e e e e e e e e Beach code enforcement special magistrate hearing for July 8 2024 my name is Erica aello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's case cases I am a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida bar and am board certified in city county and local government law I have been appointed to this position in accordance with the authority set forth in chapter 162 Florida Statutes and the City of St Pete Beach code 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 them matters presented as such I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings today's matters will be heard in the order on which they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed every effort will be made to hear all persons having relevant evidence arguments or comment related to the specific case that is being heard if you wish to speak today it is necessary that you be sworn in which I will do momentarily all testimony given will be done so under oath in all cases since the city has the burden of proof the city will present its case first and the respondent will be given an opportunity to refute the city's allegations formal Rules of Evidence do not apply to this proceeding however I will make every effort to ensure that fundamental fairness and due process is afforded to all parties after hearing all relevant evidence I will issue an order the order will be reduced to writing and all parties will be provided with a copy so please ensure that we have your current address or email address Additionally you are advised that I do not have the authority to Grant you a variant permit or special exception of any kind my role is solely to determine whether a city code has been violated and under some circumstances to provide a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever means are available to you please be advised that you may be subject to a fine and a lean may be recorded on your property if the violation is not corrected by the compliance deadline if one is provided if you wish to present any evidence today please sign in before you speak at the podium and it is necessary that you swear or to tell the truth therefore at this time I will swear in any Witnesses anyone wishing to speak today if you'll please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth okay so sworn all right do we have any changes to today's agenda good morning special magistrate Pete D Mr code enforcement manager for the city of St Pete Beach there are changes to the agenda case number 2024 0214 we would like that case continue to October 14th that's 2024 214 okay that is s wgom LTD partnership okay AI you said contined to the October 14th yes please okay so that and that is on agreement of the parties yes ma'am okay so that case will be continued to October 14th at 10:00 a.m. and I will get an order to that effect out thank you case number 2024 0089 okay to August 12th that would be case J okay so that case will be continued to a date certain of August 12th thank you at 10: a.m. and I will get an order out to that effect very good case number 202 4278 that would be to August 12th as well and that is 278 under h yes please all right that will be continued to date certain of August 12th at 10:00 a.m. and I will get you a written order to that effect thank you ma'am okay with no other changes to the agenda we will move forward to case agenda item 3A case number 2024 0205 city of St Pete Beach versus Charles Macker and good morning thank you special magistrate Lewis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement um as you know this is a 60-day extension to apply for and secure permit the previous recommended fine was $250 per day from 426 2024 until property is compliant plus $325 for admin costs the city will be asking that to be assessed if the permit is not obtained by July 19th 2024 leis could you uh hold a minute let make sure that this gentleman is hearing you is this the case we're referring to right yes sir please make sure he's hearing can you hear us Mr Gray good morning good morning can you hear us I don't know if you can Mr Gray can you hear us nice speak into that mic see if he can hear you hello sir can you hear us today no no we can hear Mr Gray can you hear us no where's Jamie oh oh he's muted well he is but our audio should be up right to the bottom oh that's the microphone can we speak to him through that microphone Mr Gay can you hear us go to audio make sure it's the right output the right speaker is being used Mr Greg can you hear us can you hear us now morning can you hear Mr GG can you hear us can you guys hear me we can hear you we can hear you can you hear us what's up can you guys hear me yes and ring is not helping him all right check here right here yep no take make sure it's on the right speaker yeah make sure it's on the right speaker click microphone there it is Mr Gray can you hear us now Mr Gray go back in there microphone is there a Shore microphone do Sam yeah try that Mr Gray can you hear us now hello nope okay Mr G can you hear us Jamie check audio right there this apparently it's the speaker batteries Mr Gray can you hear us I don't think it's a microphone my apologies Madam magistrate no worries is there can we call in through the speak yeah right maybe that would be easier yeah I think he can be he can appear on zoom and call through that phone m here pull that up what pull that up right there the a yeah see if it's on the right speaker yes should all right ask him if he can hear us can you hear us I think he's going to call him or have him call that number they already sent him a message should be on hello Mr GRE morning there you go can you just close this thank you can you hear me now yes we can hear you Mr Gray so the city has requested sorry about the technical difficulty no worries I I don't know if you heard what the city had um requested but they had requested that the permit be applied for uh by July 19th 2024 and if not then uh daily fine plus cost would be assessed and do you have any response to that okay so um as of right now my my client is in the process of of getting a temporary fix to address the hole in the wall on the side of its property uh we're still in the midst of working out an arrangement with the insurance company to to finally close out his claim and get the money to complete his repairs we we send in our notice of intent to initiate litigation on uh June 26th and the carrier came back with a response on uh July 2nd demanding mediation the uh the carrier has 90 days from that uh request to actually resolve the mediation um so you would not be able to make permanent repairs prior to to to mediation that being said he is in the process of getting a temporary repair done and once I have documentation uh from the contractor that he's going to use I I be more than happy to give that over to the city I'm not sure if that's going to require a permit for that particular type of work uh at this time I wanted to request additional 90 days for compliance does the city have a response um I I have a I do have a question for you Mr Gray um by you applying for and obtaining the permit and at least getting that because once you get that you get you know 90 days you get x amount of time once you actually apply for the permit to upload everything you know do all the backend stuff of the permitting will that mess up your claim with the insurance because as of today you have not even applied for a permit in any facet well at this point he hasn't even retained a a contractor to do the permanent repairs because he doesn't have the money for the permanent repairs here and the permit would be pulled by them which is my understanding of how this works does the city have any response to the request for an additional 90-day continuent Matthew McConnell unfortunately Madam magistrate I don't know enough about insurance defense um as a lawyer just as a courtesy I don't want to do anything to inadvertently have some consequences for what he's trying to do for the property owner um so no I don't think the city has anything further to say I think to to Mr Cruz's point though is is applying for the permit I think you can do there's homeowner permits and there's contractor permits this may be one but at a minimum Mr Gray if your client can at least reach out to the city and and find out what he needs to do to get this permit and whether or not he can apply for it or whether or not he needs a contractor just so that we're making some progress we would appreciate that okay U as I mentioned he is having some temporary work done I don't know if that would include a permit I would have to follow back up with uh Mr Macker to confirm but I would more I would be more than happy to discuss it with him uh perhaps do a call both with he and I and a representative from the city to see what it entails to make sure that he's in compliance I would like to see that we get some additional time just to give us time to close out this claim because if we go to mediation and resolve it then he can start permanent repairs and we can move forward and everyone gets what they need out of this out of the situation Mr I do have a question you know as you I'm sure you're well aware we've had our first uh major name storm of the year though didn't impact the State of Florida and perhaps that's what what uh prompted these temporary repairs but in the event that the insurance company is not able to be resolved at mediation and you have to proceed through litigation throughout that entire process do you foresee Mr maer's home continuing to have the hole in the side of it I mean having needing the repairs to be done no no that he was going to be doing the temporary repair regardless you know he can't continue to have that exposed area in his property it's leading to additional damage on the interior so he wanted to have that taken care of it was just a matter of getting some money together to get that done and has he cleared with the city of St Pete Beach whether or not those temporary repairs would in fact be considered compliance with the the city's code that that I'm not aware of I do need to speak to him about that okay and uh have have have a conversation with the city to make sure that we're doing everything correctly okay um anything further from the city I would just like to add one more thing if I may um special magistrate um just be mindful Mr Gray if he does anything without consulting with myself and trying to get him answers or with our permitting Department which would be his best bet to contact to get those right answers um if he starts any type of work it could add additional fees for work without a permit if he ever in the future tries to apply for the permit it could cost him more so just be mindful of that um obviously as you're here on his behalf thank you understood okay anything further Mr Gray time okay um I am not inclined to Grant a full 90-day continuance on this I do appreciate that uh the situation that the property owner finds himself in um thank you I I would be willing to go ahead and Grant an additional 30 or an additional continuance until the August 12th hearing um and in that time I I think that's going to be the extent of the continuance is that I would be willing to Grant I have concerns about one we don't make I don't make concessions for really for any other one anyone else that's come before me and has been involved in active or otherwise litigation um I so I am willing to be flexible to a point however uh my job is to make sure that if there is a violation of the code that there's a remedy given um and and that it it is equable to both parties so the city's not inclined to allow for 90 days I am inclined to allow for for an additional um 30 plus so I will say I'm going to continue this case to a date certain to August 12th at the 10:00 a.m. hearing um noting the city's request for the permit to be applied for and then I will go ahead and make my determination at that hearing regardless understood Madam speci magistrate uh Pete derer code enforcement manager does that order will that order order say to have the permit at that time no the order will say that it is continued to date thank you yep and I will get that out to to all parties inolved thank you Mr Gray have a good day thank you very much have a great day thank you okay moving on to case number agenda item 3B case number 2024 z81 city of St Pete Beach versus 441 GF Boulevard LLC good morning mad magistrate St River on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach uh this is a status hearing for the thir day extension to secure a permit to bring the property into compliance for the railing they have not secured a permit uh have not heard from any of the correspondents from the property and the property is still in disrepair so we're recommending $250 from 31 plus 325 administrative cost okay is there anyone here on behalf of 4401 GF Boulevard LLC going once going twice okay seeing as there's no one here on behalf of 4401 Gulf Boulevard LLC Mr Rivera has noted that he has not been in contact with anyone from the property owner I am going to um go ahead and assess the $250 a day fine starting March 1st 2024 2024 running until the property comes into compliance also the $325 in reasonable administrative costs of the city thank you okay moving on to agenda to item 3C case number 20240 one55 city of St Pete Beach versus Steven Bole morning St Riv again behalf of the city of St Pete Beach uh this was a status hearing on a 30-day extension to obtain a permit for the erection of the permanent