e e e e e e e e e and welcome to the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement special magistrate hearing for April 8th 202 4 my name is Erica aello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases I 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 authorities set forth in chapter 162 Florida Statutes and the City of St Pete Beach code of ordinances I am not an employee of the city of St Pete Beach and 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 appr 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 pro and due process is afforded to all parties after hearing all relevant evidence I will issue an order the order will be reduced to writing and all parties will be provided with a copy so please ensure that we have your current address or email address Additionally you are advised that I do not have the authority to Grant you a variance permit or special exception of any kind my role is solely to determine whether a city code has been violated and under some circumstances to provide a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever means are available to you please be advised that you may be subject to a fine and a lean may be recorded on your property if the violation is not corrected by the compliance deadline if one is provided if you wish to present any evidence today please sign in before you speak at the podium 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 do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes so sworn are there any changes to the agenda this morning Mr derer madam specialman magistrate good morning uh Pete der on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach um there are none at this time okay okay then we shall move to agenda item 3A case number 20230 616 city of St Pete Beach versus Anthony J Peron would the city like to make its presentation yes good morning special magistrate leis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement if you could put the overhead over for me please one on the agenda as you know special magistrate the respondent was supposed to get the permit um obtained by 3:15 2024 um it looks here that it denied on 311 so he has not acquired that permit by 3:15 2024 so the city will be asking for the previous recommended fine of $250 per day from 1118 2023 plus $325 in administrative costs until compliant okay is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent property owner Mr prone or anyone on behalf of Mr prone okay seeing nobody here on behalf of the respondent I will go ahead and find that the prop property is still not in compliance and I will go ahead and issue uh my order stating that there will be daily running fines of $250 a day starting on November 18th 2023 until the property comes into compliance it is the respondent's responsibility to notify the city when the property is compliant and I will also allow for the $325 in administrative costs moving on case number 3B case number 20230 561 city of St Pete Beach versus SJ Beach Properties LLC m c like to make his presentation yes thank you special magistrate lisis Cruz representing the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement this is a true and accurate represent representation of what I have witnessed if you can put the overhead on for me please the respondent did not reach out to the city to try and get a permit for the Gazebo for the last one that was remaining it has been removed and the property is now compliant so the city will be asking for just the $325 in administrative cost okay thank you is anyone here on behalf of the property owner SJ Beach Properties LLC and Mr chis did you by by chance speak to the property owner anytime between the last hearing and today um not the property owner one of her friends or like an attorney friend that reached out that I had talked to previously trying to get it dealt with um he reached out and let me know about it um so that's why I went and and check checked and unfortunately I wish they would have tried it looked nice but unfortunately um they just removed it removed it okay and you said it was $325 in administrative fines yes pleas yes ma'am okay I will find that the property was in violation is now compliant I am not going to assess any daily running fines but I will go ahead and assess the $325 in administrative cost moving on to agenda item 3C case number 20236 02 city of St Pete Beach versus pingpong Partners LLC Mr Cruz yes thank you Louis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement um for the respondent it looks like they did acquire their permit on 322 2024 the city will be asking for just administrative costs totaling $325 okay and I believe the respondent is here thank you um yes we were able to obtain our permit I think our actual final inspection is scheduled for today so um uh as you recall in the previous hearing it was established that we didn't receive um reasonable notice and um of the actual violation so that we could have solved it but I hope that our Behavior has shown that we would have resolved it if we had received notice and so therefore I would uh object to any administrative finds but I would ask you to dismiss it no thank you okay U Mr Cruz any response or the city have any response to that I think the response is we continued it we gave sufficient time the property owner showed up to the meeting so I understand while notice may not have been sent reasonably he did receive notice of the hearing magistrate gave him I believe 60 days to come into compliance he did we're not asking for fines we're simply asking for admin cost again I I think we're conflating the issue of reasonable notice and we did not receive reasonable notice of the actual violation so that we could attempt to comply it prior to it being entered into this administrative process and it would obviously be uh unfair to to assess cost thank you okay I do find Mr Harden's argument to be reasonable so I will find that there is no violation on behalf of the property owners the property is now compliance due to the insufficient notice of the actual violation um and I am not going to assess the $325 in administrative costs all right agenda item number four we have no repeat violations moving on to agenda item 5A case number 20249 city of St Pete Beach versus Franklin L docket the city like to make its presentation Mr Rivera yes good morning Madam magistrate steam Rivera on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement sorry about that no worries case number CE 20249 respondent is Franklin L doet violation address is 555 goway number 7n 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 was 28 2024 noce of violation dated 29 2024 notice of violation compliance date was 223 of 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 314 2024 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witness the Affidavit of posting it's a picture of the gentleman working on the drywall uh in the back there corrective action property must obtain a permit for the drywall that was replaced without a permit property is not compliant recommended fine is $250 a day from 224 2024 until property is compliant plus 325 in administrative costs that concludes my presentation and Madam M before we move on sure unless you have a question I do have a question for Mr Rivera okay I was just going to call up our building official okay give me one second let me ask um and Mr R how did you find out about the drywall being um installed and gain access to the property so this was from a complaint from one of the board members at the condominium where they live and the condo who let you into the the unit it's I knocked on the door uh the property owner let me in the property owner let you in okay all right um then the city may call second witness Mr Curtis if you could just come to the microphone and announce yourself in your position with the city my name is Luke Curtis I'm the building official for the city of St Pete Beach thank you I just have one question um the installation of drywall does that require a permit pursuant to the building code yes it does in in basic terms just about any work that's being performed uh per section 105.1 of the building code all workers uh requires a permit okay thank you okay does anyone here anything further from the city no Madam magistrate okay anyone here on behalf of the property owner Mr docket okay and if you'll just state your name for the record I was told by the contractor when he started that he didn't need a permit for drivew repay it okay and Mr Mr docket I presume I'm sorry is your name Mr docket Franklin docket can you tell me what was the extent of the drywall you said it was repair uh one old wall in the bedroom and another short wall by the window okay and what was the reason for the repair we had a window leak years ago and it was a lawsuit because of it uh all the the walls were taken down because water had gotten into mold all through the the uh drywall so that was all taken out all the insulation was taken out and then this this fell came in put a new insulation and put a new drywall and he said there was no permit required just because it was a repair that's all I know about it okay and did you receive the notice of violation that stated that you had to comply by a certain period of time I didn't get one they were email a certified mail one was mailed on the February 12 I never got it so then there was another one on March 16th that one I got and I came in to find out what was going on okay so you didn't receive the initial notice of violation but you received the notice for hearing is that correct I had a notice on the door there was a notice on your door do you remember what date that was okay the notice on the door do you remember what date that was 314 3:14 and is there anything else that you would like to tell me about the situation so that I can effective effectively rule I have contacted a number of contractors on Google and they said said that they wouldn't work here because of the rules and then I finally found one and he is putting he's supposedly has is in the process of putting in prep perment it should be in this week it's his outfit is called flagstone Builders okay and do you happen to know how long it might take him to apply you said this week he would have the application for the permit in I'm sorry you said this week he would have the application for the permit in yes okay and is the work already completed no there's a very little bit left okay do you have any idea or had he let you know any idea excuse me of how long that permit process would take I have no idea how long Okay Okay um any questions from the city for Mr docket no thank you and Mr docket do you have any questions for the city that you'd like to ask them well either their building official or the code enforcement officer I just didn't know that there was a permit required because I was told there wasn't one so maybe there should be some way of notifying people in advance I don't know okay all right thank you very much thank you um and Mr Curtis how long um are after the fact permits taking this type of a permit do you have any idea how long that review process would take it it all varies between you know for the scope of work but for something simple like this it would you know maybe two weeks okay great thank you very much anything further from the city I just have one point of clarity from Mr Rivera um is the compliance request to obtain a permit so that was part of the corrective action would be to obtain a permit you finalize out the permit so obtaining obtain or final well he can obtain it at this point there was a stop work order issued so we probably see it through until it's compliant and then would this be considered and after the fact permit because work has already started but not been completed uh that would probably be a better question for Luke yeah okay and Mr Curtis you're nodding your head yes or purpose of the record okay okay great okay um I am going to find that there was a violation however I am going to give the respondent 30 days from the date of my order to secure a permit I know the request is to secure and finalize I think that probably can be done um but I am going to just do it to secure a permit um for this project um and then we will see uh after the 30 days we'll come back and see um where we are with that okay should we set it if if I may Madam magistrate should we set it for May 13th not to yeah pressure you but if you get it if you get it this week yeah that's that's sufficient time for me to draft my order and get it out so yeah we can do a date certain we'll come back for case status conference on May 13th and Mr doet did you did you you understand my order I'll get you a copy of it but did you hear what my order was I have to be back May 13th you have to have airm it by then correct okay perfect all right then thank you very much and we will move on to the next [Applause] case uh case number 20230 685 city of St Pete Beach versus Billy G Lambert Mr Cruz yes thank you special magistrate Louis Cruz represent in the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement case number 2023 0685 respond is Billy G Lambert violation address is 7951 go Boulevard violation description the property is in violation of section 98-64 unsightly conditions 4 and 998-6653 of the code of ordinances of the city of St Pete Beach case summary the initial inspection was 128 20123 notice of violation dated 227 2024 notice of violation compliance date 35224 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 314 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the affidavit ofst at 7951 Golf Boulevard March 14th 2024 and on the left side of the property there there's broken siding and deteriorated paint that has faded very badly some deteriorated paint there over in the overhang as well as outside storage there's some more fading of the paint on the siding and the door frame that looks to be in disrepair looks like it's rotted wood there underneath the paint just some updated photos on what it looked like after the compliance State the deteriorated paint on the property looks like the outside storage was removed but after compliance the the compliance State on the notice of violation corrective action the property must paint the exterior of the building fix the rotted door frame and fix the siding that is broken the property is not compliant the recommended fine is $250 per day from 36 2024 until property is compliant plus $325 for administrative cost that concludes my presentation thank you okay anyone here on behalf of the property owner Billy G Lambert you could please uh state your name for the record and you can uh make your presentation Lambert so the house was um quick claim to me from the gentleman who owned it passed away and his family left the house to me when I first got it there was a squatter in there so there was a lot of stuff inside the house that I moved out and um Mr Cruz actually I spoke with him and I got all the stuff off the patio right away and I've hired a construction company to do the outside but everything's taken time and I also had to um get an equity loan on my house to help with this one one so it's been taking a while but I'm working on it and I can't afford all those fines on top of the loan so okay and so you're saying you're already working with someone to repair the outside how long do you think it would take permit's been filed okay for and um I have a quote on red doing the lawn I guess they have to remove the rock to get all the um weeds out of there but I've gotten a quote um and everything's been filed so okay working on it it's just taking time sure nobody moves fast sure so it looks like the things that the city is most concerned about and and um Mr Cruz can correct if it's wrong is the paint the sighting and there that's what and the door rot and the windows a permit has been filed so okay so do you have any idea or has your contractor told you of what the time frame on securing those permits and getting that that completed is the I got an email this morning that just says it's been I mean it's been filed I don't know isn't that you guys how long it takes for you not me I'm not with the city so I'm independent but even so okay so your contractor has not let you know giving you an estimate of this will be done in six weeks or as soon as they get the permit they'll get working on it they can get working on it but you don't know