were addressed but this property sat without construction activities for wait hold on let Mr der finish and then you can retort that if you the reason why the case came to the special magistrate at back in November is that the property sat without construction activities because of the difficulties the lowski were having um and you can see that from paragraph 8 uh that he testified that some progress has been made but additional time is needed to complete the work they were having problems with the general contractor I then explained that there were some matters that were corrected and Miss uh Anderson who was the city building division manager testified that she visited visited the property had conversations with a contractor and she then subsequently issued a letter detailing the items that were not compliant and and those items needed immediate attention and part of the discussion we further had at the hearing was that the limos is needed to have a CEO to bring the property into full compliance that CEO was issued in November October of 2023 I this is where I have a problem and this is where I also need to figure out if I even have the ability or the the jurisdiction if it's not this is not necessarily well let me step back the order say on page two the respondents are directed to take all action needed to have licensed contractors complete the work in accordance with permits issued by the city and in accordance with the letter from Miss Anderson dated October 10th cool then it says the respondents are directed to bring the property in full compliance with property maintenance requirements by November 14th 20122 and the respondents are required to allow city code enforcement officers and building officials to inspect the property on November 15th or such other date agreed upon by the city there's no there's nothing in here that says that a certificate of occupancy is required there's nothing in here it says that the full compliance has to be with the property maintenance requirements I don't know what those Property Maintenance requirements are other than a letter that I do not have from M Anderson so I I don't know if it was complied with that being said whether or not this order was complied with um is is determined is usually at the determination of the city correct but now I have a fine reduction request in front of me May mam speciman yeah you may so 9865 and 9866 are the maintenance requirements right and those fall under the purview of the Code Enforcement office and I'm not disagreeing with you building permits do not fall underneath is that is that in chapter 98 and because I don't have those code sections in front I was going to continue by saying that 3.7 falls under the purview of the uh building official and is why you have um the outline of Code Enforcement as well as the building official um in this summary part part of um the reason why those two agencies were involved is that code enforcement dealt with the maintenance and the um building official dealt with the certificate certificate of occupancy and is why we were both collaborating on this project to bring it into full compliance full compliance meaning that the construction had to be completed um until a CO was issued and the maintenance had to be maintained that's not what this order says this order says in full compliance with property maintenance requirements I understand that ma'am I don't disagree with you I'm just letting you know what um the reason why the the two agencies were involved in this property uh okay and this falls under let me see what my requirements are under the lane reduction so Madam magistrate can we can we get I just one second I want to read what my duties and responsibilities are with regard to the lean reduction request have been corrected well that's fun okay yes Mr McConnell so 98- 65 I understand what Mr derer said about property maintenance but specifically if I may read it into the record yes please do 1 C okay so I'm going to read the following conditions are hereby deemed to be unsightly conditions and are prohibited 9865 is titled unsightly conditions following conditions are prohibited on any real property in the so paragraph one structures that are colon little C left in a state of partial construction beyond the valid time frame of the permit I believe that's why all of this was connected but the issue that I have legally is the testimony that's in the order and the finding effect fact from Miss Anderson paragraph 10 which clearly states that this was a 5-year process right for permitting but that the city was extending the permit in an effort to work with the property owners which then would not implicate subsection so I I I'm trying to piece this together as you are but I think that's where it tied to the Code Enforcement issue is because it was it was a partially constructed building for so long that was past the time frame of the permit so then when we're in front of the hearing we Ed Mr thanis with I think the consent of of the property owner as well to kind of lay out a a game plan of how to get this over the hump my issue is the order from Mr thanis is dated November 8th 2022 and his compliance date is November 14th 2022 and I have had represen representations from both sides today saying that the property needed to be completed and a CO need to be issued within a period of time from November 8th to November 14th I can't imagine Mr thanis thought that that would be possible to comply with the code based on the status based on what I'm reading and with the status of the property was no and I can't speak for the prior orders I wish we had them but I can pretty confident that those prior orders were the same thing although you guys would need to find those this was kind of like the point yeah and I I can understand that and also my powers and duties within your code state that I can grant the violation or the lean reduction as long as all city code violations have been corrected under necessary permits issued which we said that there was and I also can consider the obligation to reduce the fines um to reduce it unless I find that no violation of a city ordinance existed on the subject real property so apparently I can go back and figure out if there was ever a violation which I am not going to do today just so you know but it does give me kind of latitude and I do