basketball hoop uh as of today there's no permit basketball hoop still erected I have not heard from the respond okay no permit has been granted or no permit has been applied for no permit applied for applied for at all okay do you know at all if Mr Bole had contacted the City uh I believe he's been talking to Brandon Barry but there's still no permit obtained or even applied for okay so and as as far as you know that basketball hoop Still Remains um encroaching into the right of way and has been erected in a permanent nature without a permit correct okay um I do not see Mr Bole here anyone here on behalf of Mr Bole Mr Bole or representative okay seeing no one um I and on this one uh there was a 30-day extension we're recommending 250 from 619 2024 plus 325 administrative cost okay all right I am going to go ahead and assess the the $250 a day fine running from June 19th 202024 until the property comes into compliance as well as 35 $25 of reasonable administrative costs of the city thank you okay moving on to agenda item 3D case number 2024 0283 city of St Pete Beach versus Gul West Properties LLC thank you special magistrate leis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement case number 202 24283 golf West Properties LLC is the respondent violation address 7060 basa Drive violation description the property is in violation of sections 98- 66 residential and Commercial Property Maintenance a b and 20 of the code of ordinances of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 429 2024 noce of repeat violation dated 57 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 57 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed the affidavit a posting at 7060 boasa Drive May 7th 2024 right here is just overgrown grass again on the property as was previously at 760 boaa Drive overgrown grass strewn Palm FRS overgrown weeds grass Palm frons just different areas of the property that have overgrown grass property became compliant May 16th 2024 at 76 the basa Drive property owner must continue to oh excuse me property owner must continue to maintain landscaping and grass on property property is compliant recommended fine is $500 per day from 429 2024 until 515 2024 totaling $88,500 plus $325 for administrative cost and that concludes my presentation thank you okay anyone here on behalf of the property owner G West Properties LLC can please come state your name and affiliation with the property Vicky DK she's just asked me she's up in Vermont so she's just asked me to drive by the property and make sure that you know things stay in compliance you know we're asked for for a reduction in that fine I think it was a miscommunication between her not being here and me trying to figure out what she wasn't in compliance for she's been aggressively trying to reduce the amount of vegetation around there and and keep it in compliant you know tenant is responsible to maintain the lawn I've given him a couple 7-Day notices and he has you know somewhat being taken care of that I mean it's time to do it again now but I have been after him to do that but um she's just asking for reduction in that time period when it was a miscommunication on what needed to be done I think there was a tree that was over the sidewalk that I wasn't really looking at and um once I realized that that's what they were talking about she had that done immediately okay and Miss dkin what is your affiliation with the property owner just a personal friend just a friend and do you have uh permission to represent her here today yes she um you know got a notary okay assigned me appointing me okay and what what specifically was the miscommunication that you're referring to well I think one of the code violations um you know I assumed it was the overgrowth of the lawn but it was an over grown tree that was hanging over the sidewalk that was never addressed on time okay Mr Cruz would have to kind of verify that but okay once I realized it was the tree you know she had that cleared up and raised and okay and did either you or the property owner contact the city to find out exactly what needed to be done I think she was in contact with Mr Cruz yes Sheila man and then I spoke to him a little bit and you know there's always Flags over there the city's always just just always that corner seems to be utilized a lot by workers and it's just kind of a mess but she's trying to stay on top of it okay anything else that you'd like to present on your friend's behalf no okay anything else from the city um Madame mistr if ma'am if you could just give the cup thank you could you put on the overhead for me please just so we get this to evidence thank you thank you um and yes what Vicki is referring to um is an overgrown tree that was over the sidewalk from the previous case I sent out a u notice of repeat violation which stated exactly what I was asking for so I don't know what kind of miscommunication it was as soon as I talked with her um I shortly talked with Vicki because she was out of the state um then after I had talked with Vicki here um the property was cleaned up and went and did my reinspection to get my compliance pictures but I didn't State anything about a tree overhanging the sidewalk during this case okay right I do see that the violation notes that it was for overgrown grass so um the overgrown grass was something that was present from the date of the initial inspection which was 42924 until the date that you visited the property on 5162 24 correct okay and at no point before 429 516 did you visit the property and and see that the grass was no longer overgrown is that correct way to go about that um okay all right thank you um I am going to find that this is a repeat violation on this property I do see the or my previous order from 11:14 2023 for the violation of the same code section um I am going to assess a fine give me one moment um at the the previous order did not assess a fine on the property as the property owner did come into compliance before uh the hearing um only reasonable costs were associated so I am not going to assess a fine of $500 a day however I am going to assess a fine of $250 a day beginning on 429 2024 um plus the reasonable cost administrative cost of the city which I believe were $325 is that correct Mr Cruz yes okay I am going to have that run from 429 2024 until 516 20124 when the property uh was noted in compliance and I will get you a order to that effect and Miss dyens if you can make sure if we have your email address or however the best is to get you the order or to the property owner the order that they have that information well I did put mine down so if that's good enough I guess it's good enough because I I can send it to the I can email it out as well if that's the best way to get the property owner the information that will to your box yes okay perfect I would like to say it is 5:15 instead of 5:116 for the compliance date okay 515 yes Save a day thank you okay thank you of course moving on to agenda item 3E case number 202468 city of St Pete Beach versus Family International Home Builders LLC thank you special magistrate Lewis Cruz representing the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement code enforcement case number 2024 0168 respondent Family International Home Builders LLC violation address 7210 GF Boulevard violation description the property is in violation of section 46- 33 enumeration 2 9864 general maintenance a and 98- 66 residential and commercial property Main m a b 20 and E of the code of ordinances of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 319 2024 notice of violation dated 320 2024 notice of violation compliance date 45 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 5:14 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at 7210 Golf Boulevard May 14th 2024 this is a concrete wall that has graffiti on it at 7210 gol Boulevard outside storage of trash and equipment on the property at 7210 Golf Boulevard overgrown grass on the property most of the overgrown grass was in the city right away right by the sidewalk updated pictures of the graffiti later on overgrown grass outside storage of trash and Equipment still there the corrective action property owner must remove graffiti or repaint to match existing surface cut and maintain the grass and remove the outside storage of debr debris materials and Equipment property is not compliant recommended fine is $250 per day from 424 2024 until property is compliant plus $325 for administrative cost and that concludes my presentation thank you okay anyone here on behalf of the property owner Family International Home Builders LLC anyone here on behalf of Family International Home Builders LLC okay seeing no one um I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections I am going to provide uh let's see it's mowing the grass painting a wall and removal of debris I'm going to provide 14 days from the date of my order for the property owner to come into compliance it is the property owner's responsibility to notify the city once the property is in compliance and then we will reconvene on August 12th 2024 at 10:00 a.m. um to DET to determine if the property owner has come to compliance with my stated order and assassin fines and fees at that time thank you just to clarify Madam magistrate is it 14 days from today from the date of my order which hopefully will be done today but hope is a flawed human notion and so uh it will at least be this week okay moving on to agenda item 3F case number 202 40014 city of St Pete Beach versus stevenh G Parks thank you special magistrate leou Cruz representing the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement this is case number 2024 0014 respondent stevenh G Parks violation address 420 80th Avenue violation description the property is in violation of sections 98- 65 unsightly conditions 4 and 23.2 residential parking restricted B2 a b and c of the code of ordinance ordinances and the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary the initial inspection is 42 2024 notice of violation dated 411 2024 notice of violation compliance dat 8 428 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 516 2024 these are true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the affidavit o posting at 420 80th Avenue on May 16th 2024 this is the boat stored incorrectly on the property at 420 80th Avenue just different angles of the boat also there's an appliance stored outside which looks to be a fridge some updated pictures of the boats still being on the property as well as the fridge and other appliances corrective action property owner must Park boat SLT trailer in accordance with the regulations set forth for residential parking if the regulations cannot be met on the property the boat must be removed also so the fridge must be removed as well um I would like to show on the overhead I have not talked with the property owner but I did drive by during my inspections and happened to see it at the time this morning thank you that the boat has been removed from the yard as well as the appliances so the property is compliant the recommended fine is $250 per day from 429 2024 until 78 2024 totaling $ 17,750 fine plus $325 for admin costs and that concludes my presentation thank you madam M may I ask Mr Cruz a question you may so this was due to technical difficulties continued from June 10th which allowed for 30 more days for the property owner to come into compliance my question is prior to the June 10th meeting had you driven by the property and were they compliant at that time not that I could remember I've driven by obviously because I do my inspections out in the field not that I was fully paying attention to and actually took pictures of um so to my knowledge this is what I seen and I stopped today because I was out because we're having the hearing today because it was continued and I did take photo evidence of it being in compliance so the property owner did not notify you of coming into compliance prior to the June 10th hearing no thank you okay is anyone here on behalf of Steph G Parks Mr Parks or anyone on behalf of Mr parks in attendance today okay one second to consult chapter 162 I do believe the statute says that even though the property is now in compliance and you're requesting a fine I have to set it for a separate hearing to assess the fine so give me one moment just to make sure we don't have to waste anyone's time doing that okay pursuing to chapter 162.000 n um upon notification by the code inspector that an order of the enforcement Border in this case the special magistrate has not been complied with by the set time or upon finding that a repeat violation has been committed May order the Violator to P pay a fine in amount specified in this section for each day that the violation continues pass the date set for compliance in the code enforcement board order in this case the Special M magistrates ordered um I'm not incline I mean obviously there's there's no this was continued from the last hearing um but pursu unless there's any argument for councel pursuant to chapter 162 while I do find that there is a violation of the code section and I am willing to assess the fine I don't believe I can do so until a future hearing so if I can turn your attention to 16207 please so paragraph 4 um one two so paragraph four three sentences down the order may include a notice that it must be complied with by a specific date and that a fine May be imposed and under the conditions under the conditions specified in 16209 right which calls for a second hearing to assess