what that time frame is I don't know I don't know anything about that so once the application your permit is filed so then how long does that take um obvious obviously it varies like like um Mr Curtis had spoke to before some of them were more substantial compared to some drywall so they can take a little bit more time but you kind of stated it perfectly City's only really looking for the paint the siding and the door doorame repl so it's a big job it's not just which which is understandable and I had reached out um trying to get some type of confirmation or some type of quote from some type of contractor I did not get that um and then um didn't I email that to you I did not receive it um but um unfortunately we're here today and hopefully we can get it taken care of but it depends on what type of substantial work that I can can't speak to on how long that permit will be it could be a couple weeks could be a month depends on what she's trying to do understood understood okay um and Miss lamber do you think that uh 30 days would be sufficient or maybe 45 30 days would be sufficient 30 days is sufficient okay would be enough for you to get the permit and have the work all completed AB well can they complete all that in 30 days I mean I don't know that's going to be up to your contractor then let's say yes I mean and then I'll push for that to be done okay any questions from the city anything else okay so I am going to find that the property is in violation but I'm going to give you 30 days from the date of my order to get the permits and get everything repaired we'll come back on May 13th um at the 10: a.m. hearing and we'll see what progress has been made if there's substantial progress that has been made or if it's complied with um then we should be good and we can evaluate fi you know fines or fees at that time um and you may not be subjected to any fines if everything is completed okay okay so we'll do that and I will get you a copy of the order just make sure we have your name your address or your email address it's on all right thank you Miss Lambert okay moving on to case number 2024 0133 City St Pete Beach versus Patricia e little trustee the city like to make his presentation Mr Cruz yes thank you special magistrate Louis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement case number 2024 0133 respondent Patricia e Little T violation address 85 Corey Circle violation description the properties in violation of section 46- 33 enumeration 12 and 13 78-96 business tax receipt required and 9867 junk vehicle junk vessels and abandoned property E and F of the code of ordinances of the city of St Pete Beach case summary the initial inspection was 35224 notice of violation dated 35224 notice of violation compliance date 3:15 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 319 2024 this is a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at 85 Corey Circle March 19th 2024 this is the junk and abandoned vehicle that is on the property at 85 Corey Circle no license plate it is unregistered it it is in a state of disrepair inoperable I should say update a picture of that corrective action property must have junk and abandoned vehicle removed or registered and brought into an operable condition and business on the property which is Blue Parrot must obtain renewed business tax receipt property is not compliant the recommended fine is $250 per day from 316 2024 until property is compliant plus $325 for administrative costs and if you could put on the overhead for me please would like to show this is just the front side that the business owner on the property of 85 quy Circle I went in person um he also has been sent multiple um whatever he puts on the prop you know for the business tax receipt itself when you put in the application he has you know references references for our um permitting manager to reach out to him via email sending out mail to you know their home um he was reminded reminders were sent excuse me on 718 20123 and 35 2024 as well as me going out there personally and every single business texy each year is due 9:30 2020 uh well this one was due 9:30 2023 but each year the business tax receipt needs to be renewed on 9:30 of every year and that concludes my presentation and Mr Cruz is the business still in operation yes yes ma'am okay and the picture that you showed of the van that is parked you said that was located on the property yes it's located on the business property yes it is not on a city street or Highway yeah on F it look I put that on accident um but e does pertain but F not so much but tell me what an e says that you can't have a junk vehicle it's the registration for E I mean I understand but e says absent of a current license plate or current registration as Prim of facia evidence of Abandonment says for the purposes of enforcement of this article the absence of a current license plate or current registration on a vehicle or boat shall be primate evidence that the vehicle or boat is abandoned junked or discarded so great it doesn't have a a license plate on it that's primacia evidence but you've cited to e which says that in order to be considered junk or inoperable or otherwise in violation of the of the code section it must be located on a city street or Highway and you your testimony and the the evidence presented says that yes it doesn't have a current registration but it's located on on private property yes is that correct yes it is on the private property is on the business part yeah if if I may Madam magistrate I think F pertains to the right of way e without registration and license plate it deems it abandoned or junk and that's a violation of e in itself what regardless of where it's parked yeah there's no specification that it needs to be on a ride of way or a street it's just deemed abandoned by not being registered regardless of the location of the vehicle yeah nothing in E says that they that all all all e describes unless you would like to make AR argument to the contrary all e describes to me is what primacia evidence of an abandoned or junked vehicle is basically it would be a definition of a an abandoned or junk vehicle not that having an abandoned or junk vehicle is otherwise a violation it says the present of a current license plate or registration solely shall not in of itself exempt any vehicle or boat from the provisions of this article and there's nothing in E that says that that that in and of itself that you could be violative of it f is where the violation would be in it says on any Street or Highway it doesn't say a right of way um so if you have argument to the contrary I would I would entertain such but I just don't see it that way okay I just have one question for Mr Cruz if I may yes are you for certain that this is on their property do you have a survey did they provide anything or is is it a guess nothing of that nature it's a guesstimation going off of property appraiser and a follow question are you for sure certain that this is on city property or a street or Highway no I am not so you as you sit here today your best guess is that it's on business property but you just don't know yes okay all right anyone here on behalf of the property owner Patricia e little trustee anyone here on behalf of Patricia El little trustee business owner okay at this time I am going to find that there is a violation of SE section 78-96 for the business tax receipt I am going to uh before I make my ruling Mr Cruz how long how long does it take typically to to apply for and receive a business tax receipt you could walk in same day which I expressed to the business owner I I brought them over a payment slip and everything to fill out a check and it's right across the street from City all you have to do is pay there's not an application process or anything it's just a renewal just a renewal yes okay thank you I am going to find that there's a violation of section 78-96 business tax receipt for the property I'm not going to find that there are any other violations of the cited code sections I am going to give the property owner 3 days from today date ah let's make it three days consistent Madame M what about 4633 cuz while I can understand your point on 9867 46333 specifically says on any public or private property defines worn out and it's the storage of such okay and that does say on public or private property correct so okay um thank you for bringing that to my attention so yes yes I will say that there is I will find that there is a violation of section 4633 and in section 78-96 but not of section 98- 67 um I am going to allow 3 days from the date of my order to secure the business tax receipt and I am going to give 14 days from the date of my order to contend with the abandoned or junked vehicle either to register it or to remove it from the premises and I will get that in writing and get that to the property owner in the city so will fines be retroactive if those dates are not met I will make a finding on fines and fees at the next hearing okay for chapter 162 okay can I assume status hearing on May 13th yep okay thank you and unless they come into compliance and yall don't see fees okay moving on to agenda item C case number 20240 133 city of St Pete oh no we just did that one it's all right moving on to item D case number 202443 city of St Pete Beach versus Thomas J Dylan III yes than thank you special magistrate Lewis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement code enforcement case number 202443 the respondent is Thomas J Dylan III violation address 422 86th Avenue violation description the property is in violation of section 22.4 type quality and size of plant material F of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary the initial inspection was 1119 2024 notice of violation was dated 27 2024 notice of violation compliance date was 228 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 327 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at 42286 Avenue March 27th 2024 this is what the property at 42286 Avenue looked like previously in 2019 around that time they did have grass in the front yard sidey yard this is now vegetative ground cover being replaced with PE Pebbles Brandon the whole Frontage sides of the yard this is the right side of the property and it looks like summon to the backyard and this is the left side of the property this was just updated pictures corrective action property must comply with Section 22.4 F property is not compliant recommended fine is $250 per day from 229 2024 until property is compliant plus $325 for administrative costs that concludes my presentation thank you okay anyone here on behalf of Mr Dylan right now feel pleased state your name and affiliation for the record please good morning special magistrate my name is Tom Dylan um I'm the uh deed property owner of 422 86th Avenue in St Pete Beach um I am a resident of Virginia I've own this property since 2019 and um U I sort of have a a another side of the story to tell from the city if if you'll entertain that certainly I um I first received I first received notice that this was a problem um back on U uh February 20th I'd been out of town I went to my post office box I had received a certified letter and I was completely thrown off by it I had never heard of the regulation before um I wasn't aware of what was done to the property was a violation um at the time that I elected to put down the Landscaping it was consistent with a fair number of properties that are in the neighborhood so it wasn't out of line and it seemed consistent with it uh and uh the I hired a professional landscaper to do it the landscaper did not advise me that there was a problem um and and I had just finished or my next door neighbor had just essentially done the same thing and so I offer that evidence in term terms of my thought of mind at the time that the ACT wasn't intentional and um being out of town it takes me a little while to get things done down here but I've owned property in the city since 2008 and I've never appeared before anyone in in this context uh I'm I'm also a lawyer in Virginia and not bared in Florida but you know it also uh I guess I take some of that uh more seriously than others might but um I I want to uh I want to sh your onor a photograph of the property as it has been for the last couple of years now I don't know if you want me I'd like to create a record of this if I may and so I don't know if you want me to introduce as exhibits or whether you want to have the photograph or to put it up on the um well if you want to introduce them as exhibits then I would suggest you can certainly do so as record evidence just make sure that the City attorney gets a a copy or can see them before and has an opportunity to object um and then just also make sure that we have copies for the clerk so she can take them for the record so I have I have three copies of each and um so I'd be happy do you mind are these all of the pictures I didn't know if you wanted to show I don't know I'm introduce that's and then you can place one for the overhead and that way that can be the clerk's copy if you wish okay and then I'd like to introduce is exibit number one uh a photograph of the property depicting the property from my perspective and as a property owner for at least the last several years okay so um when I first bought the property it did have a lawn and for whatever reason uh this is a rental property and I leased it and for whatever reason the front lawn went away so I have been trying from that point forward to have grass grow there uh I even some of the tenants that have lived there that didn't want just exposed be ground also tried growing grass and for whatever reason it was not it was not growing and so um that led me to install some Landscaping because there were at least two floods that occurred during the time of my ownership of this property uh one was in connection with a hurricane one was just a flood both of the floods came up about halfway uh to the center of the lawn and um it's just been it's just been a a big Challenge and so um I certainly recognized that that you know without admitting that that that I wasn't aware of the Restriction of 20% and I you know put it down thinking that I was preventing erosion that it was consistent with many of the other properties that are in the neighborhood and that it would uh actually improve uh the the street appeal of the property uh so um when I got that notice on the 20th at the post office I immediately called Mr Cruz because I was thrown off by it and wanted to understand what was going on and I explained to him that I'd been out of town and I had just gotten it because it apparently had been sent much earlier uh and I asked for an extension and he agreed to that extension and asked me to send him an email which I did and he responded to so let me just at least least for the record here I'd like to introduce uh as exhibit number two my phone record from calling Mr Cruz on the 20th so that's Mr Cruz's number that's the number that was posted on the letter that I received and then as a followup to that I then had an email exchange with Mr Cruz about that so uh what I'd like to do is introduced as exhibit number three my email exchange with Mr Cruz relating to the phone call of that same [Applause] day it's over two separate pages so I'll have to guess do it in two parts here but you see uh I am uh sending Mr Mr Cruz the email that he requested that I sent to him and asking him to um for an extension I wasn't sure at the time frankly what I was going to do about it how I was going to handle it what what the action was going to be we didn't discuss an extension date but I left I guess my phone call and email exchange with Mr Cruz believing that I had an extension uh he then he responded back you can see that please uh keep me in communication updated on findings and resolution and so after that I contacted um uh Christian conin of the city and I'd like to introduce is exhibit number four the contact information that I used as well as my phone records for that so far the city has no objection now I knew this so I'll I'll show first that was the information that I used to contact her and then my phone records showing I left a voicemail for her because I was going to try to explore with the staff how can I resolve this in a way I don't want to be sideways with the city and uh I I never heard back from her so um I figured well my my plan then will be to try