have cuse it is a significant amount of fines and it is based on the co being the compliance state which I just understanding the city has some discretion I cannot see and having not been there cannot see that Mr thanis and knowing Mr thanis would have given a less than 10day period for a CO to be secured if the property took then 11 months to comp complete from that point so from that point proba six years total well 11 yeah 11 months from November 8th so I how does anyone recall how far along the property was to be completed yes please yeah um uh part of what Mr D's talking about that Julie uh Anderson gave to us was the list and we were compliant on that date with all of every the code infractions and the construction elements right um Mr thanis wanted us to have the property was uh framed it did not have sheetrock it did not have Plumbing what he wanted was a construction schedule and the um documentation proving that we had a licensed general contractor um on premise we gave all that and we had all that we were prior to the hearing or after this order prior to the hearing okay so then that begs then that's what the hearing was was right then that begs what is this order for because again and I do find it interesting this is an order affirming the finding the code violations directing compliance and imposing fines which is odd because you're D directing compliance I don't have another order after the saying whether or not it ever came into compliance on November 15th correct and the only thing I can go to to the property owner's point is paragraph 10 and 11 which clearly state that Miss Anderson testified that while four of the items were addressed in her letter there were some REM remaining items that have not been addressed and the property remain non-compliant which is fine but again doesn't mean that this issue into the CO's I don't have that information if the issuance of the co was one of those conditions on that letter um I don't I think the problem is it was the C before it was like like the only way to come into compliance and get this stuff permitted is eventually to work towards the CEO but the only way to get the CEO is to get this stuff is to hit this punch list that we yeah because it does say they need to get a licensed contractor work in accordance with the permits and the letter from Miss Anderson dated October 10 so it's my reading of it having no other information is this has been going on a long time we have a resolution here's a letter with tasks that you need to complete here's those tasks need to be completed by November 14th you need to get the building official out there by November 15th to make sure these tasks were all completed and code enforcement to make sure these tasks were all completed I and I cannot imagine with with any reasonable person based on the testimony here today that that meant getting a CE I just don't see that Poss possible based on the status of the property at that time so what I can do um is see because it would have been a public record and it's only from 2022 Miss Anderson's letter should be available somewhere so um if it's something we can put our fingers on quickly we can take a brief break and you can go grab it or if it's something that takes time we can continue this I guess we're going to take a brief recess to go grab that letter you grab the orders too uh we will reconvene at no no later than 12:15 it may be earlier but no later than 12:15 I we will yeah we'll go off the Record now can I use e e e e e e e e e e the record Mr deer I believe you have some go to the overhead please and this is the letter go this can we zoom in a little bit just a tad bit we're kind of straining thank you there you go thank you okay just and so these and and we have additional items here uh the meeting minutes item to 3B this is from what meeting Mr door at the very top September September 12th 22 Mr starting B okay but there was continues okay hold on one second go back this is the meeting before this order was issued then because this is on the November meeting just to give a little bit of context to that order I don't we have this order if you would like to see no I'd like to see the meeting minutes and I need to be able to read them soon okay next page please page two okay so it looks like Mr McConnell asked to reserve the rights to argue and fine for the co being issued by December but I don't have any do we have the meeting minutes from November by chance to see where that went because there's nothing in this order from the the next meeting that talks about issuance of the COO or even mentions a due date by December which would make more sense if we're talking about the issuance of a CO than giving a less than 10day window and Mr mcconell do you have any independent recollection of that would we be able I mean I remember Jenny saying This CU I she has the meeting minutes I I believe the next hearing because you can tell I continued the September one to November so the next hearing would have been the November one right which is why he's imposing a fine correct but not with relation to the co and in that hearing you said that you reserve the right to argue that for a December issuance and there's nothing in here with regard to a December dead L for an issuance of a CO all it says is to comply with the property maintenance and then the schedule which Miss Anderson's listed punch list don't mention acquire excuse me acquiring acquiring a one of these days so then the next question becomes if I don't have the meeting minutes and I have nothing on the CEO the way the plane reading of the the order and Miss Anderson's punch list don't say anything about a COO and in fact the meeting minutes from the September hearing state that there would be further argument in the future with regard to the co so to me the co is not the compliance unless I have further information the co is not the compliance trigger um it would have been everything on that punch list which then there would need to be proof to the city that everything on that punch list had occurred that's going to be on the respondant to provide when you delivered that information to the city and that's going to be when we're going to have to figure out when that fine deadline ends so that we can figure out any type of reduction request based on the actual amount of the fines excuse me so