fines so there's nothing that the we find ourselves in a predicament to where there's nothing that the code that there's nothing that the property owner can do at this point to alleviate themselves of any of the fines because the property came into compliance prior to the hearing however because the city is requesting fines and fees and I am inclined to give to award fines and fees as this was continued from the previous hearing um I do believe I cannot assess those fines and fees until a future hearing that's noticed to the property owner that those will be assessed and they have an they have the ability to come and give notice an opportunity to be heard as far as uh procedural to process is concerned understood so I guess just so I understand the order is going to say if magistrate is going to rule that there was a violation you did not come into compliance by the date of the notice of violation uh my order is going to read that you did not come come into compliance by the date of the violation you did come into you did not also come into compliance by the date of the notice of hearing for the first hearing you did come into compliance by the date of the notice the second hearing by virtue of inspection by the city and a $250 a day fine is like is going to be imposed at a future hearing I mean I'll put it in the order I just cannot actually pose the fine until notice and an opportunity to be heard so I am going to find that there is a violation of the stated code sections um I am going to find that a fine and a fee is appropriate however I'm not going to impose such until uh a future hearing on August 12th 2024 at 10: a.m. and please feel free to write your local legislators and tell them to change the statute thank you special magistrate okay moving on to agenda item 3G case number 20242 275 city of St Pete Beach versus hanani Capital LLC good morning Madam magistrate St Rivera again on behalf of the city of St P Beach this is case number 2024 0275 respondent hanani Capital LLC violation address is 3505 GF Boulevard South violation description the property is in violation of section 78 96 business tax receipt required of the code of ordinance of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspections 52 2024 notice of violation 53 2024 notice of violation compliance date 513 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 514 2024 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witness this is the Affidavit of posting corrective action property owner must obtain a business tax receipt property is not compliant recommended fine is $250 a day from 514 2024 plus the 275 for the BTR until the property is compliant plus 325 administrative costs that concludes my presentation okay is anyone here on behalf of the property owner hosani Capital LLC hanani Capital LLC anyone here on behalf of the property owner hanani Capital LLC okay Mr River have you had an opportunity to speak with the property owner at all or the I have not uh one of the tenants called me uh that's staying in the property she said she would let him and his brother know and I have not heard anything back okay what type of business is this uh this is going to be a rental property okay all right and as far as you know they are operating their business without a business tax receipt correct okay and how long does it usually take to get a business tax receipt it's very simple they can call in they can come in drop off a check um I mean maybe an hour max okay uh I am going to find that the property owner is in violation of the stated code section I am going to allow for 72 hours from the date of my order in order to obtain a business tax receipt if the property owner does not do so within 72 hours the finer fee may be assessed at the next hearing which will be held August 12th 20 2024 thank you okay moving on to agenda item 3 case number 2024 0247 city of St Pete Beach versus sungold LLC L is not here I know War steam Rivera again on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach case number 2024 0247 respondent sungold LLC violation address is 385 15 Golf Boulevard violation description the property is in violation of section 46 331b 2 and three enumeration 9865 4 unsightly conditions 9866 a b 24 C and three residential and Commercial Property Maintenance of the code of ordinance of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 419 24 notice of violation dated 419 2024 notice of violation compliance date 53 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 514 2024 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witness this is the Affidavit of posting this is the dead Palm frons on the tree and on the ground this was the fence that's in disrepair and miscellaneous trash on the ground corrective action property owner must repair SL replace the fence where needed dead PM frons must be cleaned up and disposed of and all trash and debris must be cleaned up property is not compliant recommended fine is $250 a day from 54 2024 until property is compliant plus 325 administrative cost I do have some photos this morning that some of the trash was cleaned up and the PMR frons were removed however the fence is still in disrepair the overhead please there's part of the fence there that was actually part of my presentation as well a little bit better a photo there there's still miscellaneous items behind the fence this is another angle this is all right at the entrance the fence falling over and that's a separate section of the fence is that correct so this is the most of these pictures are right at the entrance way coming in so there's going to be fencing on both sides so this is the opposite side of those of the prior pictures okay piece of wood that was previously holding up the other portion of Def fence and that concludes my presentation and if if I may Madam Mr Rivera those are true and accurate depiction of what you saw correct and these were taken this morning this morning so just to in in an effort to be transparent Madam magistrate um we were working with the property owner then Mr Luke Lao got involved jumped on a phone call with me and Stephen on Monday we sent him pictures um they did their best to come into compliance with portion of it they asked that him reinspect and I forwarded those um photos of the reinspection of Mr Loro and didn't hear anything about potential continuance or any response to it at all okay can I ask when because if those were taken this morning when did Mr Loro received that email I I did another ient on the third correct okay so we spoke to him on the 1st the Monday Wednesday we got pictures from the client and Mr Loro saying hey we're in compliance please reinspect okay he reinspected and I made a point before the holiday to send them back to him on July 3rd with the pictures of still non-compliance okay and they were in the same the the fence was in the same state at that time as it is currently correct and I and I even put that in the email it was more so the fence that was in disrepair at this point uh to bring it into compliance okay okay and so Mr Loro is aware that the property is still not compliant with the city's code correct the email specifically says property is not compliant and list pictures and that was sent on July 3rd and to date you have not heard back from correct or anyone from his office correct okay okay all right anyone here on behalf of sungold LLC do not see Mr Loro in the audience anyone here on behalf of sungold LLC okay I am going to find that the prop property is in violation of the stated code section as the fence is not in or the fence remains in disrepair as of today's date uh I am going to allow for 14 days from the date of my order in order for the fence to come into compliance with the city's code however that might be um and then we will reconvene on August 12th 2024 if the property remains in non compliance and a finance needed to be assessed um because Mr Loro has put in that he he's noticed that he is representing this property owner um I can certainly send the order to Mr Copy the order to Mr Loro or would the city prefer that I send the order directly to the respondent I don't know who's been I if can you do both I can do both because I do believe him he made a request on the phone call to receive the orders okay I will send directly to the property ORD Sun gold LLC as well as to council Mr Loro okay we have continued case 3i and 3j we're moving on to agenda item 4A case number 202 4285 city of St Pete Beach versus Michael aara and CH Yang I'm just going to apologize ahead of time for butchering those names Mr Rivera morning Madam magistrate again Ste Rivera on behal of the city of St Pete Beach case number 2024 0285 respondent is Michael a Zara and CH y leang apologize if I said that wrong violation address is 10818 Av violation description the property is in violation of section 20.0 20.3 B uh permitted principles and uses of and structure of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inp inspection 58 2024 notice of a reable and reversible violation VI uh dated 625 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 626 2024 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witness this is the Affidavit of posting this is the ad on Airbnb this is the reviews it shows uh so may they were good one two and three were three short-term rentals in the month of April and then the fourth one shows the violation that circled does say uh in the first one two and three stayed a few nights stayed about a week and stayed a few nights and the last one says stayed a few nights as well corrective action property can only be rented monthly until April of 2025 recommended fine is $1,500 for the repeat violation under one review plus 325 administrative cost totaling 18825 and that concludes my presentation Madam magistrate if I may um just clarify the city's position because you can see the order that was entered on November 7th so what we were doing is in two zoning districts you're allowed to do it a minimum of three times once you do that it's a violation so your order allowed found them in violation and then said that they couldn't rent for less than 30 days until June they were in compliance with that they were in compliance for almost an additional year until we found these violations um in April so this is four therefore the request is going to be that they can't rent for short term until April of 2025 as well so basically starting to clock over okay because otherwise if this had been in June and it had been for in June it would be till July of the next year okay understood and for the record I did speak with the property manager he called to apologize didn't realize it was overbooked okay okay is there anyone here on behalf of Michael AAR or Miss leang hi good good morning if you could please state your name and affiliation with the property owners for Vivian Herold I work for Tech travel the property management company I am going to put up here for you the uh Power of Attorney let me know when you want me to flip the pages over thank you Miss Harold absolutely thank you thank you thank you very much there's one more page sorry no worries thank you I did make a copy of all the documents for um in case you guys I don't know if you wanted to take a copy of what I'm going to present and I made a copy for you as well thank you if you could do you want me to bring it to you yes I would appreciate that thank you um Mr McConnell did you want to take a look at these before so I would like to clarify on the call from Brandon teenburg to Stephen he actually thought that it was because Airbnb has been updating and it appeared as if maybe there was advertising for less than 30 days and that's initially what we thought the violation was for so on that call if you pull the recording Brandon said we had no idea it wasn't at 30 days we thought everything was at 30 days so that's what he was apologizing for not for renting so it's a misunderstanding um Tim mohar actually did two reservations on Airbnb he did the first reservation sorry from March 1st to April 2nd so this is last nights so first night being March 1st April 2nd in addition I brought the Airbnb booking for that and I'll flip that over when you're ready okay Madam M the the previous page that you showed the Mark can you tell me where the dates are I'm going to get there too if you let me finish um then everything you'll understand everything okay and then I also have the Adobe signed contract rental agreement for those 30 days and I can f through all these Pages if you want me to just no I have them here that's not necessary unless the city um and then as you'll see on this message thread with the guest when he was initially inquiring during the beginning he did mention that he was going to possibly extend his nights but he wanted to see if he he was considering adding several nights but he wanted to see what the property looked like before doing so um I told him that I couldn't hold the dates CU he initially wanted us to put a hold on date um after which he confirms that um he went ahead and booked a additional week through Airbnb requested that we refund the additional cleaning fee which we did and then you'll see that's just check out instructions at the bottom of the thread here is the um extension that he did and this these are different and reason why I'm pulling both reservations from our Software System and Airbnb is because Airbnb was the booking platform but It ultimately all flows into our uh property management software so then you'll see here where Tim booked from the 