WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=NudDVe3obt8

Part: 1

1
00:04:40.720 --> 00:04:57.360
Magistrate code enforcement meeting for the city of St. Pete Beach for Monday, August 10th, 2026. Hello, my name is Erikica Aello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases. I'm a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida Bar and board certified in city, county, and local

2
00:04:57.360 --> 00:05:12.800
government law. I have been appointed to this position in accordance with the authority set forth in chapter 162 Florida statutes and the city of St. Pete Beach code of ordinances. I am not an employee of the city of St. Pete Beach and do not re represent the city here today. I do not confer with the

3
00:05:12.800 --> 00:05:28.880
city's code enforcement officers outside of the hearing process about your cases. It is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters presented. As such, I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings. Today's matters will be heard in the order in which they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed. Every effort

4
00:05:28.880 --> 00:05:44.960
will be made to hear all persons having relevant evidence, arguments, or comments 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

5
00:05:44.960 --> 00:06:01.199
present its case first. The respondent will then be given an opportunity to refute the city's allegations. Formal rules of evidence do not apply to this proceeding. However, I will make every effort to ensure that fundamental fairness and due process is afforded to all parties. After hearing all re relevant evidence, I will issue an

6
00:06:01.199 --> 00:06:16.479
order. The order will be reduced to writing and all parties will be provided with a copy. So, please ensure that we have your current address or email address. Additionally, you are advised that I do not have the authority to grant you a variance, permit, or special exception of any kind. My role is solely

7
00:06:16.479 --> 00:06:31.360
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

8
00:06:31.360 --> 00:06:47.120
compliance deadline if one is provided. If you wish to present any evidence today, please sign in at the podium before you speak and it will be necessary that you swear or affirm to tell the truth. Therefore, at this time, I will swear in anyone wishing to speak today, if you intend on speaking, please stand and raise your right hand to be

9
00:06:47.120 --> 00:07:03.280
sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> So sworn. Any changes to the agenda this morning, Mr. Der? >> Good morning, Madam Special magistrate. Pete Der, code enforcement manager for

10
00:07:03.280 --> 00:07:20.160
the city of St. Pete Beach. Changes to the agenda. New case 4B 2026 0197. We'd like that case to continue uh to spe uh special magistrate agenda. September special magistrate

11
00:07:20.160 --> 00:07:34.880
agenda. >> Okay. So that meeting is scheduled for September 14th. >> September 14th. Yes, please. >> Thank you. And >> I'll get you in order to that effect. Other changes to the agenda? No, ma'am.

12
00:07:34.880 --> 00:07:48.960
>> Okay. Then moving right along, we'll go to case agenda item 3A, case number 20260138, city of St. Pete Beach versus Timothy Wheeler in the estate of William J. Dudley. >> Good morning, special master.

13
00:07:48.960 --> 00:08:04.400
Uh, case number 20260138. Uh, this is a status of for uh work being done without a permit. And I'm going ask for Mr. Chris, our building official to come up and speak about it.

14
00:08:04.400 --> 00:09:32.880
>> Okay, Mr. Curtis. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Luke. >> Yep. So um my apologies. I wasn't quite set up yet. Bear with me two seconds. So for this property uh it was built in

15
00:09:32.880 --> 00:09:50.640
1984. It is a postfirm uh structure that should not have habitable living area on the ground floor. And um the property records show uh through Penelis County Property Appraiser that it has uh for

16
00:09:50.640 --> 00:10:07.600
storage, parking and building access only. Uh at some point in history, it was converted to living space and there's no permitting record for that. Um and that is the basis for between Florida building code and our city code

17
00:10:07.600 --> 00:10:24.800
does not allow for living space on that ground floor and uh as as such should be removed. U that's pretty much the extent of it but I'm I'm open to answer any questions if there are any. Um, okay. So, I think that was the same

18
00:10:24.800 --> 00:10:39.279
testimony that you gave at the last hearing, and my understanding was that the property owner was going to work with city staff to figure out if this was perhaps or the property owners represented perhaps a um non-conforming, legally non-conforming use. But you're saying there's still no record of any

19
00:10:39.279 --> 00:10:55.760
permitting. Um, does the city have any permitting records from that time period over the last 40 plus years? >> Uh, yeah, we do have permit records. Um, and I'm just double checking this

20
00:10:55.760 --> 00:12:23.760
>> correct. Uh, Sorry. Bear with me a moment. Um, So, my apologies. Um, so there is in our records a variance that was done for the property back in 1983

21
00:12:23.760 --> 00:12:41.320
which allowed for a uh a bathroom and a utility room. and the transcript from that variance. The uh

22
00:12:42.880 --> 00:12:58.880
it says there would be only a garage, utility room, and bathroom asked. Then another somebody asked if there were plans to make this area into an apartment and the respondent said no. Uh, so there was a variance for the

23
00:12:58.880 --> 00:13:14.480
bathroom and the utility room, but it was clear that it wasn't going to be used as an apartment, a living living area. >> Okay. And so in order to come into compliance, they could continue to have the property owner could continue to

24
00:13:14.480 --> 00:13:32.560
have the utility room, the bathroom, um, but it would have to function as a garage. >> Correct. Garage storage. >> Okay. And so is there any indication that there was allowed to have air conditioning or or other um

25
00:13:32.560 --> 00:13:49.920
other types of things that are not typically allowed on a first floor >> and there's no comment to the air conditioning from from my perspective and from the code that's in place with the Florida building code and for uh the

26
00:13:49.920 --> 00:14:05.680
city code. The air conditioning wouldn't necessarily be a restriction or define it as living space. Okay. >> So, for example, somebody might just want to control the moisture in a in that area. So, if somebody wanted to put AC in there, I I wouldn't necessarily

27
00:14:05.680 --> 00:14:23.839
say no. But the the parts that make it a residence like a kitchen or uh you know other separated areas, you know, that might point towards a a living space as opposed to just storage or um garage

28
00:14:23.839 --> 00:14:39.680
space. >> Okay. So, for this particular property, in order to come into compliance, uh, and I haven't heard from the respondent yet, but in order to come into compliance, pursuant to your records, um, they could keep the bathroom, but they would have to remove the kitchen. I

29
00:14:39.680 --> 00:14:55.120
believe there's a kitchen on that first floor. They would have to remove the kitchen. Um, do they have to uh move any electrical or cap electrical or plumbing in order to uh to combat the habitable living space definition pertain to the

30
00:14:55.120 --> 00:15:11.600
Florida building code or this the city's code? >> The there wouldn't be a restriction to not have the electrical, but any electrical below designed flood elevation would have to comply with those regulations. So for example in the national electric code it requires anything below that designed flood

31
00:15:11.600 --> 00:15:28.800
elevation to be uh designed for wet location. Uh so it depending upon the materials used they might have to alter that or they could raise up uh receptacles that aren't designed for wet location up above designed flood >> but they would only be required to do so

32
00:15:28.800 --> 00:15:45.120
to the standard set forth in 1983 to which the variance allowed them to have the bathroom and and have a utility room. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Curtis, I appreciate your testimony today. Anything else, Miss Knight? >> No, master. >> Okay. Um, anyone here on behalf of the

33
00:15:45.120 --> 00:16:09.920
property owner? >> Okay, Mr. Dispro, what do you have for me? >> The property was purchased 23 years ago. It's been functioning the way it's been functioning the whole time and just confused why this suddenly is become an issue. >> Okay. And so understanding that it was

34
00:16:09.920 --> 00:16:25.519
purchased 23 years ago, does the property owner have any permitting that and I understand the property owners purchased it subject to the first floor already being renovated? >> Um, >> of course that would have been it could have been illegally renovated prior to purchase and that's some that's a risk

35
00:16:25.519 --> 00:16:41.839
that you have to take unless you're doing any type of inspection or Yeah. whatnot. So you don't have any records to to solidify that. >> There was no reason to, right, when you buy it >> at the time. Well, yeah. Understood. Understood. Okay. Um and at this time, so there's all I have to go by is the

36
00:16:41.839 --> 00:16:57.600
city's records. Let's say there was a variance for utility room and I understand that you've been that the property owner has been using it in this fashion for 20 years. Um I will say when something comes to light, the city has a right to enforce its code. Unless you can produce evidence that supports it was otherwise allowed, it's still

37
00:16:57.600 --> 00:17:15.120
technically illegal. So, um >> Okay. Um anything else from the city? >> All right, Mr. Dro, anything else that you'd like me to >> No, what what's next? What do we do? Um well I am going to find um that in my last um order I did find that the there

38
00:17:15.120 --> 00:17:30.720
was a violation of the code sections and then uh you had 30 days to determine whether or not there was a legally non-conforming use or if there was another way to bring the property into compliance. At this point since there isn't a legally non-conforming use um

39
00:17:30.720 --> 00:17:46.640
and Mr. uh Curtis has just let me know what compliance looks like. It looks like all that really means is that the kitchen needs to be removed and there can be nobody living down on the first floor. Um do you know are there tenants in the first Okay. So >> long-term leases are in place all sorts of stuff. Yeah.

40
00:17:46.640 --> 00:18:02.960
>> Okay. Um so yeah, that is a little bit difficult. Um do you know if the leases in include any type of termination provision with a written notice period? >> I'd have to look again. I think it was a 90-day but yeah

41
00:18:02.960 --> 00:18:19.120
>> a 90day. Okay. Um I mean I I also do think that's fair to remove a kitchen. It's going to need a demo permit most likely. Um so I'm going to do this. I'm going to continue with the violation, but I'm going to set a check a status

42
00:18:19.120 --> 00:18:35.679
check for 90 days. Um and that will allow for you guys to work with the city to to do whatever needs to be done with the tenants to work with the city to figure something else and then we'll meet back here. Um, I do want to have you make good faith efforts to kind of to come into compliance, whatever that ends up meaning, because maybe that

43
00:18:35.679 --> 00:18:55.520
there's an alternative route. I don't think that there is. Um, and then we'll check back in 90 days. So, that will set us at let's push it to the December 14th hearing. Um, and that way that gives you

44
00:18:55.520 --> 00:19:11.440
time to to figure out what next steps are. Um, so I will issue an order to that effect. So there is a violation on the property. I found that last time, but no fines are going to be assessed at this time and we'll come back on December 14th and figure out where you are as far as compliance is concern. >> Thank you.