to get the fix and hope that it will comply with what the city's expectations are so um on March 4th I reached out to the landscaper that installed it explain to him hey you didn't tell me you can't put down this amount of that type of landscaping in the city and sent him a survey so as as exhibit number on five five so I'd like to introduce this as exhibit number five these these are my emails or texts I guess to my landscaper who I um asked for what the cost would be to undo it and in connection with that I had sent him a survey which I would like to introduce as exhibit or part of the survey which I'd like to introduce as exhibit number six which shows a portion of the front yard which I was asking him to quote me on so that I would I would hopefully be able to come in compliance and so you look at the I'm by no means an expert on the city code but my understanding is that there there are areas of the property that uh have to be permeable for water and there areas of property that aren't and so um for example the property immediately across the street from this one is putting in a pool when that pool goes in there's going to be a certain portion of that area that's not going to be permeable and uh another property's expanded a driveway you could do an addition so there's all this there's all this space that you can have impermeable U structures or or surfaces on and then um the remainder part as I understand the code is 20% of the minimum permeable space meaning the water will flow through into the ground so what I wanted to propose to the city if I had gotten in touch with them and I'll show you some additional efforts to do that uh was to say listen I'll agree I won't put an addition on I won't expand the driveway I won't put in a pool I won't do all these other things that I could do if you'll allow a certain a greater amount of the uh Pebble Landscaping because it's very easy to find a landscaper who will put it down is very hard to find a landscaper who will rake it up and remove it uh and so I found that out a little bit the hard way uh but so what this depicts your honor is that um I was going to say if you will allow me to have Pebbles or if the city would allow the the Landscaping on the side of the driveway and the side yards and some portion of the backyard that um I would reinstall a lawn grass there now the one thing that I'm worried about with that is that due to the the the lack of success that I've had in the past I'm worried I put the side down and it dies and then I'm in sort of the same position um you know that I was in before so um I wrote to the mayor because I wasn't really sure I looked at online what was available on variances and different applications and I really wasn't sure which one was going to apply and in my experience as a lawyer at least in other states you know the mayor's office will usually direct you in the right spot if you don't know and so as exhibit number seven I'd like to introduce my email to um the mayor of the city of St Pete Beach and asking for some help as to what direction you go and I would ask your honor to take a moment to read that because I think that is a uh good explanation of essentially what happened where I am and what I'm looking to accomplish to do okay okay so um after uh I believe it was in early March that I had requested my contractor to uh provide me a quote he originally pushed back because I originally asked him to remove the Pebbles and he refused to do it and so did others and so what we originally agreed to do is I saidwell I know I can have some portion of the surface area with that we'll just double those up and I'm just asking you to move them on the same property not remove them and he agreed to do that and so I finally after fair amount of negotiation with him on March 27th I received uh a quote from him and I'd like to introduce this at number seven yep eight I think uh eight yeah the letter would be seven so this so um I put this down here you can see it it cost me a little under $10,000 to put the original Landscaping down and the cost of the repair according to the proposal that I wanted to make would be uh 6850 and uh what the plan was is to move the uh Landscaping the non-vegetative Landscaping over to areas that would be allowed and to put in the you know a front lawn and he's prepared to do that right away my concern is I want to make sure that I have a resolution with the city and when I do it I don't have further issues so um I'm I'm hopeful that I can find that resolution with soon I want to you know maybe it's just because I'm aware that I I sort of wired a certain way but there there's certain aspects to the notice that I received that just aren't accurate and I think it's important to to clarify that um it's in no way suggesting that I want to be in uncooperative or not finding a resolution but I think if you're going to charge somebody or make allegations against somebody it ought to be accurate right and so I I'd like to um introduce his exhibit number nine a cop C of the notice that was posted at the door and and I I didn't mention it earlier but the email that I wrote to the mayor what was never responded to so this the notice here is exhibit number nine has attached to it the letter it's that the letter becomes part of the notice and so I don't know if I need to that's already part of the city's record record yeah so going back to the city's letter there uh there are a number of there are a number of uh issues here so it it says that you have removed all vegetative ground uh cover and replaced it with PE pebble which is not adequate vegetative ground cover the PE Pebbles must be removed and the ground cover must be replaced uh read that with I would just say with uh adequate plant material uh you're in violation of the following code so the first error here is that I didn't remove any vegetative ground cover uh if you'll recall what the city had produced which was a photograph of the building back maybe in 2019 there's sort of a veget of wall in between my property and 43086 the next door neighbor believing it was theirs removed all of that that's the only growing plant material on the property that I know of that's ever been removed and uh what's interesting is that if you look at the property now their mailbox is about two or three feet in on my property line because it was in line with where that covering was but it but it wasn't me uh the other thing is it says that um I I replaced and I guess it's the problem that I have is with the word all I it says you have removed all vegetative ground cover it doesn't say from the front yard it so so the implication is it's from the whole lot and that's just not the case and that can be verified because when you go online with the City's online information about the case it admits that it's only a part of the backyard and not not the entire property so I I feel like that that uh uh that that should be re organized the other thing is that um I didn't replace the entire lot with pebbles it's it is all of the front yard but it's a portion of the back and that there was there's some pre-existing um uh I can't tell you how much but there is some pre-existing non-vegetative ground cover in the backyard that was there even before I bought the property and so I don't know when this statute came about but I I can tell you that I wasn't aware of it none of my neighbors were aware of it my next door neighbor just did the same thing and I'm not reporting him I'm just saying that that I don't think people know this and um I I I think there needs to be I certainly if I had known it I wouldn't have done it and I wouldn't have you know lost a fair amount of money on that or about to um so I I think that I think the the the the documents that I've shown in my testimony is that I'm Cooperative with the city I thought I was under a extension the first um the first opportunity I had to realize I may not have been under an extension was when my neighbor sent me a copy of what was posted on the door and they said hey you should probably know about this uh so that I guess was the second time that I was caught off guard by receiving a notice from the city and uh it was really it it came about I guess the notice was done on the same day that I gotten my uh contractor bid on the proposal so I don't want to drag this out I want a resolution I live out of out of town and I you know I don't want it to be a problem but I I need to be able to sit down with somebody with either the planning or somebody on the staff that says listen we'll agree if you do this this and this you know either by way of a variance or whatever it might be we'll agree with this resolution and then I can move forward and I don't know how long it takes to do that I have made some effort efforts to do it but those were unsuccessful and unresponded to so I guess I'm asking for a little bit of help here okay any questions from the city um oh and any first of all any objections to the any of the exhibits no okay uh the only question I did have is is I don't know the date of this first picture that was taken off you said this is yeah it was taken off of the web and um I I didn't have a photograph of it either it was it's a representation that I a screenshot off of uh Google um Maps so if you go to Google Maps and you look at the street view you should be able to see that ex that that same picture and on that it says about a year ago I can tell you as a testif as a w testifying witness that that lawn that front lawn has looked like that for at least three years it's been at least since covid that it's looked like that okay any objections to any of the exhibits no I don't then the exhibits will all be accepted that's fine um any questions from the city not questions if Madame magistrate wants me to make arguments on the notices and I think it's clear that we cite the correct provision property owners here um most of his testimony to the city's point of view I think he could work with the city offline I think what we're here today is to is to find him in violation of 22.4 based on ground cover and impervious surface I have the city's um planner and Community Development director here if she wants to Madam magistrate wants her to attest to what is required but um working with the city is something that I'm we're willing to do well I would like to hear from Mr Cruz with regard to the extension that was requested from the respondent um I do see that the email doesn't directly quote Grant an extension but the testimony is that the telephone conversation there was an agreement that there would be an extension um Mr Cruz were you under the same assumption that there would be an extension past the date the notice of violation yes that's why I I I wrote in there received because we had a phone conversation sometimes a little little bit more detailed so I do apologize maybe I could have been a little bit U more detail in there but to our phone conversation um I'm giving you an extension but just like the email stated and and as you've seen he reached out on the 20th and I haven't heard from him since he hasn't reached out to me to let me know about his workings with the contractors um and even the phone call to Kristen keman my director and our Planning and Zoning official if I would have known he reached out and she you know she gets a lot of phone calls she deals with a lot of things so she just might have missed it so if he would have gave me a heads up hey I tried to reach out I'm trying to come into compliance you know could you help me kind of get in touch I would have no problem um helped him to um get this resolved so we didn't have have to be at the point that we're at now um but I did give him an extension and per se pass the compliance date because you reached out and I thought we were working towards compliance that's why I said stay in communication just so I know that you're doing what he showed here today but didn't show to me okay um and you said you had someone here in the planning department yeah we have Kristen keman herself um the community development director uh if you could please come up and uh have a few questions for you good morning Kristin kman community development director and also senior planner good morning do you recall or did you before this hearing look up to see if you received an email um from Mr Dyan while I was sitting here and no I did not receive an email from Mr Dylan okay and we did re and Mr Dylan what you provided was the email that was sent correct phone call do you recall uh receiving a voicemail from Mr Dylan or were you able to look to see if you receive a phone call from Mr Dy from here I was unable to look however I do on my voicemail leave my email address usually that's if you can't get me by phone that is the best way to get me and also there is that paper trail as well um I know he did submit a documentation that was sent to the mayor I am the person charge of variances too so I did not receive any direction or any forwarding of that information so okay um and then another question there is it appears that in the code there is an administrative process that's not a not typically not a variance per se as there's no direct criteria but allows for administrative approval um what what you saw here presented today with the p gravel is that something that might be considered for that type of administrative appro approval as it is an it is it words as it is a pervious Surface no unfortunately I don't think it would qualify for something administrative it usually something is called for Innovative we usually work with like a landscape architect some kind of Water Garden something to that I don't think that's really what was reflected or shown um as part of that kind of a design work for that um and just looking at the numbers and I and unfortunately I didn't H did not have a survey on file but just by looking at dimensions and square footage from the property appraiser um so Mr Dylan's property is about 6,500 square feet so to qualify for the 30% ISR impervious surface ratio um he would have to maintain um see that would be around uh 2,000 square ft for the to equal the 30% and for the vegetative or 24% which we require is 1,600 ft so looking at the square footage of the Pebbles or um rock or whatever would be limited to around 340 Square F feet total so I kind of did those numbers really quick just based off the numbers provided but had Mr Dylan perhaps forwarded me Murphy's land surveying we could looked at the numbers I'm more than happy to sit down with him and go over that um to say here's here's your amount that you're allowed for that but a permit is required so from the beginning had a permit been submitted for review by our planning staff we could have acknowledged um and reviewed compliance with the Land Development code okay so what you're saying is a permit is required for changing out landscape on your property yeah okay okay I don't have any further questions Mr Dylan do you have any questions for the planner um I don't would like to work with you try to find out a resolution I think I think there's a way to mathematically get to what I'm entitled to and what I'm sort of hoping to do everything that's happen try to find something work through a variance I may not be entitled to but something the city can live with as it an appropriate resolution and that's something that might be able to be done offline so absolutely okay um Mr Dylan do you have anything further in support of your defense yes I do um so you know I I definitely don't want to be sideways with the city here I want to work out a resolution I think it's it's clear that I did try to do that I guess I could have called Mr Cruz weekly I didn't know how it didn't say how F how how often and frequently I would have to keep him updated I read the email as such that once you have sort of a plan or a resolution call me about had it and that's what I was planning to do I got that bid I couldn't really commit to something without knowing what the cost was going to be I received that on the same day that the notice was issued so um I you know for me I feel like I I I shouldn't have know know I shouldn't have discovered that I wasn't on uh uh continuance anymore uh by receiving a notice of a hearing in front of a special magistrate so um the other thing I would note is that the photographs that uh the code enforce officer offered are uh in process installation this was all done in a