2nd to the 9th is the same person here is the additional Adobe signed contract every time a new reservation comes in new contract gets sent out and I also brought for you a booking report from our software to show oh sorry to show that um we've had so of course you'll see Tim you'll see David paage actually stayed 55 days Tim stayed for the 32 and then he stayed an additional seven and then we did have those short terms to fill in April that was our three short terms after which we have a 34 night booking a 30 night booking and a 30 night booking totaling 202 days booked okay so just for clarification Mr mulhern is the the outlier here where he initially booked for a 7 day period is that correct no he booked for I think it's 32 nights initially okay so he booked for the 32 and then added the seven onto it but the way the system works is it's that's considered a new booking not an extended M stay on Airbnb it's a little bit different they can if if you either have you have to send an alteration request to change the dates okay and he didn't wait for us to do it and I guess he didn't know how to do it I'm assuming that he didn't know how to do an alteration request on his end and that's why he booked an additional week once somebody books on Airbnb we can't we can't solicit them to book off of Airbnb it would violate our contract with them so we can't say hey we can book you directly and save you money because it's through a message system that would violate our contract with them and even though I had mentioned we had mentioned doing an alteration request on Airbnb he responded saying that he already went ahead and booked the week okay and then my question to is do you happen to know how on Airbnb the reviews the categorization where it says something like stayed for about a week how those get do they select those do you know where Airbnb does that I don't know how it it's done actually they've actually done a lot of recent updates they've redone the entire platform with no instructions on how to do anything so um but it's not the first time that I've noticed something like that we have um we had somebody stay at another property and it did the same thing so and I mean I can show you examples or like let me see let me see if I have any examples here just because I know you guys have so I think George has stayed for eight nights but his said he only stayed a few nights too but for me that would be a week so I don't know I don't know how they do the system now um I've obviously put in grievances about how they're doing things amongst other things that they Chang like our OTA connections the way they connect properties um they're not always displaying the so I have my own grievances with Airbnb and all their updates um but there's no there's no real representative for the host side so I'm kind of just getting whoever is answering the phone and whether they know they know and if they don't they don't okay um I mean I can I can talk to one of the Reps the next time we go to one of their conventions really that's the only time you get a one-on-one with an Airbnb rep but to see how they come up with the the categorization okay anything else Miss Harold that you but I mean if he responded it is since he did it in two separate reservations what I'm assuming and I'm saying assuming because I haven't I don't know I'm assuming that maybe he responded to the last to write his notification that he got and since the one was before that I'm not sure sure but we have been um working hard to make sure that we up and up haven't seen you since 2022 um if that says anything and uh just working hard to be good Community employees and representatives and doing everything we need to do thank you Miss Harald anything from the city um no Madam magistrate I think with this the only thing the city would request if you are going to enter an order is that they can't rent until April of 2025 since they've admitted that they've used their three this year yes okay I mean I don't know how you feel about that because you I I mean it's I don't have a problem doing it I'm not going to find that there is a repeat violation based on the evidence that was presented by Miss Harold it does it's competent substantial evidence demonstrating that the person who left the review didn't in fact rent for an additional 7 days and due to the limitations through the booking channels uh was not two separate rentals it was a single rental that existed for more than 30 days so I will not find that there's a repeat violation but I can certainly do an order stating that there's I have no objection to that okay then I will go ahead and yeah that there is no repeat violation but again for the stated code section the property owner cannot rent for a period of less than 30 days until April 2025 sounds great thank you ma'am this agenda okay all right moving on to agenda item 5A case number 20243 05 city of St Pete Beach versus Family International Home Builders LLC like we just did this yes same same owners different violations cool all right thank you special magistrate Lewis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement this is case number 2024 0305 respondent Family International Home Builders LLC violation address 7210 Golf Boulevard violation description the property is in violation of section 78-96 business tax receipt D required of the code of ordinances of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 514 2024 notice of violation dated 5:14 2024 notice of viol a compliance date 527 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 67 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at 72 excuse me 7210 Golf Boulevard June 7th 2024 this is just a basically a screenshot of what our system looks like for the business tax receipt and the total that's owed whether it's paid up to or not corrective action property owner must obtain a business tax receipt for the business operating on the property part of this procedure as well also entails a fire inspection which was not done property is not compliant the recommended fine is $250 per day from 528 2024 until property is compliant plus I would like to make a note that they owe 3 $62.50 and BTR fees which should be on there as well as well as $325 for administrative costs and that concludes my presentation thank you okay and um this is a an apartment complex yes and the BTR expired is that on 516 20123 yes because they have to do renew them each year in September and have you had any com any contact with the property owner or the property owner's Representative no not about um for this situation I've talked about the previous one but I did not talk to nobody reached out to me about this business tax receipt okay and while talking to them about the other one this didn't come up no I I had it was not addressed at the time usually our permitting manager we'll bring these to us when we start getting towards you know we're getting towards September already and they already back one year so she kind of give us a list on you know kind of who hasn't paid their fees yet so we can try to get them in line and get them ready for next year and because this requires a fire inspection I asked before how long it would take to get a BTR and the answer was hours I'm assuming that's going to take a little longer for this one probably a little bit longer I'm not sure how the the Fire Marshall goes about her inspections I'm not 100% sure of her time frame um but I know she could probably fit them in fairly quickly if he were to actually finally reach out um I can give you evidence that our permitting manager did did reach out to him and also stated that he did need a fire inspection as well as paying the fees from 2022 and 2023 if you would like to see that okay so he didn't pay the three the 362 and changes from his 2022 BTR so he was issued a BTR but didn't pay the fees for yeah it looks like he didn't pay the fees in 2022 and 2023 and I I'm not 100% sure because I'm pretty sure that fire inspections when you initially get your business tax receipt you get that done and that's part of your business tax re sheet when you have a property such as his interesting okay all right would you like to see the email um no Mr Cruz I am good thank you um anyone here on behalf of Family International Home Builders LLC this is your second chance anyone here on behalf of Family International Home Builders LLC perhaps Mr Randall anyone okay um I am going to find that the property owner is in violation of the stated code section because this does require a fire inspection I am going to allow for 14 days in order to secure the BTR um we will come back um 14 days from the date of my order to secure the BTR we will come back on August 12th 2024 to see if the property owner has come to compliance and to assess any fines or fees that might be necessary thank you special magistrate okie dokie moving on to 5B case number 2024 0277 city of St Pete be Beach versus Alexander Angelman and Adrien Timo morning again see Riv on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach case number 2024 0277 respondent is Alexander Engelman and Adrien timl violation address is 3110 passig grow away violation description the property is in violation of section 2.03 B permited principal uses and structures of the Land Development code of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 53 2024 notice of reable or irreversible violation dated 56 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 59 2024 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting 30 3110 passive grow away this is the Airbnb host information this shows the reviews so one two and three were the three short term that were permitted four five and six show the violations corrective action property can only be rented monthly until April of 2025 recommended fine $1,000 per stay three reviews plus 325 for administrative cost totaling 3325 and that concludes my presentation um where's the can you madam magistrate may I MH uh can we submit the Airbnb policy and then Mr Rivera have you spoken to the proper I did and can you just tell us a little bit about that conversation uh they were unaware of the uh that they weren't allowed to do short-term rentals uh much like we've heard here in Chambers ignorance isn't an excuse of the law um and I worked with them they couldn't make it for the last hearing they were going to be out of town so we pushed it to this month but I have spoken to them have you spoked to them between last month and this month no okay I'm going to enter the uh Airbnb policy okay it will be accepted into the record okay thank you okay is anyone here on behalf of Mr angelan or Miss timl if you'll please come up please state your name and affiliation with the property record property owner for the record hi I'm Adrian TL I'm a property owner we bought this house in March of last year and um you know part of the draw we I'll say on the one hand we bought it because we love the area it's Tranquility it's peacefulness it's quietness so we completely respect the local ordinances um on the other hand it was a raw because we knew it would be a good rental we live in Tampa so this is just a vacation home for us and our four boys and um one of the draws was that we could rent it and um the sellers agent when we did buy it you know made sort of wonderful assertions about how you could rent it all day and they actually had some short-term rental on rentals on the books when we bought it which we ended up cancelling because we had never been property managers before and didn't have an experience with that and we were worried about the closing date not working for those rentals on the books so we did cancel those um but then we did start to rent a little bit and um when officer Rivera did um tell us about the violations of course uh we were very concerned um we want to be in compliance with the law and uh not only that with the spirit of the community um so I'm deeply sorry to take your time today um on this matter um I would only request because as he said I understand that ignorance of the code uh is not a defense but perhaps a um reduction in the fine since this was a firsttime offense and we are committed to you know no recurrence okay um any questions for the respondent from the city I do I do have just one question um did you register with the state yes um you reg that's part of my understanding is the Airbnb policy and I know like we were submitting um taxes sales taxes to the state and to I think local sales taxes as well to St Pete Beach as part of the Airbnb registration perfect thank you I just wanted to know no no further questions okay um in in understanding this is a first offense um and you don't have any short-term rentals scheduled on the books from here on out is that correct okay well aside from the three that you're allotted which will not occur until next year um okay I am going to find that there is a violation of the city's code uh I'm not going to assess a $1,000 per stay as this is a first violation I am kind of looking at what the average nightly rate is and how long that was rented plus taking into the credible um testimony of the witness I am going to assess a $500 per stay fine for the amount of $1,500 for the three stays plus the $325 in administrative cost of the city um I will let you know that if there's found in the future you do get three more and that the property cannot be rented for less than 30 days until April 2025 um I give this warning to everybody if you are found back before me again in the future for a repeat violation I will