45
00:19:11.440 --> 00:19:28.640
>> Thank you, Mr. Desper. >> Madam Special, Mistra, Pete Der, code enforcement. Could we also include in that order um an application for a permit? >> I'll put an application if necessary if there is another avenue

46
00:19:28.640 --> 00:19:44.080
and something creative or somebody finds something I just I don't want to >> or other >> my concern is they have an oper these the current owners purchased this property subject to this 20 years ago >> yes ma'am >> so this is not new >> correct >> um and and there was a variance in 1983

47
00:19:44.080 --> 00:19:58.720
understanding permitting records are not always kept they're not always kept in order there are plenty of reasons that this might have actually been properly permitted and there's just >> I I want to give as much time to to rectify the situation. Understanding they still need to be compliant with the

48
00:19:58.720 --> 00:20:25.919
code. So I will put um to apply for a demolition permit if necessary. >> Thank you. >> Of course. Okay. Moving on to agenda item 3B. Case number 20260168. City of St. Pete Beach versus Roman Invest Group Florida LLC.

49
00:20:25.919 --> 00:20:41.440
>> Good morning, special master Lucy Knight. Uh, they applied for a permit, but they went past their date because it hasn't been approved yet. So, their date was as of Monday, July 27th. We're

50
00:20:41.440 --> 00:20:58.640
asking for 250 a day until they come in compliant and 350 for admin fees and any other fees. But I also have Miss Joanne here, so she could speak on the permit. >> Okay. So, my orders said they had 14 days to get an after the fact permit by

51
00:20:58.640 --> 00:21:14.480
Monday, July 27th. You're saying they have not obtained the after the fact permit? >> No. >> They've applied for it, but they have not obtained it. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you said it was 350 for administrative fees. >> Yes. >> 330. >> 330. Thank you.

52
00:21:14.480 --> 00:21:33.679
>> And 250 per day. Okay. And Miss Bolan? Yes. Good morning. >> Good morning. >> Um, just uh real quick, I just want to give an update on the permit. It is in review now. The fees were paid

53
00:21:33.679 --> 00:21:50.480
on August 6th and it is in review. Once the review is approved, uh all we need are the subs to sign on be the plumbing and electrical to sign on to the permit and we will be able to

54
00:21:50.480 --> 00:22:13.520
issue the permit. >> Okay. And you said they didn't pay the permit fees until August 6th. >> Yes. >> When was the application submitted? >> July 20th. Okay. Thank you, M. Appreciate it. >> Is there anyone here on behalf of the property owner?

55
00:22:13.520 --> 00:22:30.480
>> Anyone here on behalf of Roma Invest Group Florida LLC? Miss Knight, have you had any uh conversations or any contact with the property owner? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Okay. Uh, I am going to find that the property is still in violation of the

56
00:22:30.480 --> 00:22:47.440
stated code section as well as my administr final administrative order. I am going to assess a $250 a day fee from Tuesday, July 28th until the property comes into compliance as well as the $330 in reasonable administrative fees

57
00:22:47.440 --> 00:23:08.640
of the city. Moving right along to 3C, case number 20260134, city of St. Pete Beach versus Plaza Beach Motel LLC. >> Good morning, Special Master Street. >> Madam Special Master Street, >> excuse me. Um, the last witness I don't

58
00:23:08.640 --> 00:23:24.400
believe was sworn in. So, >> Miss B. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, if she can >> She's not even here. Okay. >> I actually did not necessarily consider her testimony. >> Oh, I appreciate that. [laughter] Okay. >> That I miss I I I think we should bring

59
00:23:24.400 --> 00:24:23.520
her back in to swear her in and then just verify the testimony she gave was the truth. But I took my testimony from Miss Knight for the most part. >> Thank you. Lucy, >> you Just raise your right hand to be sworn. Do you swear or from the testimony that you just gave was the truth the whole truth and nothing but

60
00:24:23.520 --> 00:24:38.720
the truth? >> Thank you, Miss Bald. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you for notifying me of that. I appreciate that. Okay. Um, now moving on to item 3C, case number 20260134, City of St. Pete Beach versus Plaza Beach Motel LLC.

61
00:24:38.720 --> 00:24:53.360
>> Good morning, special master Lucy Knight. Uh, let me see. Uh this is a status hearing for the uh the property that was purchased from um

62
00:24:53.360 --> 00:25:10.559
Saison in 2022 ducatted in 2008 and we was supposed to go back and get some information and we have them. >> Okay. So the what you said is the property used to be owned by Duke Energy and then was purchased by Mr. Saison in

63
00:25:10.559 --> 00:25:28.400
2022. >> Yes, ma'am. Could we present that evidence on the overhead, please? >> So, the city would like to enter into evidence the Google map pictures. Uh, this is 2008.

64
00:25:28.400 --> 00:25:52.559
I'm sorry if you can't see them that well. Okay. >> Could you could you zoom in please, Jamie? >> Thank you. 2008. And here are the poles right here on the property in 2008.

65
00:25:52.559 --> 00:26:19.320
Uh this is 2011 and have all the poles in the rock pile that's in the back. 2014. Still have the poles. 2015, 2016,

66
00:26:19.760 --> 00:26:39.360
2019. It still has the poles on the lot, electrical poles on the light. And all this existed with Mr. Seaison all the way back to 2008. Uh additionally

67
00:26:39.360 --> 00:27:02.720
we didn't break ground until 2023. And I have two. This is the city commission meeting, city of St. Pete Beach. And

68
00:27:02.720 --> 00:27:17.440
right here where it says we were expected construction start date to spring of 2023. >> Could you go back to that first page please? What are we looking at? What date was that agreement or that agenda

69
00:27:17.440 --> 00:27:39.600
report rather? November 10, 2021. >> 2021. >> Okay. And my order and I understand that that I guess my question is Duke Energy had the poles and the rocks on there beforehand. There was no code enforcement action against Duke Energy.

70
00:27:39.600 --> 00:27:56.000
Mr. Saison brought the property in 2022. He was concerned that the city was using that as a staging ground for a specific thing, but maybe not. My order says that I wanted to make sure that things that were on the property were not >> It's not property. >> No, ma'am. But they were Duke's property

71
00:27:56.000 --> 00:28:14.559
beforehand. >> Yes. >> And the city at no point used Duke's property as a staging area for anything at all either? >> No, ma'am. >> Could we look at the pictures of May 21, please? And the construction that started. >> This is November 2021.

72
00:28:14.559 --> 00:28:37.919
>> Jamie, please zoom in. >> Okay. Is this the city's construction? >> There was no city is my question. >> We do not know if this was a city project. We're saying that the city project would have been started in in in the date that was in 2023.

73
00:28:37.919 --> 00:28:54.720
There is a staging area. We don't know if this was um being cleared prior to the purchase by Mr. Seaison or if Mrs. Saison worked with with Duke to to construct or put something else on the property. We don't know that. >> Okay. Um, you can testify here today

74
00:28:54.720 --> 00:29:11.840
that the city at no point had a a an agreement either formal or informal with Duke or Mr. Seaison to use that area as a staging area for any project, not even just the one that was mentioned before because I think the testimony before was he thought it was for that project but wasn't sure. I just want to make sure

75
00:29:11.840 --> 00:29:28.799
that the city is not asking private citizens to remove city property from private property. >> As the testimony has proven and the photographs that we entered into evidence proved, the those um um two electrical poles have been uh existing

76
00:29:28.799 --> 00:29:44.799
on that property since 2008. >> Sure. And I don't have a problem with that. My my question is has the city always had or had they had some sort of agreement with the property owner, whether it be Mr. his honor Duke to use that property as a staging area. If the answer is no, then >> the answer is no. >> Okay.

77
00:29:44.799 --> 00:30:00.320
>> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate that. Anything else, Miss Knight? >> And this is what it looked like in January. And this is what it looks like now as of August 7th, which was Friday. >> Are the poles still on the property?

78
00:30:00.320 --> 00:30:21.360
>> And the poles are right here and the pile right here with the grass growing over it. Plus, he added two extra trailers on the property. Okay. Thank you, Miss Knight. Is Mr. Seaison here or anyone here on behalf of Mr. Saison? >> If you could please come state your name

79
00:30:21.360 --> 00:30:37.840
for the record and identify if you've been sworn or not. >> Yes. My name is Alyssa Gagnen. I'm an attorney at Weber Crab and Wen and I have been sworn in. I'm actually here. Can you spell your last name again? >> Yes. G- A G N O N. >> All right. Miss Gagnon. Okay. Uh, and

80
00:30:37.840 --> 00:30:52.960
what evidence do you have in sport? >> Yes, I actually have a lot prepared on agenda item number seven, but my last conversation with my client about this matter was that he was still concerned it was uh city property and he would be taking something that taxpayer money was

81
00:30:52.960 --> 00:31:08.320
used, you know, to purchase off property but >> and he had an obligation to also put forth evidence to supply that that was there was an agreement either with the previous property owner or with himself to use that property as a staging area. Does does he have any evidence to support that that was the case?

82
00:31:08.320 --> 00:31:24.559
>> I do not have in front of me evidence today to support it. I was recently retained in the matter. Um but if I could do further research, I could affirm that. >> Mr. Sison was here last time. He is fully aware of what he was supposed to do prior to this hearing. So I appreciate that. But there won't be a continuence granted on this one.