again I have two options at this point and I feel like I'm leaning towards one unless the meeting minutes identify what happened with the co and I'll let Mr derer speak to that those minutes um do not reflect mention of the co at all okay so based on that information I'm happy to consider the fine reduction request um however I want to make sure I consider the fine reduction requests based on the actual total amount of the fines and if any fin should have been assessed at all um that being said it is the respondent's responsibility to demonstrate that the code has been complied with meaning that the order that came down from Mr thanis on November 8th specified that the property had to be in full compliance with the property maintenance requirement by November 14th and that punch list by Miss Anderson needed to be completed by November 15th and an inspection needed to or November 14th and an inspection needed to ur on November 15th or some other time agreed to by the city which means proof needs to be demonstrated that those things happened and by which date they happened on if they happen by November 14th and you can provide me that information by that it happened before November 14th then there would be no fines assessed with this there would be no fines imposed per Mr thanos's order however if they happened on November 20th November 26th a $250 day fine would occur but it would only do so until the property comes into compliance which may substantially reduce the amount of the fines that are assessed it may not but that's going to lie on you to provide that information to me so what I'm going to do is allow for 30-day extension on this and we will reconvene on October 14th's hearing and that that should give you sufficient amount of time to find that information in the city to find whatever you have as well um to demonstrate whether or not or what date the order was complied with so it's not going to be the issuance of the co that's not mentioned here we have meeting minutes that say that was going to be a reserved argument for a future date that apparently did not happen so the compliance pursuant to this order is that it was the maintenance requirements were done and that that punch list from Miss Anderson I think it's going to be hard to find the maintenance requirements but the punch list by Miss Anderson those items should have been completed and submitted to the city your responsibility to find out when they were submitted and that would be the compliance date you may um in order to move forward with any construction because the delays would happen when we were unable to construct because the uh the city wouldn't wouldn't allow us to to build because we weren't in violation we we needed to comply with that punch list immediately and it was all in the the hands of a general contractor and knowing that this is two full years ago and some of these companies don't even exist anymore it's going to be difficult for me but I sure and ,000 is a big number 87 is a big number but even $11,000 is a lot for me I'm going to be paying that can be a lot so and that's what I'm saying I just want it to be fair and I'm trying to make it as Fair as possible considering that based on the information I have today all I have in front of me is that's an $887,000 fine the fact that have the order enabled to read into that and based on your testimony I'm giving you the opportunity to provide counter evidence to what we have otherwise I'm going to just have to go with the co date because they have no other date of compliance okay so I need to find another date of compliance and it is your responsibility as the respondent to comply with the order so it's your responsibility to find that for me so I'm giving you extra time to do that but I guess what I'm asking is can I have uh maybe the punch list from Julie again uh I just absolutely whatever evidence I need to come show because in order for us to move forward we did all this and we did all this for the last um magistrate hearing so it's there but it's I agree I just need to know the date so yes if you could and I'm sure the city will provide you with a copy of the punch list um and then we will reconvene on October 14th and you will bring me whatever you have just even one inspection would prove that we were in compliant enough to move forward and I no the way that the order reads is you need to comply with everything on that list and I think a majority of it or at least several items were there were several items that were not according to this order I could do that so if you take that letter you know come we'll come back on October 14th and you can provide evidence to me about when those things were completed will will they let me know which of the four items or or however many items Julie already checked off so that I know which ones I need to provide you can get with the city after the hearing and certainly figure that one out we were very close we thought it was all of them and then Julie found discrepancies with some of them I would like to know which ones those are so that I could provide Pro because the other ones have already been well here's the deal the other ones would have been before that November 14th date anyways so work with the city to try and figure out which ones were outstanding if not then the the responsibility still lies to you to prove that all of them were okay and so either way you have until October 14th to provide me with evidence that of when this order was complied with okay um and then if you can do so depending upon what that date is that'll figure out when you came into compliance that'll figure out the fine amount and that can then I can go ahead and move forward from there to figure out if a reduction um is necessary or or how we move forward so I will get an order to that effect out that way there's a record of it um and make sure I have your contact information so that I can send that to you and then we will reconvene on October 14th unless you all work it out some other way I appreciate it thank you very much thank you our next meeting is scheduled for October 14th um and understanding it's Columbus indigenous people's day the city will be open and lesson until I find out differently we will be here at 10:00 a.m. if there's nothing else we are adjourned okay yall like to keep things interesting yeah that was see you