not be so kind as to have any type of a reduction in that type of fine thank um and I will get you an order to that effect make sure just we have your contact information so I can get that to you you do all right cost all right moving on to agenda item 5 C two case number 202 4280 city of St Pete Beach versus William W Adams War mam magistrate again Steven Rivera on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach case number 2024 0280 respondents William W Adams violation address is 1805 pass grow way violation subcription the property is in violation of section of 4633 1 2 and three a numeration 9865 4 unsightly conditions 9872 c 1 2 and 12 vacant buildings vacant structures and vacant unimproved lots of the code of ordinance of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 56 2024 notice of violation dated 57 2024 notice of violation compliance date 521 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 625 2024 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting this is a pile of PM frons located on the property stacked off to the side the construction fence that's falling over overgrown vegetation on the property the overgrown vegetation and silt fence this previously was a home that was uh demoed uh the demo I don't have the date off top of my head but it's been quite some time now um but that's the reason why there's the silt fence and the construction fence still on the property these are follow-up photos corrective action property owner must clean up and dispose of the piles of pond frons remove the construction and silt fence and grass and weeds need to be cut and maintain regularly the property is not compliant recommended fine is $250 per day from 522 2024 until property is compliant plus 325 administrative cost and that concludes my presentation okay Mr R I did have a quick question on the note on the um Agenda Report it says that a portion the north half of the property has inadequate vegetation and the South half of the property is overgrown is that the case from the pictures that you no the initial inspection uh half of the property was overgrown and the other half did not have adequate vegetation um however from my followup we had some rain stuff started to grow so I I didn't purs uh pursue that okay so now one half of the property is okayish and then the other half of the property is overgrown two third of the property uh based what see see an ISR violation or but it is NE High um and then the construction fence and the silt fence and the pond frons are a concern okay and have you had any contact with the property owner I have not okay right thank you very much anyone here um Mr Adams or anyone here on behalf of Mr William W Adams Mr Adams Mr William W Adams okie dokie all right um do you happen to know if there's an active permit on this property at all the permit's been closed out for the demo that was done and there is no open permit at this time okay all right I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections I am going to give 14 days from the date of my order for the property owner to come to compliance if the property owner does not come to compliance in the next in the 14 days from the date of my order we will reconvene on August 12th 2024 and I will assess fines and fees at that time thank you all right moving on to agenda item 5D case number 202 4292 city of St Pete Beach versus m Investments LLC thank you special magistrate leis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement this is Code Enforcement case number 2024 0292 respondent Mina Investments LLC violation at address 562 71st Avenue violation description the property is in violation of section 78-96 business tax receipt required of the code of ordinances of the city of St Pete Beach case summary the initial inspection 510 2024 notice of violation dated 510 20124 notice of violation compliance date 523 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 66 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting on the property at 562 71st Avenue June 6th 2024 again this is a screenshot of what we have in our system for our business tax receipt fees corrective action property owner must obtain a business tax receipt for the business operating on the property property is not compliant recommended fine is $250 per day from 524 2024 until compliant plus $2 287.50 in BTR fees as well as $325 for administrative costs and that concludes my presentation Mr C I do have a quick question here is this this uh the mean Investments LLC this property is being uh operated as an apartment complex yes is it presently being operated as an apartment complex to my knowledge it still is they did not reach out to me nobody called me anything even with my notice of violation not with my notice of hearing so no one has reached out at this time okay there's been other code enforcement activity on this property I know that there was an appeal taken I Believe by Mr Weber on behalf of the property owner and I cannot recall I do believe it was with regard to a permit for renovation not for Mina I think it was short-term rentals was it you're thinking of Lake Meritt Mina was short-term rentals okay so all right so then what I did not confirm because I was thinking the same way you are Madam magistrate was if it's appealed everything stayed they may not be renting it I could not confirm with Mr Kenny prior to the weekend okay um but in an interest of of fairness if you could give them like you've done 14 days because if they come back to me and say hey we're not operating a business through the the body of this appeal then technically City would not require a BTR at this moment but they would still have to they if I give them 14 days that means I'm finding that they are in violation of the city code section um can you bring back up the list of the btrs they were were they current show you a little bit back yeah were they current for this year overhead please so 17 eight 17 19 oh they or is it a 2-year BTR one okay cuz I see one in 17 I see one in 19 yeah they paid and then once that case went on it looks like they may have stopped paying the business tax receipt 2022 and there's $250 added on to that from the fees that are allotted to the permitting manager actually so it's like a after the fact permit type thing okay and we can't we haven't confirmed if they're continuously renting this property not to my knowledge and to that point I do want to correct myself Madam magistrate whether it's continuously rented or rented the city requires a BTR and it's not their Homestead so you gotta have I mean there has to be a purpose of the property is it a single family home or the apartment like I believe it's a separate units yeah I think there's six units if I'm correct it says there six there but it says six there and they could easily reach out and let us know that they're not you know they could reach out because there's emails being sent to them you know I sent a notice I sent sure but the city has the burden of proof to prove that they are in fact operating a business without having a business tax receip that's where I'm getting hung up it's not enough that somebody's not here saying no we're not it's more that you haven't proven that they in fact are um do you know if there see I just don't I can't go out and find the evidence on my own so again just to solidify you do not know if in fact they are renting any of those units or operating as at bit as a business not to my personal knowledge no but you also know that they are that that property is not homesteaded yes okay and do you know if that property if those properties are vacant I wouldn't be able to tell you you know I drive by once in a while I see people parking there but it's public parking so it could be from another area I haven't seen many cars there but I have seen cars there and I can't attest to seeing anybody going in and out of the property if I may madat sh before you make a ruling um this the city would like to request to Contin to August 12th on this case I suspect that you would um all right is anyone here on behalf of M Investments LLC I don't see Mr Weber or any of his colleagues here um okay I am inclined to Grant uh a continuance of this matter until August 12th 20224 at the 10 a.m. hearing that will give the city the time to contact the property owner to find out what is happening with this property and also to determine if it does need to be abated until such time as the appeal is done thank you thank you okay moving on to agenda item 5e case number 2024 0287 city of St Pete Beach versus Thomas M I am so sorry uh CI revocable trust and Thomas M CI as trustee thank you special magistrate job okay great thank you I might not be the same so this is Code Enforcement case number 202 24287 respondent Thomas M cahe revocable trust and Thomas M cut um TR violation address 7801 basa Drive number five violation description the property is in violation of sections 98 -1 123.1mi required of the code of ordinances of the city of St Pete Beach case summary the initial inspection was done at 59 2024 notice of violation dated 510 2024 notice of violation compliance date 531 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 66 2024 these are a true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at 7801 boaa Drive number five June 6th 2024 this is an unpermitted Tiki Hut SL gazebo that was erected in the rear of the property just going to give you different shots of the unpermitted Gazebo or SL Tiki Hut different materials that were there that they were using for the tiki hut corrective action property owner must obtain proper after the fact permit for the tiki hut gazebo that was erected without a permit property is not compliant recommended fine is $250 per day from 61 2024 until property is compliant plus $325 for administrative costs Mr Cruz assuming in a big assumption that this uh structure falls under an exemption to the Florida building code what section of the city's code I do see it here that even if you know maybe a flood plane or flood a flood plane permit or something like that is there another type of permit that needs to be applied for by the property owner aside from a a building permit uh basically they would probably have to go through our Planning and Zoning officials make sure that the setbacks and stuff like that that they're using the right materials that it's anchored properly um we've had cases such as this where um you've had to get a variance for it which you someone did but you have to get zoning perspective from the zoning perspective yes okay anything from me Mr M you you beat me to it but the city's point of view is while it may be exempt we haven't had the opportunity to determine that because it was erected without asking sure okay anything further from the city no no ma'am all right Mr CI good morning good morning what would you like to tell me about your Tiki Hut sir we built a tiki hut um I was told that they not need a permit because they had a seol Indian there supposedly um the group that built it came out of Fort Meers they said I did not need a permit City said I needed a permit I have applied for a permit since then okay and I believe that's still in review and when did you apply for the permit h two weeks ago two weeks okay okay for your edification seminal indium do not fall under the Florida building code exemption for Tiki Huts that's what I've learned uh it's very nice for them um and that does exempt you from the Florida building code unless you've got electricity or water or something running to that no perfect okay um anything from the city do you have any questions for the respondent no okay um Mr Cruz any indication of how long it a planning review is taking these days to be honest I don't know not that I can speak on understanding it shouldn't be going necessarily through the well might have to go through the Florida the building department correct okay um I am going to allow for 30 days understanding you've already had two weeks with the planning review or the permit being submitted because it does likely have to go through the building department and I've kind of gathered with the new building official things are moving forward but but there's a lot going on um I'm going to allow for 30 days from the date of my order in order for you to secure the permit for the tiki hut um which will put us past the August 12th date I'm almost I'm pretty sure um so we will reconvene on September 9th 2024 to determine whether or not you were able to meet that date and if not whether or not finds or fees will be assessed at that time um and I will get you an order to that effect just make sure we have either your right email address your proper mailing address mailing address mailing address perfect okay and then you'll mail me that I'm sorry you're going to mail me all that I will mail you copy of the order so you will have that information in there okie dokie that's it that's it for today thank you sir thank you moving on to agenda item 5f okay thank you special magistrate leis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement give me a second just for the record case number 22411 city of St Pete Beach versus colonade Department Condo Association perfect thank you respond it colon A's apartment Condo Association violation address Sunset way parcel number 36-31 d5- 17525 d00 D 00001 violation description the property is in violation of code section 98-12 3.1 permits required of the code of ordinances of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 26 2024 notice of violation dated 313 2024 