83
00:31:24.559 --> 00:31:38.880
>> Correct. Thank you, Special Magistrate. >> Of course. Um anything else that you would like me to know on this matter? >> That's all. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Miss Gagnen. Um I am going to find that the property owner is in violation of the stated code section. Um

84
00:31:38.880 --> 00:31:55.919
I did not give an opportunity to cure. I just gave an opportunity to find out if it was city property. There has been sufficient testimony here today. Credible testimony that um the city did not have any type of agreement formal or informal with either Duke or Mr. Seaison, the current property owner. Um

85
00:31:55.919 --> 00:32:12.559
and that the Mr. Saison has uh what is a it's a rock pile and some electrical poles. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Um he has 14 days from the date of my order in order to remove those two items from the property and then we will meet back here. >> Should have already had this date in my

86
00:32:12.559 --> 00:32:39.679
head on September 14th in order to determine any compliance and to assess any fines if necessary. >> Thank you, Special Mist. >> And Miss Gagnan, if you can make sure I have your email address, then I can email the order directly to you. >> Right there. Thank you. Okay, moving on to 3D D. We have case

87
00:32:39.679 --> 00:33:26.399
number 20260245C of St. Pete Beach versus LCP South Postcard in LLC. Is the city going to present anything? >> Oh, it's going to be Mr. Der. [clears throat] Good morning, Madam Special Ministry.

88
00:33:26.399 --> 00:33:41.519
Pete Durk, code enforcement. The uh case against postcard in or no, the loose. Um we did uh readings last week and the property was compliant. We went by there this morning um to do an early morning

89
00:33:41.519 --> 00:33:58.320
reading and uh unfortunately when staff got there um a member of the uh Silver Sands property ownership management um they were unable to make it. They had um a medical issue. So we were not able to

90
00:33:58.320 --> 00:34:13.839
do that early morning reading. Um but at this time um we have not had uh subsequent complaints to the um postcard or the loose um working towards compliance and they have substantially

91
00:34:13.839 --> 00:34:29.919
lowered the noise that we gathered um last week when we were there. Um, so for all intents and purposes, we can make the claim that they're currently compliant since we've not gotten any additional complaints. And the attempt this morning was to determine full

92
00:34:29.919 --> 00:34:45.919
compliance with not just um during the day reading, but an early uh overnight early morning reading, and we weren't able to do that. So, I don't know if we should necessarily continue the case. I'm going to leave that in your hands to make that decision or if we can uh claim

93
00:34:45.919 --> 00:35:02.079
compliance based on the fact that we did the readings last week. And I have evidence that we can enter. >> Look, I'm not the one that determines if the property is in compliance. I can verify what the city says to determine if it's reasonable compliance, but it is up to the city to determine if it's compliant with the code. I do believe

94
00:35:02.079 --> 00:35:17.839
there's a representative from the property owner here. So maybe prior to my making a determination on that, we can hear from him. And then because I believe my last order was just to give them a good faith effort, I kind of like to hear what they've done in the interim, see if maybe [clears throat] the readings would come back as

95
00:35:17.839 --> 00:35:34.400
compliant. Good morning. For the record, Kevin Reali, 401 East Jackson Street, uh 21 Sweet 2100 in Tampa. Um for the property owner. So, as we discussed last meeting, there are two ways to try and comply.

96
00:35:34.400 --> 00:35:50.320
One is um I mean, every piece of equipment, as I'm learning slowly, every piece of equipment has some sort of software control in it. And the software can control the frequencies of the fan motors and the blower motors. frequency is speed but it's more than that. There

97
00:35:50.320 --> 00:36:07.119
can be resonant frequencies and and all other ways to reduce noise and um there there are two units and one of the units so they adjusted blower settings and fan settings on using a computer um and on one of the units adjusting the fan

98
00:36:07.119 --> 00:36:23.440
setting created a significant reduction and on the other unit the blower setting for whatever reason that was that was the more of the culprit. So, uh, I I have a report. It's black and white. I'm happy to submit this, but I can also email it to you, um, if you want the color report, but they saw a 10 to 13

99
00:36:23.440 --> 00:36:39.440
decel reduction by changing the those speeds. Um, and then, of course, the unit doesn't have to run quite as hard at night. So, uh, as it gets cooler during the night, it's it's better during the night as well. Um, we were expecting the measurement this morning

100
00:36:39.440 --> 00:36:56.320
as well. Um, and we're hoping that it will comply and we we can hear a significant reduction, but the only measurements we have were during the day. We don't have the the measurement that they were trying to take this morning. So, we believe that we have more than a 10 decel reduction, which would make us comply. Um, but I don't

101
00:36:56.320 --> 00:37:12.800
have I don't I have evidence that could show you that comply during the day, but I don't have evidence to show you that comply during night. So I guess my question would be if you have evidence that demonstrates during the day it's a 10 to or 10 to 13 decel reduction, do you have any reason why it wouldn't be the same at night if if you're running

102
00:37:12.800 --> 00:37:28.400
over a course of time? >> No. And actually we would think that it would um be the same because the last reading during the day uh when I looked over it, the ambient didn't create a reduction. So the biggest problem taking measurement at night is you may not have ambient helping you, right? So during

103
00:37:28.400 --> 00:37:45.599
the day if it's noisy that ambient the delta between the ambient and the actual noise might be less. So even though the machine is just as loud during the day or the night um it it might not have the ambient reduction. So we we expect it to be the same. We were hopeful that that would be the same. Um but so we don't

104
00:37:45.599 --> 00:38:00.720
have any reason to think they wouldn't comply and I can submit the evidence showing that we have the 10 to 13 decel reduction. Um and I further this is all with software and and with the existing um equipment. One of the things that was discussed last time was doing a physical barrier. And the issue with that is the

105
00:38:00.720 --> 00:38:16.800
the noise is being read above, right? The the neighboring property is taller. So it would be a the the physical damper would be um it wouldn't be as simple as putting up like a screen, right? >> And so the the estimate for that is a

106
00:38:16.800 --> 00:38:33.040
sixmonth manufact c because it's custom manufacturer, custom design and then install. So if there is no compliance then it's it would be a after the reductions that were just done then it would be a significant time before something like that could be done >> six to nine month window

107
00:38:33.040 --> 00:38:48.960
>> it would be and and that's why so much effort has been put to trying to do with the machine because as I stated last time this was never supposed to be this loud the machine is not supposed to run and one of the culprits was one of the fans was running on over speed so it was running wild so to speak and that's some of the noisiest things that are up there

108
00:38:48.960 --> 00:39:04.720
because the the machine itself shouldn't shouldn't be that noisy. So that was a a big help and then playing with the frequencies to find the right combination um help. >> Okay. Um if you would you can just leave the that with the the clerk for evidence

109
00:39:04.720 --> 00:39:20.240
um and it can be considered part of the record. >> So I have a it's a it's a short field report basically confirming the measurements they made and then um there's an email chain describing what happened which is helpful. Okay. Background. >> Yeah. If you want to submit that, that'll be good for the record and then

110
00:39:20.240 --> 00:39:37.040
I can get a copy if need from the clerk. >> Um, >> no, that's fine. You can >> Anything else, Mr. Reali, that you would like me to know? >> No, thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Der, I do think it might be beneficial just because I know there were quite a few property owners that were um impacted by this to perhaps uh

111
00:39:37.040 --> 00:39:55.920
continue this till the next hearing. >> We do have there is a fact witness here. >> We have the manager of the property where we were taking the readings this morning. Okay. If yes, >> you would like to say something. >> Good morning. >> Morning. You could state your name for

112
00:39:55.920 --> 00:40:10.880
the record. >> My name is Mir Mir Kavarich. K A V A R I C last name. I'm the general manager for Silver Sands Beach and Raqqa Club. Um I did review those readings. Our apologies

113
00:40:10.880 --> 00:40:27.520
that our guard captain today actually got sick. That's why you could not get the readings as scheduled. Uh when I spoke to the general manager of uh Loo Postcardian, I'm so used to say PCI [laughter] >> and I actually was in New York when he

114
00:40:27.520 --> 00:40:43.359
called me and he did tell me that the air conditioning chillers whatever you want to call that equipment. They did some software adjustments. According to him, it was that because the temperatures were set so lower, that's why the system was kind of

115
00:40:43.359 --> 00:41:00.720
running more and louder. So that brings us as silver sands to something else. They just simply made few adjustments and they increased the temperature. We do not know the occupancy of that lobby

116
00:41:00.720 --> 00:41:16.079
or the restaurant when any other amenities inside that would require in the future for the system to be adjusted. The logical law would come would be that why would you get this big system if you did not need on the full

117
00:41:16.079 --> 00:41:32.960
support. So we believe that the reading should be done when the system is using the maximum capacity because this is going to be in the hands of the loose. If they need more air in the future, the system is going to be louder which means

118
00:41:32.960 --> 00:41:50.079
we're going to circle back again and we're going to start this procedure which has been going on since March. Even with this uh new adjustments so cold, there is still actually a noise factor in all those units. It's besides the decimal is the

119
00:41:50.079 --> 00:42:07.119
nuisance of those property owners. I can hear right now at the clubhouse where my office is located almost 250 ft away and I can hear that equipment actually running. Now imagine this at night those balconies. I do disagree with the fact

120
00:42:07.119 --> 00:42:22.800
that placing acoustical barriers is not going to work. I think engineers will tell you otherwise. There's not even a single [snorts] high-rise building that I know of and we all have traveled that they do not have an acquisal barriers. There are

121
00:42:22.800 --> 00:42:37.680
calculations can be made even in regards if they know goes up which I do agree. Lulu is a second floor. Our building says five floors and doesn't include the garage but we do not basically believe that whatever adjustment have been made

122
00:42:37.680 --> 00:42:53.440
right now has remedied the problem. Yes, maybe the readings are showing otherwise but this is just a temporary solution just to just to be in compliance. This is not a permanent solution. We'll be back on the same place in in a very very near future. >> Thank you.