day and I think some of this could have been stopped by just telling the the um landscaper hey uh this isn't permitted you know you're not allowed to do that or contact somebody because clearly it was a work in progress at the time that the photographs were taken and so you know I I just want to get it resolved and I just I would ask special magistrate to allow me sufficient time to do that and what do you think sufficient time to have resolution would be well it sounds like I have to go through the permitting process in order to do that it also sounds like it would be an after the event permitting because I already have something that the city believes is not compliant and so um I you know I I I I just don't know I've never been in that situation before so I don't know what the extension would be but I live out of out of town and so I flew down here I've taken all of this very seriously I flew down here to to appear before you today to make sure that my side was told I'd like to avoid having to to come down again if we're being able to work towards a resolution okay um anything from the city further from the city no I just have a question you said you received um the quote from the landscape person um the same day that you received the notice of violation did you send any of that to the city any of that information kind of informing LS that you were working and getting quotes or was it just that one email and you kind of left it alone so I told uh Mr Cruz that yes or no is fine if you don't mind did you send it yes he's he he is entitled to explain his answer yeah it's inaccurate your question is inaccurate I never said that I got the quote on the same day I got the notice I didn't get the notice until several days afterwards it just so happens that the notice and the and the contractor's quote is dated the same day so I can't answer a yes or no question is something that's inaccurate did you send the quote that you received to the city no because when I got the quote I was going to prepare something and by then it was a couple of days after I received this hearing and I felt like well I I better you know this is my opportunity to come down and explain it to the city okay okay based on the evidence that was presented here today in the testimony um I will say it looks like both parties could have done a better job at communicating um I and while I appreciate uh Mr Dylan that you didn't know what the status of the the law was uh when you buy property in a jurisdiction you know ignorance of the law is not an excuse you are also a practicing attorney albeit not in the State of Florida so you know you need to be aware of the the the zoning the Land Development La laws that type of thing I know it seems like maybe Landscaping isn't something that would be regulated but every town has its own regulations and as you said before you've owned property in St Pete Beach since 2008 albe it not this property um so with that being said uh I will find that there is a violation of the stated code section I am going to allow for 30 days um for you to work with the city uh gather the the required permits you said that you've already got your quote from your landscaper and that they're ready to go as soon as kind of you give the go ahead understanding that you're working from out of town I think the 30 days should be sufficient if within that time period there's an extension um of time that's needed as you've been working in in a good faith effort then certainly you can work with the city on that um but other than that I will uh set this case for a status hearing on May 13th um hopefully it will be resolved by then and I won't need to see you again but if so then we will see you again on May 13th and I will get you an order to that effect thank you okay moving on to the next case case number 2024 0167 city of St Pete Beach versus stalba Investments LLC Mr Riv yes Ste Riv on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement case number 2024 0167 respond to stalo Investments LLC violation address is 4215 Miller Drive violation description the property is in violation of 8.2 a permitted principle and structures of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 38 2024 reable and irreversible notice of violation dated 318 2024 notice of hearing dated imp posted to the property 318 of 2024 the following is the true and representation of what I witness this is the Affidavit of posting this is a uh definition for transient occupancy the picture of the property at 4215 Miller Drive this is uh the Airbnb listing that was on the property this was on 318 of 2024 this shows the two reviews for the short-term rentals it shows Six Days on one side another one within a week this was on 318 2024 corrective action property can only be advertised and rented as a monthly rental property has removed the Airbnb listing recommend that def is 1,000 per violation for the two reviews plus 325 administrative costs and do have a copy of the Airbnb review policy okay okay Madam magistrate may I yeah and I have back to the reviews yeah I do have a question though I know Airbnb and vrbo's review policies are different um Mr rier can you point point to me somewhere in the Airbnb review where it specifically States uh that if there's a time period with which you need to review um within whatever the date of your state is I know vrbos is I believe you must review it within seven days and it they list the actual dates of stay um while I see that your evidence says six days ago and one week ago I'm not sure when those stays were that just indicates when I I don't actually don't know if that indicates the stay or if that indicates the review date and I'm not seeing it expressively uh stained in here still read through it okay doing that Mr MCC um well if I may Mr Rivera can I see that policy and then I was going to actually make a suggestion can you go back back to the reviews and then if if M Madam magistrate once I make my point if you're okay with hearing from the respondent while I found this or would you prefer no that's fine because I do want to make a point on the reviews go back to the PowerPoint please PowerPoint please so while we review the policy for the time frame right six days ago stayed one week ago if you notice on the left one it says stayed a few nights right my concern is with the other one correct correct so at a minimum I do want to say the city would ask for $1,000 for that one CU that clearly is a less than 30-day rental L me okay why do she specific the wrong part okay um you can hear from the respondent we have to print a different it was a different link yeah okay is anyone here on behalf of the respondent stalba Investments LLC if you'll please state your name and affiliation with the corporation for the record oh sorry not the other code enforcement that was confusing sorry um and do you have would like to present a defense to this yes uh what I did once I got the notice um spoke advis with my attorney told me exactly what I need to do we took down the advertisement right away soon as we were uh issued we canceled any reservations that we had and you know I my attorney reached out to Mr Rivera to make sure we were in compliance with everything at the time when we did this I didn't know we couldn't Airbnb it which you know I know people that are doing it I assumed I could do it when I purchased the property and you know as soon as we were notified I I did everything that I could do to get into compliance so we wouldn't have a problem okay and the two reviews that are posted C do you know if those were both stays that are less than 30 days um I don't host it so I'm I'm not sure okay have you had any stays uh that have been more than 30 days no I got it out now we're advertising okay uh do you have any questions for the respondent no I mean we can show this on the overhead because we can't print it but there's a 14-day similar policy if that's okay I don't think that I need it based on the respondent's testimony agree um but for the next cases if you guys could so the city's point is is you can't the advertisement we appreciate you taking it off and you're compliant there the city's point of view is you can't correct a rental told that already occurred hence the irreparable and irreversible nature of this violation which allows us to charge more than 250 per violation um this that being said at a minimum the city with the one comment on the left which clearly designates State a few nights would uh like to impose $1,000 fine for that plus admin cost um based on the respondents testimony if he has not rented it for longer than 30 days I believe we can assume that the one on the right was for less than 30 days as well um but I will leave that up to Madam Magistrate I misunderstood what what was being asked to me I thought you asked if I rented it you know previously for longer than 30 days yes I don't know how long she had that rented for I'm not sure I don't host it I'm just the owner of the property I have somebody that takes care of the property okay ultimately okay so you don't have that information take the advertisement down and get it straightened out right away so I didn't have any problems and that's what we did okay and Mr stala how long have you owned the property I probably had it five months five months six months at the most any other questions from the city anything further Mr stalba no okay I'm G to say the same thing that I said to the previous gentleman you did assume but when you buy purchase when you purchase property in a jurisdiction you're responsible for knowing what the laws are even if your neighbors are violating the law just because somebody else is speeding doesn't mean you should be speeding all that kind of stuff that being said um I've not seen you be here before um I am going to find that there is a violation I am going to find that it's a reparable um I am only going to assess a $500 estay fine I do find that well a $500 aay fine and I do find that the evidence on the record suggests that only one of those for sure was a short-term rental um but the Airbnb policy does State a 14-day window from the day date of the St um and there were two that were within one was posted a few day six days and one was posted a week so they were back to back that is two within a 30-day period um so I'm going to find $500 fine per stay which is $1,000 total plus administrative fines there is a provision in the code that allows you to come back and have those reduced if you so choose but I will get you an order to that effect um and make sure we have your email address or your mailing address I ask your question what's the chance is I having it reduced you'd have to come see me again correct there's a there's a policy we can you can meet with code enforcement and we can give you the application and it's a whole different excellent yeah so if you want to leave your email down there if you hav yeah and I will get you an order to that effect Mr stal all right thank you okay moving on to Madam magistrate if we may can can we take like a three to five minute break do you mind yeah let's come back at um 11:25 okay thank you you guys don't listen e e e e e e e e e e e e and we are back on the record moving on to case number 2024 0148 city of St Pete Beach versus Harley shrock Mr Rivera yes Steve Riv city of St Pete Beach code enforcement case number 2024 0148 respondent Harley shro violation address is 220 45th Avenue violation description the properties in violation of section 9.2 a permitted principle and structures of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 312 2024 aable and irreversible notice of violation dated 312 2024 notice of violation hearing dated and posted 312 of 20124 following is a true and accurate representation of what I witness this is the Affidavit of posting uh definition for the transient occupancy this is uh the property here at 220 45th AV Airbnb listing uh just the host information showed it was a minimum stay seven nights and here we have a couple of reviews there was one uh for January 2024 December 2023 another for December 2023 another for January 2024 cor can you please submit the Airbnb policy Airbnb policy is a corrective action uh property can only be advertised and rented monthly property has been property has removed the Airbnb listing recommended f is a th000 per review plus the 325 for administrative costs we have the Airbnb uh policy review policy please okay um so thank you Mr Rivero do you mind going back to the PowerPoint real quick for the comments yes before we move on oh okay never mind the one I'm looking at online had the wrong one circled I just wanted to be clear we couldn't confirm or deny that the top left was in January so the four that we're looking for are the two in January and the two in December okay I I saw what I needed to see on that thank you okay anything else Mr Rivera uh no okay thank you anyone here on behalf of Harley shrock okay if you could please um come state your name for the record my name is Harley shrock okay and anything you'd like to say in your defense yeah I believe they have two weeks to to leave a review um the first two reviews in December was uh late it was October through November like part of November and then November to December 24th was the second one the two in January one was a friend and one was actually a neighbor uh I wanted to get reviews up did had I not known this policy I wanted to get reviews up so I said use my place uh so the two in two in January were shortterm but they were a neighbor and a friend um so yeah I have removed the listing I have um spoke to Mr Riva um and I'm not renting it at all so that is my okay any questions of the respondent Mr McConnell I do just have a uh can you explain the December so you're saying that one of them was from October to November November 22nd and it started October 20th okay and then the next one was November 24th through December 23rd okay um I don't have any questions I just want to clarify that um nothing in our code designates any exemptions for family friends or anything the fact of the matter is is a short-term rental anything less than 30 days is classified as a transient rental Pur to the definition in 2.1 and know just one thing I again you've said it a couple times they appreciate learning that like this my first time owning a property down here I didn't know you know the person I bought it from they said they did that they rented it for that I bought it wasn't planning on it needed to do it obviously for financial reasons um so anyways that's it I appreciate your time sure I did have one quick question Mr shck on the two that you said was family and your neighbor um did either of those people actually stay at the property or you just had them write reviews no the they they stayed they actually stayed okay and did they pay you for those stays uh one did one didn't okay yeah one had my neighbor had family coming in and they gave me um some we did like a special thing U I could so I could get a review it was very very cheap sure and did they stay for less than 30 days yes ma'am okay and then your family that stayed is that can you describe what the situ it was a friend it was a friend yeah yeah okay and they didn't you guys didn't exchange anything for staying there okay I had to do it for a dollar so I guess we did I had to do a special so I I'm telling yeah so that you could get the review exactly any other questions from the city no um Mr ver can you just bring up the definition of transient occupancy one more time I just want to emphasize and I I understand understand Madam Magistrate's uh questioning but the last sentence and without regard to whether the right of occupancy arises from a rental agreement other agreement or the payment of consideration so I just want to make that clear don't have to be paid in order to have a transient rental not withstanding the problems with allowing family to stay at a place without exchanging money um I do see that definition and I understand this is an equitable proceeding um I am going to find that the the property was in violation um however I am just going to find um for the two properties uh or the two STS um obviously because the first two uh there's credible evidence to suggest that they fall within time frame of the 14 days um that they were longer than a 30-day or that they were a 30-day rental for the other two um understanding one was that was actually a a short-term