notice of violation compliance date 322 2024 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 65 2024 these are true and accurate representation of what I have witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting at the property of colon A's apartment Condo Association on Sunset way June 5th 2024 this is a 2017 Google image of old or previous fence that was there this is a 2018 Google image of unpermitted fence looks like they started to update it and just didn't finish the rest but by 2019 there is a Google image of it being completely redone on the back units there in the common area these are my specific pictures that I have taken of the fence that did not get a permit corrective action property owner must obtain proper after the fact permit for the fence that was erected without a permit property is not compliant recommended fine $250 per day from 61 2024 until property is compliant plus $325 for administrative costs and that concludes my presentation thank you okay um Mr Cruz any reason and and it's just for my edification why it took the city so long to find the violation it was this was a little bit of a doozy for me they had a wrong address they had a incorrect address that wasn't even a real address which was 52c Corey Avenue so I had to go around making calls trying to get a hold of someone from the HOA one of the unit owners um so it took me a while to actually get them then I talked to an HOA president started thinking that we were coming into some type of progress gave her the update let her gave her all the information that need to be done boom new HOA president now I had to deal with him he had no previous knowledge he had none of the emails that we had had corresponded the previous HOA president and myself had no knowledge that I had to give him all the information um talked with the unit owners they they were trying to get in contact with somebody to help get this done so it took a while try and then once they finally um changed the address then that's when I sent it to that address that was actually a real address that they had on that took from 2018 to present no it was just my question is you showed Google images of an offense being erected without a permit in 2017 then again 2018 then completed in 2019 and here we are at a violation in 2024 yes as I had drove by it it looked so fresh and so new so I looked into it to make sure that it had an actual permit for it cuz it looks so new at the time um they kept it in you know good repair after they had made those changes in 2019 2020 whenever they had finished it there um it looked so new it kind of stuck out it looked like brand fresh new if you can see on the pictures there it looked it stuck out so um that's why I started the case I tried to look into it then that's when I proceeded to look into it deeper with trying to get a hold of the actual owners or somebody that could help me get in contact with the proper people sure great thank you m all right anyone here on behalf of colonades apartment Condo Association okay if you could please come up and state your affiliation with the association for the record and providing any information that shows that you have the authority to represent the association today my name is an allen I have been an owner at the colonades for 34 years I want to First preface that I am not on the board at this time I am the only owner that is currently residing at this property right now and and I'm sorry Mr Alan I'm going to stop you right there do you have the authority of the association I do not have any Authority I did I only became aware of this violation as a result of coincidentally finding this notice on the walkway okay so before you continue and I then let the HOA president know about it before you continue though just for legal purposes is anyone here that has the authority to represent colonade apartment Condo Association anyone here that has the authority to represent colonades apartment Condo Association okay so then I will go ahead and accept your testimony as a witness and an owner for colonade apartment Condo Association however not as the respondant so yes um thank you very much I only became aware of this as I stated about three weeks ago by finding this notice on the walkway I have been on the board of this Association several times but currently I am not um we are building of 12 owners I am on the first floor which is where the patios have been erected at unit 1 two three and I Am Number Four I do not have a patio behind my unit um these fencing have been up for well over 10 years I've been to every HOA meeting in the last 34 years so I'm very aware of when this became erected three of the units have the patios with the unpermitted fencing two of those units are new owners that bought into the property after the fencing was there and one of the owners has been there and actually organized the fencing being developed my only concern is we are 12 owners nine of us have nothing to do with this and this would be a fine on all of us unfortunately I do understand it is own common element so well and I appreciate your testimony Miss alen I will say that the property owner is the condo association and so they are the Violator in this context so but I will take your um testimony um into consideration when making my ruling and if you have any way to get in contact with the association or the president thereof if you could make sure we get that information yeah I do agree with u Mr Cruz because we have had a lot of change in the HOA board in the last year so I think this notice was probably placed on the door and then of one of the persons that's no longer on the board so no one knew of this sure oh and then I have a couple of questions for Mr Cru that point anything else Miss Allen that you no no thank you thank you very much for coming today um Mr Cruz in addition to posting on the property did you uh send the notice of violation out certified mail to the property owner yes the first one I sent out because it was taking so long they said they were going to change the address said that the property management company at the time they changed over just recently again um I just sent it to that fake address to show that I sent it to the address that they have on file with property appraiser for the notice of violation um talked with the HOA president that I was talking to at the time by the time I had was getting ready to do the notice of hearing because they said they were changing hands of the property they were getting a survey they showed me proof of getting a survey said they were going to have it ready they already had the contractor ready to go to submit a permit and at least apply for it to get things going kind of went on dead and then that's when I found out it was a new HOA president that I had to talk to and then he's trying to try kind of trying to catch up on all this information that's been going going on through my my case time that I had there um and it just was taking so long I'm like I have to do something about this at some point because it they just may keep changing People different property management companies different HOA presidents um but I did send it and post it on the property but I sent it to the new property address that was updated in property appraiser which was you know call of attention to someone at Lamont I think it was properties management company something like that yeah I'm just trying to figure out I don't have that information so all I have is the Affidavit of posting which underneath the code is or underneath chapter 162 is not sufficient enough unless you're also you've also exhausted your other way so do you have a copy of the certified notice of mailing and did you get when you sent it to the proper address did you get a signature return um not that I can remember off the top of my head usually we just get the you know the the return mail and stuff like that but I can check and see what I have in my than out here for you I do want to make sure they got proper notice cuz he didn't include the notice of violation but you didn't includ the document this was The Returned notice of violation that I sent to the property that they had on address at the time which is 502 see Cory Avenue yes and that that was returned and then at the time they changed their address and there's the second one there for the notice of hearing colon a department Condo Association call to attention Lamont Management Incorporated can I see oh sorry can you yes okay did you need to see the other one the 52 c s I make sure that the proper address was notified yes you sent this on what date and I sent this on 65 2024 okay anything further from the city I can show you an updated view if it'll help if you need anything additional I did take a every time I do send something I take like a PDF screenshot of the property nope I am good thank you very much okay I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code section I am going to again do you know how long youve already mentioned this you don't have any idea how long fence permits are fenes are pretty clearcut if they kept it within their setbacks but again when you do these things unpermitted it's hard to know they might have to change something it might be too high I wouldn't got to go through the association to get a vote move this on correct um you know what okay so I'm going to allow for 30 days in order to apply for insecure after the fact fence permit this thing has been erected for quite some time you have made the city has made every effort in order to get the property to come into the property owner to come into compliance um so I'm going to give 30 days which puts us after the August 12th date so we'll reconvene on September 9th 202024 um if the property is not in compliance at that time I will go ahead and consider assessing fines and fees thank you special magistrate thank you moving on to agenda item five 5G case number 20240 172 city of St Pete Beach versus NXT Acquisitions Corp ma Madam magistrate I know you just read the case before we move on sure you said 30 days from the date of your order but then the status will be August 12th will be September 9th we won't make the August okay so I'd heard all I have learned my lesson on several occasions for that so just to give a cushion thank you September 9th is the better day um but the compliance date will be 30 days from the date of my order regard regardless got it okay so case number 2024 0172 city of St Pete Beach versus NXT Acquisitions Corporation Mr Rivera thank you madam magistrate Steven Rivera on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach case number 2024 0172 respondent NSX Acquisitions Court violation address 3 396 41st AV violation description the property is in violation of section 98- 12231 permits required of the code of ordinance of the city of St Pete Beach case summary initial inspection 320 2024 notice of violation dated 320 2024 notice of violation compliance date 45 2024 notice of hearing dated and posted on the property 625 2024 the following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed this is the Affidavit of posting 39641 AV this is showing the unpermitted work being done you see in the background there's a new electrical panel that was being put in uh workers at the property this is a dumpster full of construction debris there's broken block Wood glass this is some of the unpermitted work the soffets were ripped out and electrical was being added another picture of the sophitz this was appears to be a wall that was taken out or a door uh the underside of the upper level was ripped out another picture of the windows and doors that were being replaced Mr R are those air handling units or some sort of mechanical unit that are sitting there no it looks like a uh plastic tub are you talking about right in front and then uh the back if you look up just under the overhang it's uh appears to be concrete bags okay yeah I see all right and for the record I did do this inspection uh the neighbor complained about the unpermitted work I did take the building official out with me uh so he was there during my time of inspection as well okay uh everything here would have required a permit stop work order that was posted corrective action property owner must obtain permits for the electrical work pool work sopit work drywall work Plumbing work and window work before any work can be completed property is not compliant recommended fine is $250 a day from 63 2024 until property is compliant plus 325 administrative cost uh they did when they started the work there was a permit in review it was not approved it was going through an approval process they were waiting for electrical Subs to sign on things of that nature uh and that's why I'm starting the fines from 63 their permit application expired uh I have not spoken to the property owner uh we did have to go back a second time that day after we issued the stop work order they were still working on the property I advised the workers that I was going to contact the Sheriff's Office uh and they packed up and left after that okay have you seen in your driving through have you seen anyone at the property since this no and the neighbor that uh submitted the complaint hasn't called me either so it appears that the work has stopped okay but as as of today there's no active permit no ma'am okay and so the permit application has expired there was a permit application in that was not approved so it was basically the review process they to go through make sure that everything they're doing