123
00:42:53.440 --> 00:43:11.520
>> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Um, anything else from the city? >> Actually, >> I was going to say Mr. Reali, did you want to to speak to >> Mr. Kavaric? >> Yes. So, um, it it sounds

124
00:43:11.520 --> 00:43:28.160
it sounds interesting just that's why I was starting my testimony saying yes, they go in and change things to software, but it's the unit is either on or off. Okay. And so, when it's running and the way the computer was running it, the computer was not set up properly. So the the control unit was telling fans to

125
00:43:28.160 --> 00:43:43.119
run in over speed and then other portions of it were running in resonant frequencies of one another. So this is not some madeup thing. The profession a professional came with a decimal meter that you can see in the report and measured the change. It went from 85

126
00:43:43.119 --> 00:43:59.839
plus decb at 10 feet away. It was a sign significant reduction. So I would just point out that the engineer can show you. You can see the math. There is a reduction and the unit's running or not, right? And so, um, the it's like your compressor at home, right? When when

127
00:43:59.839 --> 00:44:15.760
your air is running, it it's just how often it's running is what would change. Um, and, uh, it's also the hottest month of the year. And the measurements were taken, um, and the measurements also note that the temperature and, uh, humidity and those things. And they were noting that the system was still

128
00:44:15.760 --> 00:44:29.200
operating properly even though it was quite hot and the conditions were not favorable for conditioning the space. >> Okay. >> So, all that's in there. >> Thank you, Mr. Ali. And Mr. Der, can you tell me what time of day were the daytime readings taken where you found

129
00:44:29.200 --> 00:44:50.720
that the the unit was in compliance? >> After 7 a.m., which is uh makes a difference because the decibel level goes up a little higher. >> Right. So, what is what is do you do you have the time on the last reports that I received from Miss Retoell? We had the exact time frame that

130
00:44:50.720 --> 00:45:06.240
>> 8 8 a.m. in the morning. So, they were taken at 8 a.m. >> Okay. Okay. All right. So, I um I appreciate everyone's testimony. Um Mr. Clark, to your point, I I'm only here to determine compliance with the code. So, whether or not you are back here in the

131
00:45:06.240 --> 00:45:22.480
future is going to be up to the city and whether or not this is the fix um that lasts. Um noise is allowed to happen. It's just as the city regulates it, how loud it's allowed to be. Um, that being said, I do want to make sure that we have compliance with the daytime level.

132
00:45:22.480 --> 00:45:38.720
It's the nighttime level that we didn't we don't know who compliance with. >> Um, so I would like to make sure that let's come back in September. That way you have 30 days, the city has 30 days to get out there and make sure that the overnight um does is impacted by that 18

133
00:45:38.720 --> 00:45:54.400
or 10 to 13 18 dB. That would be nice, right? Yes. 10 to 13 dB. Um, and I suspect it will be and maybe Mr. Really won't need to be here next next month. But, um, let's just get that confirmation so that we can close the loop on that and I can make sure that

134
00:45:54.400 --> 00:46:11.680
um, the property is in fact in compliance both with daytime and overnight >> um, decel levels. >> Thank you. >> Um, so I will get an order to you all and if need be, will we be back here in September? If not, then nice to handle that for you all.

135
00:46:11.680 --> 00:46:29.760
Okay, moving on to agenda item 3E, case number 20250220, city of St. Pete Beach versus Mr. Circus. >> Good morning, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Uh, this is a status hearing uh for 11:04 passive growway.

136
00:46:29.760 --> 00:46:45.200
Uh, the last hearing I believe we were waiting for Mr. Sarcis to go to closing. Um, I checked property appraiser this morning. It shows Mr. Sarcus still owns the property. So, I don't know if the deal fell through. I believe Mr. Starkus is here to maybe speak on where he's at

137
00:46:45.200 --> 00:47:01.359
with the property. >> Absolutely. Hey, Mr. Starkis, how are you? >> Good. >> So, yes, uh I had the property under contract, but buyers uh with uh unknown reasons, they just

138
00:47:01.359 --> 00:47:16.720
changed their mind and uh they are not buying anymore. So, after that, I hired uh I hired company uh high tide home pros I signed contract with them for a full renovation of the

139
00:47:16.720 --> 00:47:33.680
house. I have notice of commencement uh contract pay deposits uh architects uh architect and uh engineers working on the drawings. Uh they already applied because they probably asked for a few permits. So they already applied for uh

140
00:47:33.680 --> 00:47:48.800
uh replacing the roof because uh they probably can do that and still architect architect working on the drawings. So I have all all those all that paperwork and uh >> okay >> the contract paid deposits and uh the rest.

141
00:47:48.800 --> 00:48:04.480
>> So just making sure. So now that you decided through all this you're going to keep the property. >> I I don't want to keep it but you understand at this point. >> It's not my fault. those those people they you know they were just such a liars and uh >> Yeah. Okay. >> That's what happened.

142
00:48:04.480 --> 00:48:19.599
>> And so you've already got a contract with your general contractor. They pulled a roof permit. So you're planning on renovating, not demolishing and rebuilding. Correct. >> Yes. Correct. >> Okay. Um do you have a time frame on when the remainder of the permits are going to be pulled?

143
00:48:19.599 --> 00:48:36.319
>> So for the uh for the roof, they already applied for the permit. >> Mhm. uh and the rest uh because uh there is a lot of work for uh for architect and engineers uh because uh it's large

144
00:48:36.319 --> 00:48:50.720
project huge house it is uh more than $1.2 2 million project and uh they rebuilding practically everything because uh replacing siding, balconies, uh all doors, windows, roof, everything

145
00:48:50.720 --> 00:49:08.319
inside uh 100% uh moving some walls. So there is a lot of work to to make new drawings. >> Okay. >> And uh I hope like uh because we have contract for 8 months. It's supposed to be done. I don't think they're going to make it till that time. But uh

146
00:49:08.319 --> 00:49:24.319
>> Okay. Uh but they working on it already. So >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Starkus. >> Anything Mr. Rivera? >> I I know >> we were going to request fines to begin today. I mean, if he's got a roof permit application in >> Yeah.

147
00:49:24.319 --> 00:49:39.200
>> I'm not sure where we even go with this. Case has been open since 23, I think it is. >> 24, I'm sorry. >> After the hurricanes 25. >> Yeah. And and look, every time Mr. Mr. Sharus has had to be here. He's been

148
00:49:39.200 --> 00:49:54.640
here. I I And I see your face, Mr. Rivera. He's been working hard to try and remedy. It's just every time there's an opportunity to do something, it seems to get pushed back. So, >> I'm trying. >> Um I Yeah, it is a difficult situation.

149
00:49:54.640 --> 00:50:09.760
Um the the point of code enforcement is to garner compliance, not to be punitive. I do believe you are trying to comply. Um, anything from the city attorney that you have any points on behalf of the city for this?

150
00:50:09.760 --> 00:50:25.520
>> Only that some a time limit be given to him to get something done. >> Okay. >> Um, let's do this. I I'm not going to put the full eight months out there. I just I I I agree with you. I don't think they're

151
00:50:25.520 --> 00:50:40.720
going to be able to get it done in eight months, but I do want to kind of keep a pulse on this. So, let's do um 90 days from the date of my order. We'll come back for a status conference. Um and then you can give us an update on where they are. Maybe additional permits are

152
00:50:40.720 --> 00:50:56.319
being pulled. I understand from from the city's perspective, it's an exterior. That's at least what was in this violation. It was the exterior, the siding, the roof, those types of things. Um, so if if any of those can get done before interior renovations, I know it's

153
00:50:56.319 --> 00:51:12.559
easier to do it under one major permit, but >> it's impossible because everything is connected. Uh, let's say windows and doors, they're they are coming different sizes and uh, you know, they can't do uh, of course it is probably number one

154
00:51:12.559 --> 00:51:29.200
windows and doors, but uh, uh, it is special order. Uh, there is uh, >> it's not regular sizes. It's very different. There is like >> three uh just three practically uh window walls. So it takes two three months uh

155
00:51:29.200 --> 00:51:46.079
>> just to yes just to create them and fabricate them. Plus uh engineers they have to uh everything fits and uh so architect working on that after he will finish. So he has to approve with the city uh those

156
00:51:46.079 --> 00:52:01.839
drawings they can't order before that. So after only after that they can order those uh all those items and uh >> Okay. Okay. Yeah. Let's set it for 90 days and then that way we can come back and we can see if they've completed the drawings how far they are on them if

157
00:52:01.839 --> 00:52:17.280
they've submitted for a permit and then we can kind of task it from there. At some point there is going to have to be a a a drop deadad date where we say it's you don't have to maybe be completed but you got to be far enough along where >> this doesn't become a problem. Um, so I

158
00:52:17.280 --> 00:52:46.640
will get you a copy of the order. I have your information and um, we will see you back. Let's see. I said 90 days. That's actually going to put us at 89 days. So let's do December 14th. Okay, we'll come back on December 14th

159
00:52:46.640 --> 00:53:04.480
and see where you are. >> Yes, thank you. >> Good luck to you, Mr. Circus. >> Thanks. >> Okay, moving on to agenda item 3F, case number 20230606, City of St. Pete Beach versus Mark Brick and Lynn Broadick. >> Good morning, Madam Magistrate. Steve

160
00:53:04.480 --> 00:53:19.119
Rivera again, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. as a status hearing for the unpermitted auxiliary structure that was built behind 3535 Bel Vista Drive East. Uh, Mr. Broadick, they were given their variance. They have permits in review currently. I think they have

161
00:53:19.119 --> 00:53:35.760
to make some changes to the building structure before the permit can be issued. >> Um, so we're just asking to continue this to the next hearing. >> Okay. Um, anyone here on behalf of the Broadicks? If you can come state your name. Do you want to even say anything? >> No. >> Okay.