rental because you said you exchanged money the second one being the friend a dollar I understand you just want to get the reviews um I am going to um find that both of those are IR reparable violations on the friend I actually on both of them to stay consistent I'm just going to do $250 each so for a total of $500 um you've said that you've stopped yeah um if I do see hear you again see you here again I likely will not be so lenient so um but I do understand your situation and I do I I appreciate the the credible testimony um but like I've said to everybody else you buy property within the city's jurisdictions you need to know the laws so um and I will get and uh you guys asked for $325 of I was just about to ask yes ma'am admin cost and $325 in administrative fines or costs um and I will get you an order to that respect make sure we have your email address or address so that we can and Mr Rivera has been in good contact we we've had some good conversation so it's no not a problem I appreciate it appreciate that thank you very much Mr sh okay moving on to case number 2024 one86 city of St Pete Beach versus Larry B Garner Mr Rivera yes ma'am thank you st Rivera on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement case number 2024 0186 respondents Larry B Gardner violation address is 2815 pass the grill way violation description the property is in violation of section 20.3 B permitted principal inst structures of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection was 325 2024 aable and irreversible notice of violation dated 325 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted on the property property 327 2024 following is a true and accurate representation of what I witness this is the Affidavit of posting definition for transi and occupancy this is the property at 2815 pass grow away the listing on Airbnb host information so the passag grill area is allowed to have three within a 12-month time period um transing occupancy short-term rentals uh and then after that it would have to be monthly so this shows uh three here for May of 2023 and then there's June of 2023 is the first one two three and four 5 six six and seven so these are a little lot of can you go back I just want to help clarify um go back to the beginning please one more okay so it is our position that Valerie Kleen and Robert all stayed in the month of May based on the review policy and those are their three for the year next picture next picture thank you so then we have one in June Rachel next because Valerie and Kathleen correct next okay so then you have guy and chrisy also in June so that's three in June now you have Reba in July next picture then you have William in July so that's two in July then you have Mark and Anthony both in August so that's two in August can't see that name but we have two in October and two in September two in November and mind you these say stayed about a week stayed a few nights um airb beast policy they now designated to stay and correction number 13 should probably be omitted it was respon response from the property owner got three in January stayed about a week stayed about a week stayed a few nights two in February stayed about a week stayed a few nights can you go back one yes so that's Katie and Rosanna okay can you move forward so we have four in February because you have Kate and Lindsay at the bottom um is our position that Brenda and Linda were short-term as well yeah it says stayed about a week stay about a week correct uh next picture okay the corrective action property is per permitted to only have three short-term rentals within a 12-month time period all rentals after must be monthly property is eligible for short-term rental March of 2025 recommended fine $1,000 per violation believe it should say 22 reviews plus the 325 administrative cost that concludes my presentation and is the city submitting the Airbnb criteria as well okay um anyone here on behalf of Larry oh I I've seen it I will take it into the record okay uh anyone here on behalf of Larry B Garner you please state your name and your affiliation with Mr Garner yes my name is Mary Wesley Garner daughter of Larry Garner and do you have a permission from Mr Garner to speak on his behalf I do a power of attorney here you need to see that if you could just put it on the overhead so that we can L okay thank you mhop and anything in your defense Miss Garner uh none other than I'm new to the Airbnb situation I was trying to grow that to be a success however at the same time I was not aware of the three and not 30 months days so we have I as soon as I received the official notice um contacted Airbnb contacted um Mr Rivera and let him know that short-term stays are no longer and so I've updated on the app that only I believe he had said 28 to 30 days monthly monthly um that's the minimum night day so no more of the short-term stays unless it's a three within a 12-month period but after all this I don't even know that we'll do the any short term stays at all um I don't I mean I can't say that they didn't stay because they did stay but I also didn't I wasn't aware of that so from the cases I've heard before I know that it's our responsibility to find out the zoning um I did not think that there was a problem with doing that or else I would have never had short-term stays at all um it is something to Simply supplement income to help kind of with things around the house um I've sort of changed some things in my career to help with my father's stuff so we were just trying to increase some income so sadly this is going to be something that is I don't even know how to understand how to pay for the fines of things like this but just no moving forward that you know short-term stays are not going to be tolerated there um Airbnb I do have I didn't know if it's purposeful or whatever but um Airbnb def I was contacting them let them know um and show showed them the notice and they actually on behalf of Airbnb cancelled the um shortterm the days so I don't know if you need that or not but I have a whole listing of our um well I I I find your testimony credible so I that unless I um I just thought it would be you know they were glad and were nice to hear of the situation and no more sure term stays will be there um it it doesn't doesn't even have to be there at all but it was something that I was trying to help out the family with so okay um any questions for Miss Garner I do have one question if if you can answer it um like how much did did you make from June of last year till now roughly oh from these rentals I don't know offand of how much June of last year until now yeah I'm sure there is a way to look this up in the app um but the stays were potentially I think there was a like 2 275 285 and then just recently over the Christmas time was able to rent for 310 so okay it was a considerable amount but not not as much as one may think with the expenses and things of you know helping to kind of pick up understood from my dad's stuff so so clarify that were you had on on each of those rentals would you say that you made an excess of $1,000 on each of them I wouldn't say each or on average potentially some of them if they were I don't know longer than three days potentially that could we could make a thousand but normally they're in the five to seven range if it's a longer stay I think we've reached a th um if there're 30 month or 30day stays it's it's more than that of course but there was a discount to try to get people to stay longer longer periods of time okay I would prefer people stay longer anyway if we did it because it's more headache than it turned out to be worth um okay anything further Miss Garner no thank you okay anything further from the city no I would just request um I appreciate you profer the the cancellations but in the order if you could um if we could just get that email that you've canceled the future ones I think that would be helpful for the city absolutely um no nothing further I counted uh 23 based on the evidence um 23 I I counted 22 Yeah so I mean we can 22 is fine but I have 3 June 3 July two August Two October two September two November three in January four in February and two in March I guess one question I could pose or ask would you know since at the notice at the immediate notice of any type of you know official violation that was was posted you know there was immediate action taken right after that I don't know that I have seen any notification prior to that if if I had I would have right so the issue that viated that right so the issue that we have with these notices with this the notice of violation that you received is that the city is contending that they're irreparable or irreversible meaning that you can't go back and fix what's been done which if it's an advertising issue you can take down your advertising etc etc but the fact is these people have stayed they did a short-term rental they were there for less than 30 days and unless we have a time machine we can't go back and reverse that um so to stay consistent with my rulings I understand that this is an equitable proceeding so I am allowed to take in uh to a lot of things other than just the evidence um I am going to find that you are in violation of the stated code section um I count by my count 22 violations um so I am going to assess a an individual fine for each of those 22 violations in the amount of $250 um there's a Prov like I've said before to other people there's a provision in the code that you can come back ask for a reduction in fines or to contend with that lean so I would suggest taking a look at that if you feel so inclined um but $250 for each of the 22 stays um and the $325 in costs to the city I will get you a written order to that effect if you just make sure that we have your email address or your correct address there okay all right thank you Mrs Garner you or Miss Garner Madam special magistrate Pete D code enforcement manager on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach are you saying 5,500 plus admin I did not do the math on that so if you're saying 22 * 250 is 5,500 yes I would have to consult my calculator but that sounds about right thank you uh but I am not under oath so don't hold me to that yes uh moving to case number 20240 one58 city of St Pete Beach versus Thomas drle I apologize if I messed that up and Caroline zeleski Mr Rivera C Rivera on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach case number 2024 0158 respondents Thomas strle and Carolyn zalinsky address 38 I'm sorry 3208 East maritana Drive violation description the property is in violation of section 9.2 permitted principal and structures of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 314 2024 ir reable and irreversible notice of violation dated 314 20124 notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 3:18 2024 following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting definition for transient occupancy it's a picture of the property at 3208 East maritana Drive it's the Airbnb listing and so we're looking for this is the uh review for November um based on the review policy this was the violation that we see stayed a few nights in November and the top two I'm sorry so November says state a few nights which in itself I think shows proof of short-term rental the top two based on the review policy correct based on a review policy it could be within that two we time frame right so explain to me the math on the top two how you find that those are both short-term States we're we're not we're just the one that Mr McConnell did say the top two the top two uh or did I mishar that yeah okay this that the going back and looking at it based on a review policy it could be within the two weeks we don't have proof for those two so that's not what we're seeking just the one that just the one in November correct effective action property can only be advertised and rented as a monthly rental recommended fine is $1,000 per violation the one review plus a $325 administrative costs and that concludes my presentation anyone here on behalf of Mr drum and melinsky or zeleski anyone here on behalf of the property owners Thomas dramou and Carolyn zeleski Mr River have you had any contact with the property owners at all I have not now the only people I spoke to were the um the renters that were at the property um they said they would give her the information as well but we did mail out and post the property okay okay uh there was can I ask a question yes out of curiosity so there was renters at the property when you served the notice there were um and they were there for four they were staying for four months okay when I talked to them thank you okay all right based on the evidence presented I am going to find that the property was in violation of the state of code sections it is an irreparable irreversible violation I will assess a $1,000 fine and $325 in administrative costs thank you uh case number 20 24 0187 city of St Pete Beach versus Thomas D Parker and Phyllis Parker Mr Rivera thank you Stephen Rivera on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement case number 2024 00187 respondents Thomas and Phyllis Parker violation address 3611 Casablanca AV violation description the property is in violation of section 9.2 a permitted principal inst structures on the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 326 2024 irreparable and irreversible notice of violation dated 326 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 327 2024 following is a true and accurate representation of what I witness this is the Affidavit of posting def for transient occupancy Mr R can you go back that Definition of transient occupancy says more than three times in any consecutive 12-month period but the violation says that in the R2 they cannot rent at all for less than one month is that correct one month in the ru1 R2 R2 yeah uh the only place that has the the three uh would be the pass pass I just wanted to clarify based on what's in the record okay this is the VRBO listing so the reviews here shows 10 nights in February of 2024 seven nights in February of 2024 and then seven nights again in February of 2024 corrective action the property can only be advertised and rented month as a monthly rental recommended fine would be $1,000 per violation three reviews plus 325 administrative costs I do have a copy of the review policy for VRBO okay that will be accepted into the record and if you could just I mean I don't think I need it because the reviews explicitly State when how long they stayed okay um but that will be taken to the record thank you now I do want to clarify we're going a th per review however if the magistrate if the respondent would like and we can always do 250 a day per night as well so I think we're being fair with saying a th000 per comment but the reality is we could go 250 a day her each night because you can't rent it at all for less than 30 days understood okay anything further from the city okay anyone here on behalf of Mr or Miss Parker if you'll please come up state your name and affiliation for the record fellis Parker okay and Miss Parker what would you like to say in your defense um I've owned the house since uh 2020 it's clearly listed BRBO I thought it was the same as Airbnb in the listing but on my listing on Airbnb it explicitly says 30 days only and I have never rented under 30 days until those three incidences and the reason I did is because I uh thought that the law had changed I think it actually has changed but it's not in effect until July um it's debatable but okay okay so and the notice was uh given on March 27th for February incidents why not say to me hey you're violating the law on the first incident instead of waiting till the end of March to put a notice on a door I don't live at the house and so I just was lucky to get that notice because a neighbor saw the notice and said hey there's a notice on your door and you have to appear in court I called Mr Rivera on the 28th asking for an extension and I was told I couldn't have an extension it was Easter my father-in-law died I had a lot of reasons to be able to get an extension and I was denied I don't know what I would have done otherwise but it seems to me if you're going to violate a person why not violate them in the beginning until instead of waiting a month to have three violations instead of one violation okay any questions for the respondent Mr McConnell no questions anything