is okay and then they would issue the permit to be active right so there's there was no active permit so the application was in review do you happen to know did anyone I'm I'm I'm saying it was the application was expired meaning that there was no movement on the application correct that you know building official gave comments or planning department gave comments nobody responded for a six-month period correct so that's kind of where that permit was then it was it's just closed out now because it's expired it's expired right and I I did make contact with the owner the owner said oh I have a contractor forwarded me to the contractor the contractor said oh we get permits for everything I said okay and I hadn't heard back from neither the owner or the contractor okay okay thank you very much anyone here on behalf of NXT Acquisitions Corp anyone here on behalf of NXT Acquisitions Corp and Mr River you spoke to to them after you issued the notice of violation I'm sorry you've spoken to them after since the issuance of the notice of violation uh believe it was I spoke to them the same day I did the stop work order okay um I have not heard from them the permit that they did apply for wasn't even in the scope of work that they were doing supposed to close in a small area and they went beyond that they would have exceeded and that's kind of why I put it in the my presentation that they need to obtain a permit for everything that they're doing okay okay uh I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections I'm going to allow for 30 days from the date of my order in order to secure the appropriate permits um and then we will reconvene on September 9th 202024 to determine whether or not the order has been complied with or to assess any relevant fines or fees thank you and that's to and in case I didn't say it it's to apply for and secure a permit for the work that's being done okay thank you okay um We are continuing case 5H and moving on to agenda item 8A under lean reductions case number 20230 616 city of St Pete Beach versus Anthony J Peron good morning U Madame special magistrate Pete dur code enforcement manager on behalf of the city the city is going to request from Mr Peron $1,687 he and I just had a discussion um his application basically says zero um he's unable to pay the $2,862 that we had originally negotiated so we're asking for $10,000 68750 plus 325 bringing it to a total first of all Mr derer the city is not asking for anything this is a lean reduction request that's coming from the property owner yes ma'am um the last order that I have that you gave to me is an order demonstrating that there was a violation that was $250 a day beginning November 18th 2020 23 I'm assuming the property order the property is now in compliance yes ma'am when was that compliance date the property as as you mentioned um the property the fines were assessed November 18th and the property was complied 56 2024 for 171 days plus the 325 in administrative cost and like you said the um owner indicated Miss Pon indicated zero uh that the amount of the lean be reduced to but the city is willing to take $1,687 plus 325 $1,687 plus yes ma'am plus the 325 in fee uh for a total of $112.50 thank you sure is Mr prone here yes yes sir if you could come up and explain to me the basis for your lane reduction request how do you do Madame magistrate good um my name is Anthony Peron I am the owner of the property um I just uh uh purchased the property in uh August of last year the property was in need of a tremendous amount of renovation I was told by the uh a person that I contracted with who has been very nice throughout this whole process that a permit was not required to replace a door and a window I he admitted that he was wrong about that and subsequently did apply for the permit and to my knowledge the permit I believe I have it here the permit was applied for and granted and the property was inspected and passed inspection am I correct in saying all that Mr der yes okay thank you um it took a a much longer time than the gentleman that I contracted with to get the permit than he had anticipated he thought he was going to be able to get that permit very quickly it didn't work out that way um I did speak to Mr der on the telephone and we just spoke outside as well uh when I spoke to him about this process he was very informative and very nice to me and he told me that there was a procedure to come and request a lean reduction um I did not realize that the gentleman who helped me fill out the lean reduction request put zero in and part of my telephone conversation with Mr derer I know I have to pay something there is no question about that it's my responsibility I'm the property owner at the end of the day I have to take care of it uh I cannot pay $10,000 I don't have it uh I just plead uh the mercy of of the special magistrate to assess something I mean I can pay right now $1,000 uh that's what I can pay right now um whatever you decide I'm at your mercy I do have a couple of questions Miss per Mr Peron um I have not seen you here before and so what was there a reason that you were unable to appear for the first I don't live here okay is this your second home or a vacation uh I'm in the process of retiring from my business and I'm trying to set myself up down here okay okay um and do you recall when the permit was applied for for the doors and the windows I I do recall that we received a notice of violation in December uh I was under the impression that the gentleman uh which is uh Equity realy of the penelas applied for the permit the very next day but it was it was improperly formatted his it wasn't signed by the a licensed engineer he signed it as the contractor he is not a licensed engineer by the time he got a licensed engineer to actually sign off on the permit it took till I believe the day was May 6th okay okay all right anything further from the city all right I am going to Grant a reduction in the fines I am going to assess a $2500 fine so it's going to be reduced to $2,500 down from there I find um Mr PR's uh testimony here compelling um but I and I'm also going to assess the $325 fees so um it will be reduced from the initial amount which is the 40 42750 thank you 42750 I'm going to reduce it to $2,500 plus $325 in administrative costs I will get you an order to that effect if you could please just make sure we have your contact information um email address or otherwise and you can pay that directly and with paid within 30 days I was do that would probably be a good opportunity question yeah um how do I because I don't want to have what we had last month correct um what's a reasonable time for you to pay considering the amount that she's reducing it to I can pay $1,000 today I do have my checkbook with me and I could pay H how do you want the the rest uh could you get it within a 30-day period That's 1500 1500 the total would be no 1,500 in addition to the Thousand uh actually 28 actually it's 1,800 2825 282 that's 1,825 additional I will I I will have that in 30 days okay is is is a check the only way personal check uh the only payment method we can do yes wire transfers and a a yeah yeah I could do that too but there's an additional fee for that oh my bank probably has an additional fee for everyone's got an additional for okay so then I will allow for 30 days to pay uh the reduced lean amount if the reduced lean amount and costs are not paid within the 30 days then the order is void and it goes back up to the full amount understood thank you will be on the order that I that I get to you thank you um I can return today with a check for $1,000 if that's acceptable take that up with the city and we are done here with you thank you thank you so much appreciate your thank thank you okay moving on to case number 2023 0513 city of St Pete Beach versus April Elliot and David RAR come on robar I I almost got it this time third times the charm right okay Mr Madam special magistrate the request uh for this lean to be reduced to is $325 the city is asking for the the full amount of $5,500 plus $325 administrative plus $325 administrative bringing it to a grand total so Pete Pete we'll we'll work on I'm sorry on how to present this in the future I think the application speaks for itself the only Clarity the the city wants to make is we had a special magistrate hearing then we had a hearing challenging the amount out and now we're here today so the admin costs that the city's requesting at a minimum which we hope are not reduced is 650 correct now what what magistrate Madam magistrate does with the fine is is up to you but we just want to clarify the fact that so the city's asking here today for an additional $325 in administrative cost yes ma'am okay okay um Miss Elliot Mr aarik would you like to present to me your request for reduction thank you good morning so I just need some clarification as to what it is the city is requesting today I understand an additional 325 because this is a second hearing but are there I I I'll take that right out I'm not going to be granting the additional $325 in administrative costs thank you so but is there any reduction are they willing to Grant any reduction that's the part I'm not it doesn't look like it it looks like they're standing behind the full $5,500 lean plus the $325 in administrative finds is that correct Mr derer yes ma'am okay okay um has the has special magistrate had the opportunity to review um my lean reduction application I have okay but you can certainly go over the highlights for purposes of the record if you'd like I think um including um my fairly linkly response to the two questions that were attached to my lean application have you had the opportunity to review that I have okay thank you your honor I just didn't want to belabor that um I guess the points that I would simply highlight then so I don't simply repeat myself um are assuring the court I think it is noteworthy that my husband and I really have been proactive in terms of repairs and Renovations that we were um doing on this building to include meetings with it with the Z owning Department um within a week of moving here um my husband and I basically upended our entire family's life in pursuit of a business that we really hoped was going to work out um in that space to the point that I quit my career in Colorado of 18 years um to pursue this uh we moved our entire family here um to pursue this unfortunately the building um needed so much more work than we ever anticipated and after sinking literally hundreds of thousands of dollars into the building we realized that we could not continue down that path um obviously as the court is aware uh that building um was put up for sale earlier this year um my husband was laid off um I didn't include this into the loan application um but um with within about a month of Me closing my 18-year business my husband was laid off um after moving here um so that also played into the decision of how far down this road can we go how long can we chase this stream so to speak um so for us too as with Mr perone I mean we are in a extremely um dire financial situation at the moment um so a $66,000 fine for something that we truly believe we attempted to be compliant with um is very difficult burden for us to meet um I hate going into that publicly but that is a fact that said um as the court is aware this is our I think third hearing to attend in person at every single one of these you know we have watched um you ask for respondents to be present and the vast majority it seems to be at every single one are not um and that as the court is aware is just not the case with us we have have been present at every single hearing we do take this very seriously the one that we missed was in March 11th I believe or would like to believe that had we been able to appear in person um barring my father's health conditions um in our kind of emergent trip um home the night before the hearing I think if we had been able to appear here in person that would have given Court further Assurance or greater assurance that we were attempting to comply that is everything that I detailed in my email to Mr Cruz and to Mr Rivera the morning of the March 11th hearing explaining our absence and explaining the fact that we simply were requesting one 30-day extension to get this work underway um from the Court's perspective I understand it appeared as if we were just not here but in fact we were trying to appear virtually we were trying to call in when those weren't possible we at least tuned in and watched um we were obviously therefore immediately aware of the Court's fines um and as the court is aware um the permit application was filed within 3 hours of this Court's order um with our GC on this end getting it together with us being in a very rural part of Texas driving around trying to find a notary to get the permit done as soon as the permit was um approved over 3 weeks later or just over 3 weeks later the dumpster enclosure was taken down that same day I mean there there literally was just no faster way for us to have done this um I think that we clearly um perhaps incorrectly assumed that this court would be willing to Grant a 30-day extension at the March 11th hearing that is that was our request hindsight is obviously 2020 but we thought that our presence here and letting the court know that we were aware of this we were taking it seriously we weren't shering responsibilities or trying to um disrespect the city's codes and laws um I just I I hope that's apparent to this court um and so we are um asking to