162
00:53:35.760 --> 00:53:52.400
>> All right then. Never mind. [laughter] >> Then we will go ahead. >> Oh, sorry. >> We will go ahead and continue the hearing till uh uh the September 14th hearing at 10 a.m. um and work through that process. >> Thank you.

163
00:53:52.400 --> 00:54:10.400
>> All right, moving on to agenda item 48, case number 20260274, City of St. Pete Beach versus McNap Properties. >> Good morning, Special Master Street. Thank you. Lucy Knight, case number 20260274,

164
00:54:10.400 --> 00:54:28.400
McNet Properties. Address 6405 G Boulevard. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 26. A B 1 C D and two. Inspection and

165
00:54:28.400 --> 00:54:43.760
maintenance of signs of the land and development code of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 5142026. Notice of violation dated and mailed 612

166
00:54:43.760 --> 00:55:04.240
2026. Notices of a hearing dated and posted on the property 714 2026. This picture is a true and accurate description of what was posted on the day of it. This is the affidate posting.

167
00:55:04.240 --> 00:55:22.319
This is the damage sign. This is the one that's in the back. The owner must replace or repair the sign. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is 250 per day from the date of your order plus 330

168
00:55:22.319 --> 00:55:37.119
administrator cost and the actual cost incurred in recording or releasing the lean of this matter. I have been in contact with u the property manager and I've been trying to work with them but

169
00:55:37.119 --> 00:55:54.400
they still haven't came into compliance. Thank you very much, Miss Nate. Um, anyone here on behalf of McNat Properties? Anyone here on behalf of McNat Properties? Okay, seeing no one, do they need to get

170
00:55:54.400 --> 00:56:09.599
a permit in order to repair that sign? >> No, ma'am. They were supposed to install some blanks in it, but they haven't and it's been since May. >> Okay. I will allow 14 days from the date of my order in order to come into

171
00:56:09.599 --> 00:56:26.960
compliance. Um, and then we will be back here on September 14th to see about if they're in compliance and if any fines or fees need to be assessed. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to 4 B was continued. Moving

172
00:56:26.960 --> 00:56:45.920
on to 4 C. Case number 20260041, City of St. Pete Beach versus Farida Hanmore and Javeed Hannah. >> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 20260041.

173
00:56:45.920 --> 00:56:59.599
Respondent is Ferretta Javed and Earl Hanmore. Violation address is 2380 East Vina Delmare Boulevard. Violation description. Property is in violation of section 9866A,

174
00:56:59.599 --> 00:57:15.680
B 20, 24, 27, and E. Residential and commercial property maintenance. 4633B enumeration. 22.1 purpose and intent. 22.3D

175
00:57:15.680 --> 00:57:33.520
general requirements. and 23.11A 1 and two parking construction and design of the code of ordinance and the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary, initial inspection was 126 2026.

176
00:57:33.520 --> 00:57:49.920
Notice of violation dated and mailed certified 46 2026. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 78 2026. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 2380 East

177
00:57:49.920 --> 00:58:15.680
Vina Delmare Boulevard. This is some of the outdoor storage. There's a wheelbarrow and a leaf blower. This was miscellaneous items stored over near the garage area. It's another date. There was some wheelbarrow stored outside in the leaf

178
00:58:15.680 --> 00:58:49.440
blower. It's a picture of some of the dead vegetation that was on the trees. Some dead fronds. Another picture of the dead vegetation. The uh overgrown weeds on the property. And it's showing the weeds coming through where the uh pea pebble was in

179
00:58:49.440 --> 00:59:13.760
the front yard. This was the parking on the unimproved surface. It was parked in the pea pebble, not on the uh driveway. Another picture of the vehicle parked in the pea pebble. Corrective action. The property must maintain the ground covering as

180
00:59:13.760 --> 00:59:30.319
designed. Park on the improved surface and store lawn equipment and other machinery out of public view. The property is compliant. Uh this should have just had the administrative fee for the recommended fine plus any cost and actual costs incurred recording or

181
00:59:30.319 --> 00:59:44.880
releasing the fine in this matter, the lean in this matter. That concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Anyone here on behalf of the property owners? If you can please come up and state your name. And I believe you were sworn in earlier,

182
00:59:44.880 --> 01:00:02.160
correct? >> My name is Farita Hanmore. And um I'm sorry that it got as far as it did, but um Mr. Veraria, I had my wrong phone number by one digit. So we weren't we um but once we got the right numbers, we've

183
01:00:02.160 --> 01:00:17.200
been communicating and I've taken care of everything. And I'm sorry it's taken me kind of long, but I'm on disability and I'm on a very fixed income. And if there's any way that you could wave some of the fees, I would appreciate it. And I want to thank you for being so he was

184
01:00:17.200 --> 01:00:33.040
been so nice and helpful and and um like I said, I'm sorry we had the he had my wrong number by one digit. So he I think he thought I wasn't answering his calls, but I I was once I got the right numbers. And again, I'm sorry. >> Not a problem. Did you receive any of the notices because it looks like this

185
01:00:33.040 --> 01:00:48.319
had been going on since January. >> I did receive the notice in the mail. Yes ma'am. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you so much, Miss Hammer. I appreciate it. Um, there are no fines or fees. I'm going to find that the property was in violation, but is now compliant before the hearing date. I typically don't wave the city's

186
01:00:48.319 --> 01:01:03.119
administrative fees because they have to pay for my time and the the notices and everything to get you to come here. If you had complied before the the with the when the notice was originally sent, this wouldn't be an issue. So, I appreciate you asking for the request for the reduction, but I am going to

187
01:01:03.119 --> 01:01:18.799
assess the $330 in administrative fines of the city. Um, you Mr. River, you asked for recording and releasing of the lean, but there's no fine assessed with it. Is that just something that the city is requesting from now on or has >> as for language? Uh, we've been

188
01:01:18.799 --> 01:01:35.520
questioned. Well, they said it was only going to cost this much and then there's the releasing or the uh the lean, recording the lean, there's a fee with that, >> sure to release it. So that's what we're looking uh make sure it's just in the language. >> Okay. But there's no fine that's being assessed. So there wouldn't be a lean that would be assessed with this.

189
01:01:35.520 --> 01:01:52.160
>> Uh yeah, our administrative side. Like I said, we're just trying to keep the language all uniformed with >> Understood. Okay. Not a problem. Okay. So I am going to assess the three the properties in compliance. I will get an order that says that there is a $330 in reasonable administrative cost to the city as well as the language with regard

190
01:01:52.160 --> 01:02:09.520
to recording or releasing a lean if uh appropriate. Um, thank you so much. Thank you. >> All right. And moving on to agenda item 4 D, case number 20260318, City of St. Pete Beach versus Gregory

191
01:02:09.520 --> 01:02:34.079
Williams and Marcy Williams. >> Sorry about that, Madam Magistrate. >> No worries, M. >> Uh, bring this up here. Case number 2026318. The respondent is Gregory and Marcy Williams. Violation address is 3922

192
01:02:34.079 --> 01:02:51.359
Poinsetta Drive. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 98123.1 permits required and 463312 and 3 enumeration of the code of ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach. >> Case summary. Initial inspection was 528

193
01:02:51.359 --> 01:03:07.119
2026. Amended notice of violation dated and mailed certified 618 2026. Notice of hearing dated dated and posted to the property 723 2026. Following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This

194
01:03:07.119 --> 01:03:23.839
is the affidavit of posting at 3922 poinsetta drive. This is a picture of the unpermitted fencing that was being installed. Another picture of the fencing supplies and the

195
01:03:23.839 --> 01:03:50.960
concrete and stop work order that was issued to the property. Corrective action. Property must cut and maintain the grass and weeds regularly and obtain a permit for the fence uh fence installation prior to completion. The property is not compliant.

196
01:03:50.960 --> 01:04:07.599
Recommended fine is $250 per day from the date of your order plus $330 administrative costs and any actual costs incurred in recording and or releasing a lean in this matter. And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the Williams?

197
01:04:07.599 --> 01:04:22.319
You could please come up state your name and affiliation for the record. >> Morning your honor. >> Good morning. >> Uh Gregory M. Williams. Okay, Mr. Williams, what do you have for me today?

198
01:04:22.319 --> 01:04:41.720
>> Well, let's see. Um, so we have uh one of the violations was a car that was parked um unregistered. Here is a

199
01:04:45.359 --> 01:05:02.880
May approach. You may and I don't I is that part of the violation that's >> the original notice one of the original notices that went out that's not part of what I was presenting. >> Okay. So then that's okay. I I will take your valid testimony that the the the vehicle is registered. That's not uh

200
01:05:02.880 --> 01:05:22.640
before me here today. The only things before me are the overgrown um landscaping and the unpermitted fence. Um, all right. That's part of So, we were able to get a

201
01:05:22.640 --> 01:05:38.480
permit for that fence line. So, that was >> Do you know when that per because there's nothing in our system showing a permit for any fencing going in. >> So, this homeowner because he had a survey

202
01:05:38.480 --> 01:05:56.640
>> St. Louis fence. So, what about the sections in the front here? >> What are we looking at? Please, could we put us on the overhead? >> So, so we when I applied for the So, when I got the amended notice of violation, I

203
01:05:56.640 --> 01:06:14.400
wasn't living there. We were still not We were still in our rental property trying to move back in. Mhm. >> So, when we got the stop work order, um I went down the next day to apply for a permit for the fence. I had a survey

204
01:06:14.400 --> 01:06:29.760
with the city. The city lost the survey and they told me because I did not have a survey, they would not permit my fence. So, my neighbor had a survey. So, we were able to permit that side of the fence and got that fence installed and

205
01:06:29.760 --> 01:06:46.240
permitted. Um, my understanding was the city, I don't know, for somehow they lost the survey. So, I had to first go to the original title company and see if they would give me a copy of my survey. They were not

206
01:06:46.240 --> 01:07:02.960
able to find it. So, I went to my um mortgage company when I refinanced. They had a survey. They were not able to find the survey and provide it to me. Um, so I went back to the original people that

207
01:07:02.960 --> 01:07:19.520
did the survey and they came out on Tuesday of last week. >> Um, and then as soon as I paid them, they emailed me a survey. Um, which I have with me today.