further Miss Parker no ma'am okay um I will let you know from my point of view notice is notice so I don't take into account when the city gives you notice whether it should or shouldn't legally they're required to give you notice I don't know when they found out about it and even so they only have to give you the legally required notice under chapter 162 so is that not a they they don't mail a certified letter the only notice I got was this piece of plastic on the door so then that's that is a fair question if you'd like to ask the city I would do the same is since you're contending that there was insufficient notice however all that being said you can certainly make those arguments there's counterarguments in case law to support that because you are here today those kind of arguments are are not necessarily waved but have hold less water because you are here you've been given appropriate notice and you are Defending Your Case but I would to your point I would like to like hear from Mr Rivera if the notice was sent per chapter 16 through to Via certified mail yes so we sent the notice certified uh and posted the property and due to it being uh corable reversible there's no C uh time it's the violation is the violation correct so but cert uh but a certified mailing was in fact sent out yes ma'am okay there say certified letter in the mailbox at the address and I didn't get it at my address in Indiana so I didn't see the and I see here M Rivera looks like the notice went to 3611 cablanca drive with property appraiser we sent it to the mailing address through count property which to your recollection is 3611 castleblanca Drive okay and Miss Parker do you have is that where your tax statements go to is that the to your understanding is that where your where the city taxes your Property Appraiser's website has that address listed as the the property owner's address yes okay okay anything further Miss Parker in your defense okay anything further from the city no okay um based on the testimony here today Miss Parker I understand that you thought the law had changed um but you were in compliance you put yourself out of compliance and it wasn't from ignorance of the law it was just that you started to short-term rent and and from your testimony you had it on one site and not on the other um so I am going to find that there is a violation I am going to assess $1,000 per violation or at your option $250 a day for each of those stays um I don't do the math so that would be 6,000 so $6,000 for the $250 a day or $1,000 or $1,000 for each of the three incidents um so would you prefer the Thousand I don't usually ask the respondents but which one would you prefer had to pay more no yeah I figured as much um so I am going to assess $1,000 a day fine plus a32 $5 in administ or not a day $1,000 per currence fine plus the $325 in administrative cost and like you've heard here today there are ways to come back and ask for a reduction if you so choose but make sure we have your address or email address your correct one um to get your notices to so that um I can send you a copy of this order all right for for this one could we also request um we be provideed proof I will do the standard order that I had always done on the short-term rals that proof that all cancellations of any future short-term bookings have been and this one does not fall within the three per year so there will not be a correct it will just be that it needs to cease immediately and be only be rented for 30 days okay thank you Miss Parker all right case number 2024 0147 city of St Pete Beach versus Tyler rash show and atali R show I am so sorry I know I'm butchering people's names um Mr Cruz yes thank you special magistr code enforcement case number 2024 0147 respondents Tyler rash show and Natalie rasau violation address 460 59th Avenue violation description the property is in violation of section 8.2 permitted principal uses and structures a of the land devel vment code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary the initial inspection was 311 2024 a reparable or irreversible notice of violation dated 312 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 312 2024 and these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at 460 59th Avenue March 12th 2024 and as you've seen previously the transient occupancy definition section 2.1 this is the Airbnb advertisement as you can see they have a minimum stay of two nights advertised and hosted by Natalie also in the description first and last name this is just a picture of where you can park while staying at the property for short-term rental this is just a Google view of the property at 460 59th Avenue right as you can see there two weeks ago stayed a few nights three weeks ago stayed with kids two weeks ago stayed with kids three weeks ago stayed a few nights three weeks ago stayed with kids Mr Cruz if you could just stop right there yes sir based on I understand we've we've been consistent so without the month I just want to point out there's one review here that says three weeks ago that stays a few nights so that's number one and if you can if you can go back a page please yes sir and there's one that says stayed a few nights right so we're only going after two out of the first five just because it doesn't designate a month even though I believe if you have four comments three weeks apart it's clear that they overlapped and stayed for less than 30 [Music] days we get to February 2024 then another one in February 2024 January 2024 Jan January 2024 January 2024 which was Kitty Shaina December 2023 Melissa December 2023 Grace December 2023 Mariah November 2023 Sam November 2023 November 2023 yes October 2023 1 October 20232 Ashley that's three in October 2023 katata August 2023 August 2023 that's one August 2023 Rebecca that's two August 2023 the 3D Sarah July 2023 KD July 2023 making that two in July and I would also like to add if you could put on the overhead please I would like to show that advertising has been changed the screenshot was from 44 2024 to 30-day minimum and a screenshot from this morning 48 to add additional one which makes the 28 Minus a few that we had talked about in the in the beginning but what I total previously was 28 well well that changes things a little bit though the math is different on that because now you've got two with three weeks ago and two with two weeks not only that all four of them they stay a few nights yeah so okay so that's one 2 3 4 I can show you another one as well this one was on the last one go by name the on the PowerPoint you showed did it have Benjamin and Andrew yes you would like me to go back to that one well you don't have to but I just wanted to see where it started would that be a total 29 one second yes it did so what I said in the beginning has now been changed proven yeah and I can show one that's previous if you would like this is from 44 four good you can go back to the overhead back to the overhead thank you so by my excuse me so my by my count that's 28 correct that's what I have PowerPoint please and the corrective action property can only be advertised and rented on a monthly basis recommended fine is $1,000 per violation totaling 28 reviews plus 325 for administrative costs so the city is not going after the advertising or it's been corrected because it was corrected before the date in the violation okay okay anything further from the city no ma' right anyone here on behalf of the Rosa and I apologize for what I'm sure is a blatant mispronunciation if you could please um just State your names your affiliation with the property owners if you are the property owners for the record yes uh I'm Tyler this is my wife Natalie hi do you guys have anything you want to say in your defense so I the only thing U that we were under the impression that um cuz like when we got the notice it says like detached single family dwelling and it's not detached just it's a it's like a room in our house so we were under the assumption and we talked to somebody and got false information obviously and they were like oh no that's only if you rent the whole house so we would we wouldn't we it's like part of our house it's not it's not detached so I didn't know if that's different or if that means anything but that's really the only thing that we were going off of we thought you know yeah my understanding and Mr McConnell can correct me if I'm wrong is that with the city of St Pete Beach it's per parcel okay um and since it doesn't matter if it's detached or attached it's all in the same parcel the wording I was just like I was when I saw detached we talked to a friend that does airbnbs they they basically steered us the wrong direction so we've never rented the entire house it always just been the room sure um Mr mon any questions for the property owners no no it is per partial okay okay I do have a question I noticed on the uh advertisement it says that you've been hosting for seven years is that correct um we had uh a house that my mom used to rent long seven years ago that she had for like six months and then she had to moved back to Miami and she asked me to rent it for her but we never even had anybody say we actually had one review from that one that I cancelled it and then they left a review saying like oh she canceled last minute but there was never any activity there because when the r just breaking the lease because she had to leave to Miami okay we just kind of tried it and then it didn't work out but no nobody rented okay um and this home you said it's a room in your home how long have you owned it looks like it was a newly built home we should built it uh last year that we we built the add-on so we we bought the house 3 years ago okay and then we built the add-on with like for like a guest you know guest like uh we have family come over friends come over but just for like money reasons okay we we we assume because we're not ring the whole house we were we were in the clear but obviously not okay and I'm going to say that what I've told everybody else when you purchase a property within the city limits then you are subject to those laws regardless of what your neighbors tell you your friends tell you so um I B yes did you want to say something okay based on the evidence uh that has been given I you do have 28 short-term stays they have the ability to charge you up to $5,000 per each of those I am going to take the recommended $11,000 per stay plus the $325 in administrative costs and just like I told everybody else there's Provisions to come back and ask for a reduction but um um you know this is I I take all testimony and I take the reasons why people do things because I do have the ability to have it be a little Equitable this like you said was just a way to make some extra money so yeah um well I appreciate that you guys thought you were doing things the right way it's always best to check either with a lawyer I know we're terrible people um or with the city to make sure you can do what you're saying that you can do um so I will get you an order to that effect please make sure I have your email address or your proper address that I can get that to you Madam special magistrate Pete dur again is that 28 times a th000 we'll review the order oh I don't she said a th000 per review per review oh thank you just wanted a clarification thanks Matthew and my count is 28 so very good thank you same as ours what the record stand up okay moving on to case number 2024 0185 city of St Pete Beach versus Rebecca Jones Mr Cruz yes thank you special magistrate Louis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement this is Code Enforcement case number 2024 0185 respondent Rebecca Jones violation address 8125 bokaa Drive violation description the property is in violation of section 9.2 permitted principal uses and structures a of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary the initial inspection was 325 2024 a reparable or irreversible notice of violation dated 327 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 327 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at 8125 basa Drive March 27th 2024 that's not me and as you know the definition section 2.1 transi occupancy and the Airbnb advertisement hosted by Becca showing that you can rent on a short-term basis this was a property that you can rent at the the minimum one night showing the about Becca the property owner SL manager and one week ago stayed a few nights two weeks ago stayed a few nights three weeks ago stayed with a pet just kind of showing you the overall reviews from the people that stayed and that she responded as well and if you could put on the overhead for me please as of 44 2024 you were still able to rent on a short-term basis at the property it was still being advertised and an additional review was seen this morning stayed a few nights totaling four go back to the PowerPoint please corrective action property can only be advertised and rented on a monthly basis recommended fine is $11,000 per violation for reviews plus $325 for administrative costs and that concludes my presentation thank you okay and you said on 44 the advertising did or did not come into compliance it was not in compliance at the time of 44 okay is the city now seeking a daily running f for the advertising or have you abandoned that one I asked because you brought it up but I didn't correct well because um we did give them until 4:3 for the advertisement in the notice so we're going to go $1,000 per Comet to 50 until the property is compliant with the advertisement I just know Madam magistrate usually give a day or yeah well I'm looking at your notice to make sure when they were notified of that because it says that you have until 43 to change the advertisement and then it only mentions the irreversible nature of 5,000 there's no there's no notice of the 250 for per day and the notice okay I understand I'll take a look at that okay is there anyone here on behalf of Miss Jones or is Miss Jones here morning good morning if you could please whatever it is at this point if you could please come up state your name and affiliation with Miss Jones for the record yes of course my name is Bryce Williams I'm an attorney on behalf of Rebecca Jones who's here today to my right um first and foremost um in regards to the advertisement $250 it has been changed um it is no longer advertised as a one night rental stay um I know you mentioned um the actual notice of that violation in the notice that Miss Jones received um so we would ask that to not be considered at all as for the four reviews that were shown by the city uh Miss Jones is from Nebraska she moved down here to build a property she bought this property in St Pete Beach and was living in it at the time the construction of her house was taking place she was living there and then when her house was completed she moved out and decided to rent out the property she was unaware that these types of restrictions were put in place um she ran an Airbnb business in Nebraska no such Provisions or restrictions in any communities that she rented airbnbs at in Nebraska had any sort of similar restrictions so it didn't even cross her mind to look up these possible transient occupancy restrictions um she is fully in compliance with the code now the only way to book her place is to have it for a 30-month m or 30-day minimum stay um she's also planning on selling the house now that her house is completed where she's living at now so it's not there isn't a continued risk moving forward of her violating this code again um you know we would ask that um based off precedent said at this hearing today that she be issued only a $250 fine for each of the violations um instead of the suggested $11,000 um the reason being that she was completely unaware and that's kind of the basis of our defense is that if she would have known that this what she was doing was wrong it wouldn't have occurred in the first place she likely wouldn't have even rented out the property at all and just moved right to sell it instead of renting it out um after the construction of her current home was completed um and for the record I'd like to notate that one of the reviews um the one that was specified Dominic um that was a photo shoot that occurred at the Airbnb um the purpose of that booking on Airbnb was a photo shoot to be uh conducted for for business Dominic's business um so I would just like that notated for the record and um we would ask for um