pay the $325 even if the court is inclined um to assess another $325 for today's hearing um but I just being fined $250 a day while a permit is waiting to be approved and we're constantly texting constantly emailing or GC do we have progress do we have progress no I'm calling I'm calling we're doing what we can but at that point it was just truly out of our hands had we gone ahead and torn the structure down we would have been fine for that for doing work without a permit so literally every single day for which we were fined is a day that a permit was pending approval and immediately upon approval the work was done within hours and so we're just um again I just hope I hope that our track record of proactively meeting with the city at least on two prior occasions in person in addition to a slew of emails with the zoning department before ever doing any work on the building shows our respect um for this City's codes and zoning laws um it was never Our intention to to not do so and so we are we are requesting um that the fines be removed but we are willing obviously to pay for the administrative fees for everybody's time for this matter okay I did have a couple of questions um and correct me if I'm wrong but I do recall that the reason that a permit a permit could have been pulled prior to when the permit application was first submitted but wasn't because the property was listed and there were showings that were happening and it was your determination that you didn't want a Contractor on the property or something of that nature while the property was being shown or could did you explain we're not rehashing it here I mean obviously this has to do with you guys we're in violation my order on the reduction was pretty clear my order before was pretty clear I'm just letting you know I'm having trouble I I I understand and believe everything that you're saying but I have a problem when you say we've tried everything that we can we've been present we tried to comply and yet for a a good period of time prior to the request for the 30-day extension you had the ability to apply for a permit maybe not exec Ute on it but apply for a permit to demolish the the the fencing area um and didn't do so because the property was listed for sale was being shown so what what's the rationale for that so and I don't know that it's it's IR rationale um I will say what was happening was my recollection of the Court's order when we were here at that first Hearing in person and then obviously there was the written order M um was that we were um to I I recall the court saying well I understand you're listing it I don't recall honestly it had been listed yet or if we were about to but I know that was part of the discussion um and the specific part of the court order that I recall was confer with Mr Cruz or confer with the city about what should be done whether we could paint it whether we needed to tear it down so there was um a fair amount of debate um between us and between our general contractor about which of those courses would have been best um in retrospect to be quite honest I wish we'd painted it um because then the demo ended up costing um over $1,000 between the permit fee and the work um so there's another $1,000 I think we could have avoided had we just painted it um but we did confer with Mr Cruz we conferred with our general contractor we waited for the quote um to be honest I don't even know if if I um well I'm I will just leave it at that is I just remember there being um some time spent I mean and when we say a fair amount of time I think we're talking about 30 days between the Court's order the first our first appearance with you was in February was at the February hearing the March 11th hearing is the one that we were not able to attend so that's the period of time that we're talking about because our big um I think the biggest part of the discussion at the February hearing wasn't actually even about the dumpster enclosure it was more about the fence if the court recalls it was about both because you had presented evidence to say that the fence was not yours and I was fine with that right my order was dated February 14th giving you until March 11th to make a good faith effort to come into compliance regarding the dumpster um and and you had the ability to do so and the testimony that was here understanding you were not but the testimony that was here was that you weren't even you didn't even apply for a permit because you guys were showing the property we had not at that time and that's correct um and again in our assessment the um the dubster enclosure wasn't a risk to anybody's safety I am not a contractor I don't know what goes into demoing something like that but it just seemed better for people to be walking through a safe structure this was a judgment call that we made but um and then can I ask you had the property listed has the property been sold is it under contract it is is under contract at the time um and at the time it is under contract right now um they're still in their due diligence phase of that obviously for commercial structures that's a much longer process um and for some reason and this is something Mr Cruz and I spoke about too but just another kind of complication of this is a title and lean search was recently done once the building went under contract and for some reason this lean is showing up as over $116,000 I don't know why um I did contact Mr Cruz as well as the title and um agency to figure out and they said well it goes with the city of St Pete Beach they said well that has never been the amount of the assessment they said oh well that must be because of a reduction I'm like no it's not that's still pending we're set for that hearing today Mr Cruz is um it's my understanding for speaking through him he said that that's an administrative error at some point along the way I don't know what but the point is is but now we're fearful that that's going to hinder the sale because it appears as though we have a $116,000 lean out on this property so it's just this has obviously complicated so many aspects uh to an already complicated situation um but we are eager to get this taken care of get this paid um and again it is it's our request that this you know be reduced to the administrative costs for the time and attention that has been given to this matter okay anything further Miss Elliot I don't I don't believe so anything further from the city I just want to clarify one point Madam magistrate um we don't include a number when we record these against properties we just include your order so that could just be the title company adding up 250 a day I was going to say if there's no compliance affidavit correct they could just be adding it up from March 11th to today so I just want you to know we don't put a number on this so it's not our error that they're calculating they would likely be looking for an Affidavit of compliance or something else that was recorded or lean in satisfa or satisfaction of lean which it's not been satisfied so at this point there wouldn't be anything for them to have an end date on it okay um and and I cannot tell you what to do but my understanding is you can certainly request some of those things from the city or have a letter uh submitted or whatnot that that depends on what the city's administrative policies are um I have to say I do I appreciate your time I appreciate you coming here I appreciate um the position that you are put in I will say I don't have a lot of control over what happens here I can say I have seen you before you have requested of reduction I I did consider all of the things that you've told me in that request as well um I I I don't I I I took Liberties to make things Equitable in the interim um I gave time I gave flexibility so I don't know that there's much more that I can do based on the exact same information that I've had before um I will not be granting the additional $325 and costs because I don't believe I have the ability to do so underneath the city's code provision it just says that my task here today is to consider a reduction in the lean not to assess additional costs um for this hearing so my ruling is going to be I will not be reducing any of the lean amount or the administrative fees the total amount is going to be the 5825 um understanding the property is under contract I don't I I usually give about 30 days um to pay that will that be sufficient for you do you think you'll need additional time less time if we can have additional time it would be really appreciated it's our our this building has been under contract once before okay um and it's our understanding that commercial property that this is apparently quite common is that people go in and out of contract frequently this is what I've been told by multiple Realtors um for financing reasons for work that needs to be done on the property reasons right the due diligence um unearths I guess a lot of different things potentially um and so I don't I don't feel comfortable banking on the fact I while I very much hope that this sale actually goes through as planned I don't know that that's going to happen and we are how much time would you request to pay if the if the Court's willing to give 60 we would appreciate that but obviously it's going to have to be taken care of at the time of closing any any objection from the city or any response from the city on the timing just out of courtesy I would request that timing is okay but at least notify US 10 days before closing because you know I'll get called the day before to release a lean and I just need time to prepare it okay did you and how far in advance a week 10 10 10 days I'll put that in my order so I will grant the 60 days from the date of the order in order to pay the fine amount um and then just with the caveat obviously that notify as a courtesy notify the city 10 days prior to closing so that they can prepare the the satisfaction or release of Le whatever needs to to be prepared okay correct and I have no problem communicating directly with your title company okay thank you do you have a card or a how yes how should I I do I can uh I don't have it on me but I can get you one after the hearing unless Jenny has one truly good luck to you Miss Elliott Mr aarik I I hope that whatever you guys have going on in the future is easier than this me too thank you so um we have one more case number 2011 9452 City St Pete Beach versus Ling L and Z I got this Pete I'll handle this one got it property owner is not here I I gathered yeah so the city is ask if we're not agreeable to reduction well yeah I mean that sounds about right um no reduction is granted I will go ahead and get an order to that effect well just for the record is anyone here on behalf of lingl and z i mean I know I mispronounced that incorrectly but there there's nobody here for the record okay no one here um I will not be granting the lean reduction request as nobody has appeared um and I will get an order to that effect okay uh the next meeting is scheduled for August 12th 202024 at 10: a.m. here in this building unless I do have one question before we end Madam sure procedurally yes so from the city's point of view we're not asking generally speaking not specific to a case we're not asking for admin cost for lean reduction applications but moving forward we would like to ask for admin costs when they challenge the amount of the lean if you can provide me for legal backing under either 162 or the city's code where I have the authority to assess that um I can certainly consider it and do so in the future I just uh don't know that I have the authority to assess additional administrative costs I can ass and then like I said it may not be additional in this context I don't I know underneath your code I don't have the ability to um and chapter 162 doesn't really contemplate this type of a proceeding for lean reductions in the future for additional hearing time those types of things I don't know that it would be an additional cost it would just be that maybe during the administrative portion of the hearing um that first hearing you say it's 3:25 but by the time we get to the imposition of fines and fees you've put extra time into it so maybe your admin costs go up I just need proof of what those costs are got it and um then I can certainly consider them under chapter 162 and assess them at that time uh as far as the challenge to the fine amount if you find me something in your code that says I can I can consider that then okay uh let me know but I just there's nothing in 162 to my knowledge about challenging about Challen yeah those are all out of 162 and your of your city's code so okay so it's not a matter of you doing any anything additional in terms of the administrative cost these are the final numbers so my authority comes from chapter 162 in the city's code under 162 I have the ability to assess administrative costs in certain contexts under the city's code I don't have that ability there's no Authority granted to me so unless there's a change in the code or you can find me something um and maybe there is something that I haven't read but in in the provisions I haven't seen anything that doesn't already pair it chapter 1 62 for the most part um but if there's a provision that allows me to assess additional administrative costs I'm happy to consider them and assess them if warranted thank you ma'am thank you anything else no we appreciate the expediency of these of this okay well then August 12th I will see you all then yes yep you you wrap this up pretty quickly thank you