208
01:07:19.520 --> 01:07:36.960
And before I came in here this morning, I went to the city and applied for a permit. So, I have a permit pending for the fence. Um the is not in review yet because the survey I did not put down the linear

209
01:07:36.960 --> 01:07:52.640
dimensions of the fence that is now being hopefully permitted. >> Okay. Um I don't know I took there

210
01:07:52.640 --> 01:08:12.640
was an issue with I think I have that there with property that was or things that were on the front porch.

211
01:08:17.600 --> 01:08:34.480
And that is a photo from yesterday showing that. And that is the screen there which was part of the original report. And as you can see that everything that was on there has been removed except for an umbrella.

212
01:08:34.480 --> 01:08:57.040
>> What's allowed to be there? Okay. And I think that's it. >> Okay. And I think Mr. River, did you say there was overgrown vegetation? >> Yeah. So, uh, where the vehicle was parked at, that wasn't the original notice. There's overgrown vegetation.

213
01:08:57.040 --> 01:09:14.239
Um, some broken, uh, pottery plants, which I apologize. I didn't see it. Did I think I went through the slide too fast where that pile of, uh, fencing material is at. But there is some overgrown vegetation that needs to be addressed uh sporadically here and there. Uh we have 12 in tall spots of

214
01:09:14.239 --> 01:09:30.560
weeds. Uh the fence is the the major concern obviously uh to make sure it gets permanent before installation. >> Okay. And I'm assuming Mr. Williams once the fence is up then the yard will be contended with >> um >> if necessary. >> Yard got mowed yesterday by me.

215
01:09:30.560 --> 01:09:46.640
>> So the yard has been contended with. Okay. >> Yes. And it's just as I said, we did not move back in until >> you're still in a rental at this point. Yeah. >> And so we've been back in since Jul or I've been back in since July 8th, I think it is. So that's all that stuff that you've seen has been done since.

216
01:09:46.640 --> 01:10:02.719
>> It's starting to get done. Okay. Okay. And Mr. Curtis, I know that you just walked all the way back there, but um would you mind letting me know how long a fence permit might take to be issued for Mr. Williams or thereabouts.

217
01:10:02.719 --> 01:10:17.440
Understanding I'm not holding you to it. I just would like to know an estimate. Mr. Williams, if I could have Mr. Curtis come up and just Thank you very much, sir. >> So, as far as the uh it requires two reviews, building and planning and zoning.

218
01:10:17.440 --> 01:10:33.360
>> It's a a quick short review once we get all the documentation providing it's it's accurate and provides all the information we need. I mean, it could technically we have 30 uh business days to review it, but we're getting them processed a lot quicker within two weeks

219
01:10:33.360 --> 01:10:49.679
typically. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Um, Mr. Williams, is there anything else that you would like me to know before I issue my ruling? >> No. >> Okay. And Mr. Rivera, anything else further from the city? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. um then I am going to find that

220
01:10:49.679 --> 01:11:04.719
the property is in violation of the state of code section, but I am going to allow for 30 days from the date of my order to come into compliance. And what that will look like is that you receive a permit for the fence. Um doesn't have to be closed out, but you get the the

221
01:11:04.719 --> 01:11:19.920
fence permit and you've already shown that the the grass is already mowed and that the remainder has been complied with. Um so with that being said, that date puts us at I think Then we'll be back here at the September

222
01:11:19.920 --> 01:11:35.679
14th meeting if we need to. >> And that meeting will be postponed if the permit has been >> we will be back here either way. The only reason you might not be here at the September 14th meeting would be if the property is in compliance. Otherwise,

223
01:11:35.679 --> 01:11:52.239
you will need to come before me and let me know why it's been postponed, etc., etc. if it's an issue, if I couldn't get a hold of my surveyor, couldn't put the linear dimensions on, they were running whatever behind, or if it's just I just didn't do it, I need to know either way. Um, so that I can either assess the

224
01:11:52.239 --> 01:12:06.640
fines, find the property in compliance, or continue it to another date, certain. >> Um, I understand. And is September 14th a Monday? >> It will be a Monday. >> Okay. The only thing I would bring to your attention is that my court

225
01:12:06.640 --> 01:12:22.640
appearances are scheduled far in advance. So, if you could I can go to the judge and get them reset. If you could give me an extra two weeks beyond that and then I can >> I don't set the hearing schedule for the

226
01:12:22.640 --> 01:12:38.719
city of St. Pete Beach. They are every the first Monday first second Monday of every month and they have been since as long as I've been doing this. Um, I can set a 30-day deadline and put us at the October hearing, but you still only have 30 days to come into compliance. It

227
01:12:38.719 --> 01:12:54.480
would just be whether or not we touch base in October. >> That that would be great. >> Okay. Is any objection from the city on that? >> No, ma'am. Uh, just urgency. There is a swimming pool on the property, which I forgot to mention with the property not being secured. That's a concern as well. >> Um,

228
01:12:54.480 --> 01:13:10.400
>> okay. And I can understand that. I I've got testimony from the property owner saying he submitted the permit Yeah. >> Right. And then I've got the the two weeks really turnaround time, but because there is a statutory requirement for 30 days for allowance, I'm giving that 30 days. >> Um, so it will be 30 days to come into

229
01:13:10.400 --> 01:13:27.120
compliance with my order. That will be to secure a permit. Um, because the violation is for unpermitted work. Um, and then we will come back. I'll set a status conference for the october >> 12th >> 12th date.

230
01:13:27.120 --> 01:13:44.080
And if if I see you then, I'm sorry. If I don't see you then, great. That probably means the properties come into compliance. Um, I would just encourage you to stay in communication with the code enforcement department because sometimes everybody's busy at the city and sometimes building planning don't talk to code and just to let them know

231
01:13:44.080 --> 01:14:01.520
that you're still working on it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Williams. I appreciate your time today. >> All right. And we are moving now to agenda item 4E, case number 20260399, city of St. Pete Beach versus BR Marin

232
01:14:01.520 --> 01:14:18.239
or Dolphin Village LLC. >> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Steve Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Case number 2026399 responded as BR uh Marineer Dolphin Village LLC. Violation address is 4665

233
01:14:18.239 --> 01:14:36.080
Golf Boulevard. Violation description properties in violation of section 38.5 prohibited uses and structures and 4.1A B and C review of conditional use permit application of the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach.

234
01:14:36.080 --> 01:14:52.880
Case summary. Initial inspection was 728 2026. INI notice of violation dated and issued. I'm sorry, dated, mailed, certified. 728 2026. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 728 2026.

235
01:14:52.880 --> 01:15:14.760
Following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 4665 G Boulevard. This is the parking advertisement signs that were located on the property. Another parking sign.

236
01:15:17.040 --> 01:15:38.840
This is a screenshot if you scan the QR code uh showing what it would cost for seven hours. I know it's a little stretched there, but it shows uh 5250 for seven hours of parking. Outlined in the red was the area that was designated for the parking sales.

237
01:15:42.320 --> 01:16:01.360
It's a vehicle parked within the sales uh the vehicle parked within the sale area. Corrective action. The property must cease the sale of parking without the proper permits. The property is compliant. Recommended fine is $1,000

238
01:16:01.360 --> 01:16:17.040
per day uh starting 728 2026 through 84 2026 8 days plus the $330 administrative costs and the actual costs incurred in recording and or releasing a lean in this matter.

239
01:16:17.040 --> 01:16:33.360
Uh the total for that would be uh $8,000 for the eight days. And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. I have questions. >> Yes ma'am. So the violation is for prohibited use of the property without the proper permits. Is that correct? >> So they were selling parking. Um it's

240
01:16:33.360 --> 01:16:49.520
not a it's not a use that's um >> you're not allowed to have paid parking in that particular zoning. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And they were having paid parking in that particular donation. You're allowed to have parking. It just has to be free parking or affiliated with a particular business. >> So they could apply for conditional use.