a $250 fine um in other than the $1,000 that was recommended by the city any questions from the city I do um thank you for the clarification on Dominics but um how long were the other rentals says a few nights the other ones that were posted on there they were less than a month correct how long a week two weeks five days the other ones yeah one was I think a week one told me they were going to stay a month actually they told me they were going to stay longer and they ended up not but I didn't know that there was any I didn't know there was such a thing being in Nebraska I own a medical stopping company and we were placing probably nurses and doctors during Co so I had a lot of different Airbnb properties that I placed a of the travel nurses in because there was no housing available for them during Co and uh that was just something that I did in Nebraska I had very high-end properties and I thought that okay well maybe I'll just do it with this property and then I found out that I called an attorney because i' never heard of this before so and then when he advised me what to do um obviously now I'm going to most likely just sell the property since I can't use short-term R which is unfortun cuz my house is beautiful and it's great for families and it's set up for families that have children and uh you know a lot of people can't find properties their pets so I just thought I was doing something good for the commune so I apologize but I tell anything thank you for that um Madame magistrate the reason I asked how long these were is because the property owner is charging $765 per night to stay there um so we are not in agreement with reducing the $1,000 that's practically one night at her property so we think that's more than fair and there discounts there was discount rentals on there and I think that there was discounts for the first few rentals there was significant so some of those weren't being yeah I I would like to notate that pricing that can be set on the app it can fluctuate it can vary I can't speak it does say average pricing I understand right um anything else Miss Jones or um Mr Williams no ma'am anything else from the city okay um I'd like to clarify something for the record there is no precedent so because I Ruled one way in one case based on this the credible testimony of the respondent and the reasons being for why and their potential ignorance etc etc may not apply in another case understood based on the type and quality of testimony I do stay consistent throughout my orders um as I've said and you've heard if you've sat here long enough ignorance of the law is not an excuse to the law and so just because in Nebraska there's no laws in Florida if you pick up a newspaper any given day of the week one of the largest debates in our state is short-term rentals and vacation rentals so um with that being said uh there were four nights I understand Dominic's was for a photo shoot but it sounds to me there wasn't any testimony that said it was of of a 30-day nature so to me that's still a shortterm rental especially given the definition of transient occupancy um so I am going to find that the property was in violation for the four nights I will assess the ,000 per stay fine um and as you've heard if you've been sitting here there are ways under the code to come back and see if that can be reduced um I will get you an order staying the same Please Mr Williams you just make sure we have your contact information and I will send it to you in writing perfect okay thank you plus the $325 in administrative cost read my mind thank you ma'am I write it down and then I don't say it okay thank you thank you madam magistrate uh moving on agenda item number six cases complied there are none uh number seven old cases case number 2023 0511 city of St Pete Beach versus Randall Rudder Trustee of the rudder living trust uh this is a final hearing to impose final cost as well what it says Mr Rivera yes Madam magistrate stevenh Rivera on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach so we had Mr Rudder in back in uh know the date off the top of my head um was previously adjudicated and was given time frame to get the D the dock out of the Dune system uh he has completed it a little bit longer than we expected but it wasn't his fault uh d d had a hold up so just want to submit the evidence photos uh the dock being removed from the dun de we did replenish the vegetation with approved uh plants and this was taken back in the beginning of uh or March 4th beginning of March I'm sure by now it's probably grown in a little bit better but significant uh sufficient ground cover that was placed in okay I don't know if you have the prior order in front of you I do so that was going to be my next question um my order is dated October 12th and it gave uh once the platform was removed it gave the respondent 60 days from the date of the notice to put in the Landscaping that was because of fdp having to be involved and all that entails um um so when the removal was completed did the property owner complete the installation of landscaping within the 60 days or sufficient enough for the city to say he's complied with the order yeah he's he was in contact with us throughout the whole process there was an issue with um the landscaper being able to get the plants to re yeah he was worried about it getting close they got it in everything was good but it was the the back and forth holding off and waiting he he had a late start because D took so long to respond to uh our notice and and and getting in touch with him I do have one question how much are the admin cost here um it's three we're I think we're it is 325 I didn't know if okay so there will be no further request from the city minus the 5,000 fine for the initial violation I was going to say I've already assessed the $5,000 fine for IR reversible or reparable and then uh the administrative costs which are $325 pursuing to the city's testimony correct um so the only point of clarity for the city is certainly it said will be imposed so we didn't actually do anything correct so and and I will draft an order imposing that fine and the administrative costs um as that could have gone very differently if he didn't comply with the order as stated um and also perer to chapter 162 and this fund bifurcated system that we have um so I will go ahead and get an order imposing those fines and costs uh before I do that is Mr Rudder here and would he like to say anything I don't I didn't see him I spoke to him uh he had sent me an email letting me know that he was in compliance I told him I was going out to the property to take photos um he's back in Kentucky I believe okay uh it has no plans to be here until the summer all right just for purpose of the record nobody is here on behalf of Mr rder no one good okay okay I will get an order to that effect and send it to all parties involved thank you and moving on to case number 20230 559 city of St Pete Beach versus Lake Meritt Partners LLC so Madame Magistrate on Thursday late um the city received this I'm going to go ahead and add as a courtesy submit it in to the record it's a withdrawal of their request um as you can see from the agenda there was a notice of appeal filed and if you look at the overhead this is what their attorney sent so okay well I will accept not that I need to but I will accept the request to withdraw the hearing to challenge the fine amount there will be no order associated with us thank you uh moving on to case number 2023 0513 city of St Pete Beach versus April Elliot and David I got this last time robar or baric okay all right oh Mr derer um Madam special magistrate good afternoon Pete D code enforcement manager on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach um April Elliot is here to are you appealing the F yes it yes it says it's a challenge to the fine amount correct yes okay so since this is Miss Elliot since this is your uh specific request F go up and just State why you were seeking to re repeal or reduce the fine amount certainly so if you will recall we were present at the February hearing uh my husband and I Mr rarc um updating the court and um alerting the court to the fact that we were attempting to sell the property uh we disputed obviously the like the situation of the fence and the court accepted that um we did obviously accept ownership of the dumpster enclosure and indicated that we were more than willing to work with the city in terms of resolving that um the court and I believe the City Attorney at that time indicated you know that they didn't want to disrupt the sale of property and so we were given an extension um to to resolve that and advise to work with code enforcement in terms of how best to do that whether we could paint it or needed to remove it or what may be my husband um did confer with Mr Cruz about that um it was determined that we could um excuse me simply demolish the fence uh that was going to be the cheaper option um we did have a number of showings scheduled uh once we live Ed the property so we elected to not move immediately on that but we certainly intended to do it um we did receive this Court's order uh to appear at the March 11th hearing which was set for a status conference to update the court as to what was happening we had every intention of doing so um however that weekend my father had um a medical emergency um so I do have excuse me my boarding pass that I even saved to show that we flew out late on the evening of March 10th to attend to my father um they live in a pretty rural part of Dallas um there were flight delays the boarding pass even reflects that and so I can show this to the court if you would like to submit it as evidence that's fine but I take your testimony is credible long story not so short um we didn't arrive to my parents house until um almost 1:00 a.m. a.m. uh the night before I did set my alarm because we're on Central time there um to alert Mr Cruz to the fact that we would not be able to attend the status conference um I made every attempt possible to attend this hearing virtually to either call in or Zoom or whatever this court would allow to give an update I also um emailed both Mr Rivera and Mr Cruz um at 9:24 that morning um obviously not sure whether or not they would get that in time but again this is 8:24 Dallas time um I breathed a great s of relief when Mr Cruz um alerted the court to the fact that I had emailed him that morning I was very grateful that he had received it um however um respectfully he was rather choosy and what he chose to relate to the court so he stated that um we had spoken to him we had been advised that we could remove the dumpster enclosure um what he did not say is that I had asked if we could appear virtually he did not say I had asked if we could call in he did not say that if we could not I was requesting one final extension um he did not say that I said that we had spoken with our general contractor ctor that morning and confirmed the fact that he could and would remove the enclosure as soon as the permit had been accepted um none of that was related to the court so it was very painstaking and he did not say that I also emailed and said we are appearing virtually we are watching live all of this I said and as our Cas is called I sent a second email saying we are online we are here we can answer any questions that the court may have none of this was related to the court um so it was very painful to hear the court say is anyone here on behalf of respondents and here complete and utter silence nothing about well I do know that they're online I do them I do know that they're requesting an extension I do know that they would like to call and speak with the court and provide an update if they can I do know they spoke with the general contractor this morning and are working to resolve this none of this was said so we watched from Dallas this court impose fines and costs which are obviously exorbitant however that said immediately upon the Court's ruling I called the contractor again he came and applied for the permit that has to be notorized by us so we're in rural Dallas uh my parents live in like horse country so my husband and I are driving around trying to find a notary who can notorized the permit regardless the permit was notorized and applied for and filed with this office within hours of this Court's ruling so that was done same day uh we waited I want to say three weeks for the permit to be approved by the city and I have text messages and emails with our general contractor to reflect those Communications do we still not have approval do we still not have approval we didn't but once we finally did within I want to say 3 weeks the permit was finally approved uh despite it being filed the same day as this Court's ruling the enclosure was removed within hours of the permit being approved the same day so the enclosure has been removed it's all done the in final inspection was um last Thursday I think and so I have that um sto that the buildings I do have the signed inspection uh and approval so that's been done so we we truly have been doing everything that we can to be compliant with the city it's just we've experienced some hurdles um but thankfully they are behind us but I am asking the Court to please resend its order regarding um fines and costs it was not Our intention to um to delay things this was completely on property it wasn't obstructing any throwaways or byways it wasn't um the Integrity of the structure was never issue so it wasn't I don't think a public safety hazard um this has been in existence for years to my knowledge um so I I don't feel like we were putting the community at any harm or Public Safety at Jeopardy so um again we've done what we can what we've could I did attempt to appear at last month's hearing and attempt to update the court um what I also indicated in that email to Mr Cruz and Mr Rivera was I know they said that I said you know when there was a lull in showings that's true but I also said that we anticipated it could be done within the week um that also was not relate to the court so I just want to make the court aware that we weren't trying to sidestep um this Court's orders okay anything from the city yeah well I definitely understand your situation and and I'm empathetic towards it I just want to clarify that this is not a like lean reduction request this is a challenge to the fine and and Madam magistrate respectfully in in our code you're limited to consideration of only such new findings necessary to impose an appropriate fine I and I understand that and I agree that some of the testimony that's been presented would um address that and a large portion of it does not well and so I guess the point I'm trying to make is there was still a window from February 14th to March 11th to get a permit they left on March 10th which was the day before I highly doubt they were going to get a permit the day before the meeting anyways um I don't really hear anything that should change your opinion on the fact that they had until March 11th and they didn't get it their attendance here and and why I can appreciate that um I mean you had the special magistrates email you could have emailed the decision maker there it's it's really not Lewis's responsibility to advocate for property owners um I understand that you were upset but generally speaking I don't really like in quasa judicial procedures people to be on Telephone it's very hard to hear it's very difficult to do um so yeah Madam magistrate I I don't think from the city's point of view I can understand the severity and family first and and those things but the reality is there was 30-day window that they did not obtain a permit whether it was because they were selling it or what the permit wasn't obtained and and if I may briefly respond to be to be clear I did review this Court's final order um after the February hearing and there was not any order to obtain a permit within that 30 days the order was to confer with the code enforcement officer and to then appear for the status conference there was not a specific order to have obtained a permit within that 30-day window that was not the Court's order it was to confer with the code enforcement officer which we did do right so my order for purposes of the record from February 15 20124 said respondent shall have until Monday March 11th to meet with the city to determine if the dumpster enclosure can be removed or if it needs to be