241
01:16:49.520 --> 01:17:05.840
Uh whether or not they would get it, I don't know. Um that would be planning and zoning. But there's no application as of right now for uh to to sell parking space. >> Okay. >> Um so we're kind of treating it like a short-term rental. Um can't unsell the

242
01:17:05.840 --> 01:17:22.400
spaces and that's why I issued it as uh >> reversible. >> Yes. Yes, ma'am. >> Very creative. >> Yes, we are. >> I'm going to need a little bit more on that. So you said that they're now compliant. >> Yes. >> Which means that they're no longer using it in the manner that they were using it before. Correct. >> No. So, I've spoken to uh and I believe

243
01:17:22.400 --> 01:17:38.640
one of the representatives from the company from Bricksmore is here. >> Um they did remove the signs. They have stopped parking since. Um and I guess moving forward, they're going to try to figure out what they want to do with the parking. >> Okay. And when you're if you're making it akin to a short-term rental, when you issue violations in the city for a

244
01:17:38.640 --> 01:17:54.080
short-term rental, there's the advertising, which can be cured, and then there's the actual parking. So, what you've shown me was there was one vehicle parked there. Can you confirm that that vehicle paid for parking in that in that lot? I cannot uh I did show the uh advertisement for the parking and

245
01:17:54.080 --> 01:18:10.320
the QR code showing what it would cost for seven hours of parking. Um that vehicle was parked within those that coordinate uh cordoned off area >> during the times that you would have paid for parking. >> So I'm I'm going to assume that that vehicle was there, paid for parking and

246
01:18:10.320 --> 01:18:24.719
went over to the beach. >> Okay. And the reason I asked that is because when you present to me short-term rentals, you present to me reviews that determine that somebody actually paid and rented and stayed there. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And so you can't un you know can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I don't

247
01:18:24.719 --> 01:18:41.120
have that same type of evidence here. >> And you also are you also do uh you ask for $1,000 in fines for irreversible because you can associate them with the reviews. You've asked for $8,000 worth of fines, but you've shown me one

248
01:18:41.120 --> 01:18:56.480
vehicle that was parked there, and you don't know whether or not they've paid for parking. >> I don't. So, and originally, just to give you some background on it, I wrote the property up. I did try to reach out to a previous employee that was there. I was unaware that that person wasn't there. The day I went to go post it, the

249
01:18:56.480 --> 01:19:13.199
signs were gone. So, I closed the case. A day later, I come out and they were back there. There was a couple of vehicles at the time, which I probably should have grabbed photographs of. I did not. But on the day uh that those photos were taken, there there was a vehicle there. There was a forklift that was also parked over there. I don't

250
01:19:13.199 --> 01:19:27.360
think that's associated with it. Um but I I'm assuming that they they're very strict with the parking over there. Uh that place is known for having vehicles toned out that's not supposed to be there. So I'm going to assume that that vehicle paid for parking and was parked

251
01:19:27.360 --> 01:19:44.159
there. I I know it's it's not a review. It's it's a lot of it's a lot of conjecture and assumptions but uh anything from the city over here. >> Well, madam special magist rate um yes you are correct that there are certain things that we provide you when we do

252
01:19:44.159 --> 01:20:00.239
the INI. Um but this case is for 38.5 which is prohibited uses. You correctly identify that this property can be used for parking just not the short-term rental parking that they were advertising for. Um, so if um you're

253
01:20:00.239 --> 01:20:17.520
unable to find for $1,000, as you're um alluding to, we would at the very least like $250 per day for the fact that the use at that property, what they were using it for was prohibited. >> But again, that's not proving to me it's

254
01:20:17.520 --> 01:20:33.600
irreverable or reversible. You're allowing a cure period. So, if I'm not going to be assessing because my job under chapter 162 is if it's irrevocable or irreversible or a repeat violation, I can find that dead. I don't have the same level of evidence here. I don't

255
01:20:33.600 --> 01:20:49.280
find that it's irreverable reversible. You said that the propertyy's now in compliance. >> So, if the property is now in compliance, it means that there was the ability to comply, which means that you can have a cure period. And then I've heard testimony here today saying the property is compliant. And so I I don't have the ability under chapter 162 or

256
01:20:49.280 --> 01:21:05.360
your code to assess a fine when there's a compliant problem. >> Understood. >> Um now I haven't heard from the respondent yet and they will be under oath and so maybe I can inquire and ask some of those questions to find out if there was paid parking but >> Thank you. >> Um as it stands right now I don't have the I don't have the evidence to support

257
01:21:05.360 --> 01:21:21.440
what you're requesting. >> Got it. Yes ma'am. >> Um is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? If you could please come up state your name for the record and your affiliation with the corporation. Hi, my name is Pine Fury. I am the property manager with Bricksmore Property Group. And >> can you spell your last name for me?

258
01:21:21.440 --> 01:21:38.400
>> Fur t. >> Okay. And Miss Fury, uh, you said you're the property manager, >> correct? >> Okay. Um, before you begin, I'll let you speak kind of to to what you um to the the violation, but I do have a question there. Did you see a picture of a vehicle that was parked in that lot on

259
01:21:38.400 --> 01:21:54.400
that Mr. River put on the screen? The black truck? >> Yes, I did see the vehicle picture. Do you have any knowledge if that black truck play paid to park in your lot? >> I am not sure. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. And what would you like to um and just recall I I don't usually say this, but just recall that you're under oath,

260
01:21:54.400 --> 01:22:10.800
>> right? >> Okay. And Miss Fury, what would you like to say in defense of the violation? >> Yes. So, as far as the violation, um I know it was dated the 28th of July. Um we received it on the 4th and as soon as the violation was received, we sent it over. We stopped all um parking

261
01:22:10.800 --> 01:22:27.280
enforcement at that property. Um we were not aware of the um requirement for conditional permit applications. So with that, we decided to reach out to the parking provider to stop operations

262
01:22:27.280 --> 01:22:44.800
um and we will work towards, you know, applying if that's something that the property owner would like to um continue with. But for the time being, as of the 4th, there is no paid parking enforcement at the property. Um, I've provided pictures to to you over email

263
01:22:44.800 --> 01:22:59.120
and then I stopped by this morning at the property. There is no paid parking signage or parking um enforcement. >> Okay. And um when I was reviewing the pictures, it looked like there was a third party called Metropolis Parking that was using that lot. Is that correct?

264
01:22:59.120 --> 01:23:15.440
>> Correct. They were the the parking uh enforcement patrol provider. >> Okay. And so you you no longer are doing business with them at that location? >> Not not currently. >> Okay. Okay. Um anything else, Mrs. Miss Fury, that you'd like me to know?

265
01:23:15.440 --> 01:23:31.440
>> Um as far as the process goes, um knowing that we are in compliance, we have sent over images. Um you know, we will see if we decide to move forward with um applying for a commercial um or conditional use permit. Is there

266
01:23:31.440 --> 01:23:47.520
anything that you would like as the property manager and owner? >> Uh, that's going to be between you and the city in that application process. So, from my point of view, I don't need any information on that. But if you are looking towards that, you may want to meet with the the city the the requisite people that can put you in the right direction. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.

267
01:23:47.520 --> 01:24:01.360
>> Madam Special Man Street, could we ask a question? >> Absolutely. Could we could uh could you please tell us what the arrangement was between you and the third party vendor that you contracted with? >> As far as the >> financial arrange financial >> Yes, please.

268
01:24:01.360 --> 01:24:18.880
>> So with the provider, it was 7 or 30% of the sales were going to the Metropolis parking and then 70% of sales were going to be um Dolphin Mariner Dolphin Village LLC. And did you get a final accounting

269
01:24:18.880 --> 01:24:35.920
before you um ended the contract of what funds were paid? >> I as far as that time period, I don't I do not have a um monetary amount that was provided for the duration. >> So you do know that there was parking that was being paid for,

270
01:24:35.920 --> 01:24:51.440
>> correct? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am. >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. All right. I am going to find that the property is in violation of the stated code sections. I am not going to find

271
01:24:51.440 --> 01:25:07.920
that it is irreversible or irrevocable as the testimony here today has demonstrated that the property is now in compliance. Um Mr. Rivera, uh I don't remember $330 in administrative. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. So, I will assess the $330 in

272
01:25:07.920 --> 01:25:24.000
reasonable administrative costs of the city um and add the language with regarding to the recording or releasing leans if required. Um, I will say this to the property management company. This is a a first violation. So, if

273
01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:39.600
there's a second violation, it will attach it could attach a daily running fine of up to $500 a day. Um, or if the city can prove that it's irrevocable or reversible, a onetime fine of $5,000. So, um, just understanding if you are going to use the property in this nature, the like you said, the

274
01:25:39.600 --> 01:25:54.880
conditional use and the proper channels, um, please do so. Um, other than that, I will get you in order. Just make sure I have your information um on this case. Okay. Um, and thank you very much. Moving on. There are no repeat violations. No,

275
01:25:54.880 --> 01:26:10.560
nothing under cases complied. Moving on to agenda item 78, case number 2026104 and 2026201. I have this as a motion for reconsideration. And before we begin, I do have a question. Um, what gives me at

276
01:26:10.560 --> 01:26:25.440
sitting a special magistrate the authority to reconsider one of my orders? >> There doesn't seem to be anything uh necessarily in the code. So therefore, we resort to rules of court. So um there

277
01:26:25.440 --> 01:26:41.520
h there needs to be some method to make corrections. Um if there's if there's errors, mistakes, something's overlooked, there has to be some way to remedy that. >> Okay. And I can understand that. The only reason that I ask is because to

278
01:26:41.520 --> 01:26:57.360
your point, um, Mr. Shashone, there is nothing in the city's code that provides for reharing. So, what are my criteria that I'm bound by in order to determine whether or not a rehering is necessary in this um context? >> It would be the the same general rules

279
01:26:57.360 --> 01:27:13.760
that would apply to a court of law. And >> even though this is an administrative proceeding, >> again, yes. Um, >> and it is a quasi judicial proceeding. >> Correct. So um mistake of fact, mistake of law and and that is what we are looking at here today.

280
01:27:13.760 --> 01:27:29.280
>> Okay. And then prior to proceeding on this, I do believe Mr. Saison does have counsel here. Um Miss Gagnon, do you have any response to my ability or authority to hear a motion for reconsideration? >> Okay. If you could please come up and

281
01:27:29.280 --> 01:27:48.639
respond to the city's proposition. Thank you. I and and I'm not saying I will or will not rehear it. I just want to hear the arguments for and against it before I take it uh take a ruling on it one way or the other. >> Thank you. So again, my name is Alyssa Gagnen, an attorney at Weber Crab and

282
01:27:48.639 --> 01:28:07.280
Wan. I want to keep the position fairly simple. I don't believe that you need to reach the merits of the motion for reconsideration. The city's own code provides the procedure for review of a final order entered by yourself. sections 2 or 22 281 and 22 288E and I

283
01:28:07.280 --> 01:28:24.159
believe that's the municipal cotification of Florida statute 16211 um direct an agrieved party to seek review in a court of competent jurisdiction. It's very very clear that this is the only route to um to relief.