replaced and to make a good faith effort to complete the removal or replacement before that date and then it says a status hearing would be set for Monday March 11th at that time it will be determined what the status of the property is what actions are being taken to remedy the violation and whether an extension of time is needed to complete those tasks or findes and administrative costs will be imposed as a result of the failure to make a good faith attempt to comply with the code I agree that your challenge to the fine amount is uh is um well not credible but it is substantiated as there are new findings necessary to impose an appropriate F and create a lean that being I did not know that you weren't able to appear and you tried to appear virtually that being said there were extenuating circumstances there are things that you would have done but all of that to say nothing changed what your testimony is here today which is you were going to defer either the removal or the replacement of that dumpster until you had gotten showings done so you could have met with the city applied for the permit had the permit understanding it's a cost benefit situation done that at that time and then if and then done the showings so the permit process doesn't require somebody to be on site you could have still done your showings and gone through the permitting process to remove that dumpster after those showings were done um I again just like Mr McConnell said I am empathetic I don't know what your father's situation is and I hope whatever ends up resolving favorably but um and while this is an equitable proceeding I don't find that the New Evidence that's being presented here today would have changed my mind on what that Associated fine would have been now again to Mr McConnell's point there is a fine reduction uh provision within the code but I don't think and I was lenient I think on my fines of 200 $50 a day for something that is the removal of a dumpster once it was determined that it could be removed it's it's a mere permitting process in removing the dumpster so understanding that like I said there's a cost benefit analysis um my ruling on the the reduction of the fine request is going to be that I don't find that there is sufficient evidence that would have changed my opinion at the March 11th meeting um to today on the $250 a day fine um um and I am going to keep the order as stands and no reduction and fine will be uh given at this time so we can't have a reduction for the time that we waited for the permit to be approved by you have no so like I said that you had from the date of the hearing really even though it was from the date of my order you really had from the date of the hearing because you're on notice of that deadline um to say okay we we know that we have to take down the dumpster we're going to make every effort to apply for the permit and then if you had come here today and said we applied for the permit we still haven't gotten it we just needed an extension of time because we were delaying because of the showings but we made every effort to apply for the permit to have it removed but this emergency happened with my family and we had to go we weren't able to attend the hearing that would be a different set of circumstances because there would have been a good faith reasonable effort been made to remove the dumpster from the property the fact that the permit didn't get applied for until the end of the the time period allotted for in my order that's what isn't to me is is the the Lynch pin here on whether or not these fines are going to be extinguished or otherwise reduced I think the a fine amount based on the New Evidence presented today is insufficient enough for me to reduce that $250 a day fine not to say there's not other Provisions in the code to ask for lean reductions Etc but for the parameters I'm given in the code the New Evidence would not have changed my mind at that March hearing if you had been here so the $250 a day began when and ended when uh pursuant to my order it began on March 11th 2024 and runs until the property comes into compliance which uh is a determination made by the city but I believe youve she's testified that's kind of what I Wasing there's a lean reduction what you did was challenge the actual lean the fine amount the fine amount but there's a lean reduction application once your property is compliant that you can apply for to reduce the actual lean impos and who do I contact for that right behind you they can they can give you the application and it is different standards of review so for this particular standard of review I don't find this the evidence sufficient enough and may I inquire of the city whether or not our neighbor who we Pro does own the fence that we were initially cited for have they been cited I am going to say that that's something that you can inquire for offline but that's not pertinent to this application or to this motion to the sale of our property it may be but what your sale your property is not at issue here today for the request that's being we were cited for it initially so I'm just curious to know whether or not they have been cited and I think you could ask the city offline thank you Miss Elliot thanks okay moving on to agenda item 8 lean reductions case number 2023 0291 city of St Pete Beach versus nesan Inc do I have yes Mr der good afternoon Madam special magistrate Pete derer code enforcement manager of the city of St Pete Beach as you're aware this is for a lean reduction we have the lean reduction application please go to the overhead and this proves that the taxes were paid the property is now compliant and fines accumulated to $2 29,6 180 of which the lean was $229,200 plus administrative cost of $430 the city is asking for $5,850 and the administrative cost of $325 for a total of $ 6,175 okay where is someone here yeah I was going to say I'm not so sure the city's requesting anything great oh I didn't see a request in the application so yeah if you could please come up state your name and your affiliation with uh Nishan LLC yeah Carrie blackburg uh attorney for Mr uh Shaw you want the power attorney you no you're an attorney as long as you're properly like by the Florida bar I think I am um never know these days I've been dealing with this quite honestly for quite some time for him um and it's really kind of boiled down to an issue of a contractor that didn't know what they were doing um wrong surveying and a contractor actually stating that he didn't think he needed a survey to put in a new fence um and and I I appreciate it uh I know my client actually spoke to um Mr der p uh P sorry um prior to this and they told me that amount um which is extremely Fair quite honestly um the only thing that I request and I want to see if would be possible to you be granted is all this the the um work that was requested to be done to this property was done as soon as he got notice um the notice was left at the property I don't think he ever got correct notice um we ended up taking on and speaking to everyone um and I after speaking to the client today he requested that I asked the city to take $4,500 in notes um okay so the request is to reduce the $229,200 plus the $430 in administrative fines to $4,500 yeah I mean I don't I know all the facts are already gone through in this case I don't really want to go rehash all that um right and I don't think there's any reason to okay and the city is offering a red a counter reduction to $6,185 inclusive of admin cost inclusive of a reduction from 430 to 325 for admin costs and a reduction from 29 250 to 58.50 for fines or for the lean um and your assertion today is that that seems like a fair amount I it it is and just to be honest I mean and and in all honesty just looking back at the file itself and all the emails going back and forth from the city uh this should never have told to where it is in the first place um it was immediately received and I mean I can give you the contracts and the email and and again I don't want to waste anyone's time so that's why you know I'm and I don't really have it I mean I don't my criteria is did they meet all of these things and it was a pretty long list is the reduction appropriate so and I think well the tolling period for the the original um find includes periods that were right uh there with the property that was actually in compliance based on most there was some new notices as far as the fence that they put in was 5 in off um and then there was multiple email string back and forth for quite honestly beginning prior to the original notice of uh the contractor who if you want the name I can give it to you um between uh the contractor and uh the city uh Elena Grundy um back and forth back and forth um requesting you know hey uh the permit was says it was done and then it went it went back to inactive or invalid and back and forth with the survey company who did something wrong and just it kind of spiraled out of control okay um and with this client who's a doctor running a different business not at this building he really didn't and trusted this other person to do this okay so any response from the city uh no respectfully I think 20% is more than fair and if we need to make arguments I mean I I mean if he has like compliance dates that are before January potentially but there's compliance dates in November with the order asserted or it came back out with another order and like I said I don't want to sound and I really don't because I do think based on numbers it looks Fair um I'm just saying that there was it seems to be there was a lot of back and forth back and forth but also some miscommunication between multiple parties okay um as far as uh the tolling of it um okay so I understand the request is for 4500 and I understand the reasoning behind that I the reduce reduction to 20% I think is fair and you've said it seems pretty fair and Equitable so I'm inclined to go with a reduction from 29,200 for the lean to $5,850 and then the reduction in the administrative fines from 430 to 325 for a total of $617 which is not far off from the 4500 uh based on the proportion from the original fine and lean um and I will get you an order to that effect if make just make sure I've got your email address I'll send it straight to you thank you right thank you so much all right case number 22334 city of St Pete Beach versus Paradise Caprice LLC another Lane reduction good afternoon Madam special magistrate Pete derer on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach vot enforcement and as you see there the amount they're requesting the fine be reduced to is 5,000 would you like read these mam Special M right uh I have read them previously but yes I will go through it one more time just to refresh my recollection yeah okay I recall this okay the taxes have been paid and so the city is going to request the fin total $61,000 MH of which uh the lean is 61,000 the administrative cost is $430 so um the city is going to request 6,100 plus $430 for a total of $653 okay so the willing to corre to a 90% reduction 90% reduction 90% reduction to 10% % based on and the request is $5,000 yes ma'am and just to clarify for the record based on the gravity the effects of the surrounding properties just so there is criteria behind this as Sil city manager was willing to accept 10% okay and Miss saino you're here on behalf of the property owner Simone Simone svino Sterns weer Miller here on behalf of par I Caprice um yes and I just wanted to say thank you to staff for being so um helpful through the process um we do appreciate you taking the city taking the um Property Owners mitigation um into consideration with this request okay and Miss sa I know that your your uh client's request was for 5,000 um based on the reduction that the city is willing to take of the 6530 do you have anything other than what you've detailed and what I appreciate is a a detailed response for the application um that would warrant the additional $1,530 reduction I want to make one note and I'm fully on board with what's already been discussed um we had done a public records request prior to today's hearing just to gather all the documents notices um so the client themselves were saying that they had an issue receiving the original notice of violation um I didn't see anything documenting the certified notice in those records They the way they came about this original notice which was kind of the cause for their delay to start the process um was the posting so I just wanted to note that that's the only thing I wanted to add I don't believe I included that information here um so we just couldn't find and the client themselves were saying they just didn't get it in the mail um so I think there was an initial delay and then there was not a lot of understanding of how the process was to be worked out in person coming down here talking consistently to the code enforcement um uh team and so therefore there just was additional delays after relying on an unreliable contractor okay and understanding and noting your notice issue that is obviously something that should have been brought previously when the case was being first prosecuted um based on that um I appreciate that the parties are $1,500 part much like the last case though there's not precedent I will accept the city's reduction to the $ 6,530 um I again I do appreciate that that's more than we usually get for um a lean reduction request so but I will get an order to that effect and just make sure I have your contact information so I can send it your way thank you so much can I leave my card with the clerk you can and I believe I already have your email address we're okay see you take care yes see you too um okay so our next meeting is is going to be I have one more no there special it's not on the agenda yeah it is wait what no oh I marked it off without announcing it gosh what a happy accident for me I know I know oh goodness okay case number 2023 0541 city of St Peach versus Wilmington Savings fund Society FSB truste predium mortgage acquisition so I'm pretty sure I say that differently every time I say it Madame special magistrate Pete der on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach and we promise this is going to be the last one I don't make any promises you can't keep Pete um this is the lean reduction application and the amount being requested is the amount that requesting reduced to is $1,700 this is a letter have you seen this I have my only question with this letter is that this letter says that they're asking for a lean reduction but uh have retained the firm and either Theodore I'm going to mess this what up to thank you or Tyler Mesmer and I'm well aware that you are neither of those no but I do work for associates okay okay and I believe she did show up she was at the last hearing I just wanted to make sure because you know it was very specific in their letter but yes okay yes I have I have read the request thank you and the taxes have been paid and so the city is countering the $1,700 wor it's consistency it would be 10% of the $695 which would be 1,690 plus the admin cost of 405 so you it'd be 29 2 295 right because it'd be wait it's the six so you're taking 10% of 16 1650 so now 16 oh you're taking 10% oh yes no you're right you're right so it'd be um1 19 $255 right 6 $1,650 from the lean what yeah 1650 so it be 1,650 right plus the 405 in admin fines which gives you 255 unless you're asking for a different or unless the city is willing to accept a different amount because I believe they're the applicant has asked for $1,700 flat thank you so the city's the city's pet the city's position is what are you willing to accept just so I make sure that my math can is is Matthew I might have misspoke but I've already said it um 10% of 16 ,500 plus admin so it'd be 255 okay and you guys are $300 off so um I am going to accept the city's reduction of the 2055 uh with the 1,650 which is actually the the the lean amount is reduced less than the ask plus the $45 in administrative fines for a total of $255 and I will get you an order to that thank you effect I believe I have your email address but if not please make sure it's on the signning sheet and now we are done next meeting yes now we are done with all of the cases I will double check that one so our next meeting is May 13th same time same place anything else that we need to take care of we're all on the record no okay thank we adjourned thank you e