284
01:28:24.159 --> 01:28:40.800
Um, and it expressly says that this applies to private parties as equally as it does to the city itself. The order itself as well, the final order that was signed also directs um the city to appeal within 30 days to a court of

285
01:28:40.800 --> 01:28:56.800
competent jurisdiction. I would implore you to um apply the statute as written. >> Okay. And what about to the point that Miss Shashonne has risen that when the code is silent on that that we look to the rules of court in order to determine whether or not that there is the right

286
01:28:56.800 --> 01:29:13.120
to a a motion for reconsideration. >> Right. I don't have that case law. She provides nothing in the motion for reconsideration that gives the authority for it. I do have two case citations that I can give to you. I'm sorry I didn't print out the cases that show that if you want to appeal a final order, the only route is through a court

287
01:29:13.120 --> 01:29:28.880
of competent jurisdiction. And that is what the plain language of both the St. repeat uh city beach code says as well as Florida statute 16211. >> Okay. And then what about and and I'll take uh argument from respondent first and then I'm going to um defer back to

288
01:29:28.880 --> 01:29:44.639
the city. Um the rules of appellet procedure and their application regarding uh reconsideration prior to taking an appeal. Um any um >> can you rephrase your question? I'm sorry. >> Sorry. the rules of appellet procedure require and the rules of court require

289
01:29:44.639 --> 01:30:00.719
um a reconsideration motion to be taken in the Florida if if if what Miss Shashonne says is correct that the rules of court apply and we're looking underneath the the Florida rules of civil procedure in order to take an appeal under the floors of Florida Florida rules of appellet procedure the underlying case must have a reconsideration motion that's been

290
01:30:00.719 --> 01:30:16.320
denied um to preserve your right to appeal um do you have anything uh that would support your position that that's not required in this in in this type of administrative ive hearing. >> Um I do not have anything supporting that position. Just the simple fact that I do not think that this should be able

291
01:30:16.320 --> 01:30:33.040
to be heard today. >> Okay. Um anything Mr. Shashon for this? >> So So we are trying to avoid an appeal. It is obviously less costly for both the city and it's less costly for Mr. Gagnan's attorney. Why Mr. Gag, excuse

292
01:30:33.040 --> 01:30:50.000
me, Miss Gagnon's client. So um again this is just a simple overlooking of a document and is easily uh reviewed and can be corrected um if if magistrate

293
01:30:50.000 --> 01:31:06.960
sees fit. Um it is is just a much simpler and better process than rushing straight into an appeal that's going to cost everybody a lot of money. >> Okay. And I see in the agenda report the motion for reconsideration. But I also see exhibit A attached to it is the

294
01:31:06.960 --> 01:31:24.719
final order from 2026 or 2023 even though it says it's from 2026. So there there were there were two orders and apparently at the hearing one was looked at and uh madame magistrate determined that it did

295
01:31:24.719 --> 01:31:42.080
not apply because it mentioned that uh it didn't say anything about parking. It it briefly mentioned parking but did not find a violation. Then the thing is there was another order that was issued that did find a violation of parking. And all we're we're not here to rehash

296
01:31:42.080 --> 01:31:58.080
the merits of the and the details of the case simply that was this a repeat violation or wasn't it a repeat violation and there was an order that would indicate that it was a repeat violation >> and that was not presented at the

297
01:31:58.080 --> 01:32:14.480
underlying case. So, um, whether whether it was presented or the other one was presented, I don't know exactly what happened. I believe there was a a notebook that had former orders in it. And >> I was only presented with a single order at that hearing. >> Okay.

298
01:32:14.480 --> 01:32:31.840
>> Um, and it did not mention parking, which is why um, >> my order found that there was not a repeat violation. So, your argument here is that there was another order that existed. It just wasn't the order that was presented by the city. >> The order did mention parking, but it

299
01:32:31.840 --> 01:32:48.480
mentioned that the parking then at that particular time was in compliance. So, it didn't go further into addressing the parking problem. It was incomp that there was a previous order that did find a violation >> and that order was not presented at that

300
01:32:48.480 --> 01:33:05.199
hearing. Can I explain that? >> I'm not I'm not ready to to >> I was going to explain why. >> Right. I'm not ready to that. That's the basis for the motion for reconsideration. I'm not prepared to even address the motion for reconsideration at this point. I don't

301
01:33:05.199 --> 01:33:30.960
um I I I need more than we just rely on the rules of court. um that I can hear a motion for reconsideration. And the reason why is my understanding of the way that reconsideration works is in an administrative hearing, especially code

302
01:33:30.960 --> 01:33:46.239
enforcement capacity, unless it's specifically requested or specifically part of the code enforcement board's rules of procedure or set forth um as a an allowance or an author an authorization of the special magistrate. reconsideration is not usually is not

303
01:33:46.239 --> 01:34:02.400
had. Um and that reconsideration does not toll the time to take an appeal of a final administrative order regardless. Um that would be the Palm Bay case. So I don't want to put the city out although I think this was I don't have the order before me that I

304
01:34:02.400 --> 01:34:17.679
actually issued. So >> the these were a combined case. So the orders >> I understand that I'm saying I don't have what what is attached to your motion for reconsideration is not my final administrative order that I gave at the last hearing.

305
01:34:17.679 --> 01:34:33.199
>> No, that was the one that that should have been looked at. >> Right. So my question is what was the date of the last hearing? Because I believe I got the orders out the same. >> It was last it was last month. >> Okay. So then underneath the the rules of appellet procedure, you guys have

306
01:34:33.199 --> 01:34:47.600
three the city has three days to take a formal appeal. And even if I hear a motion for reconsideration, that does not toll the time for an appeal. Um, I don't want to put the city in a position, but I also don't believe that I have the

307
01:34:47.600 --> 01:35:04.880
uh authority to hear and rule on the motion for reconsideration. So what I am going to do so that I do not unduly prejudice the parties um and because this is a court of equity in some circumstance uh I am

308
01:35:04.880 --> 01:35:19.440
going to allow the city to make its point on the motion for reconsideration. Um I am going to warn the city that do your due diligence but there is very good case law out there that says that if you don't take an appeal within the 30 days you lose your ability regardless of the fact that you've moved for

309
01:35:19.440 --> 01:35:37.280
reconsideration. Um, I would like I will hear the motion today and then I would like the parties I'll make a ruling at the end as to what I expect, but a kind of foreshadowing. I'd like the parties to get me a brief uh legal synopsis on I have the ability to even listen even

310
01:35:37.280 --> 01:35:52.239
hear the motion for reconsideration. I will rule on that first and ultimately rule on the motion for reconsideration if it's allowed to be heard. But I want to hear it here today so that I don't prejudice the city um in any way, shape, or form by not

311
01:35:52.239 --> 01:36:08.719
uh cons at least considering it. >> Does that make sense or did I jumble that? >> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm lost here. First, it sounds like you're saying you don't think you have the ability. >> I I don't believe I do. And and I don't have any law except for you arguing we use the rules of court, but I don't have

312
01:36:08.719 --> 01:36:23.679
anything that says we use the rules of court. And I am very familiar with chapter 162 and the and the and some of the case law behind it that says I don't have the ability without a legislative delegation of power from the

313
01:36:23.679 --> 01:36:40.159
city commission that I can hear reharings. Um because that's what chapter 162 specifically gives the local governing body the ability to delegate me authority to hear code enforcement cases. >> Well, this as I this isn't ex exactly we're not really asking for a rehearing.

314
01:36:40.159 --> 01:36:56.320
We're asking for a reconsideration and not to rehear the whole thing just to correct. If there was a typographical error, I'm not sure how we would even bring that forward then. >> Well, that's a scribner's error that can be done without a hearing and there is

315
01:36:56.320 --> 01:37:11.600
support for that. So, my >> this is and we're not asking for a hearing here. We're just asking you to take basically a take judicial notice of an order that you had previously issued that was overlooked at the last hearing >> and and I understand that and if you

316
01:37:11.600 --> 01:37:26.960
look at the rules of Florida civil procedure they consider motions for rehearing and reconsideration in the same breath and the case law is pretty pretty specific about that. I again I don't based on what you've given me if this is and and I will defer to the

317
01:37:26.960 --> 01:37:41.920
city. I can either take it under advisement and you can give me your brief on whether or not I have the authority to do it or I'm going to go based on the only the case law that I've been presented here today and the statutory authority that says I don't have the ability because >> well it doesn't sound like we have time

318
01:37:41.920 --> 01:37:58.320
to give you a brief if we have to appeal within 3 days >> and I understand that. >> So >> again there's no >> so >> I understand that Mr. shown and I do I do appreciate that you're in a difficult position but there's no rules underneath there's no delegated authority from the

319
01:37:58.320 --> 01:38:14.080
commission that gives me the power to do it and I don't want to take the power to do something I am not allowed to do >> all right >> so I I can either allow you to brief that issue take the the testim take the motion for reconsideration hear it today

320
01:38:14.080 --> 01:38:30.080
suspend ruling on it until I receive the briefings from the parties if the briefings state and I rule on that says I can hear the motion for reconsideration. I will get an order out that says yes, I can hear it and what my what my order on that is. If if the law says I can't reconsider it because it's

321
01:38:30.080 --> 01:38:45.520
not a delegated authority, then I will say I cannot hear the motion for reconsideration. But at least we've already had argument on it and I can make that ruling without having another hearing. We can do that exparte. >> I don't think that there's time for that. If you're saying that this does

322
01:38:45.520 --> 01:39:01.280
not toll our time for an appeal and then I've got only three days to appeal, there's no time to be briefing and having you look at briefs and to make rulings. We got to get we've got to move forward. So >> I I agree, Mr. Shon, but I'm

323
01:39:01.280 --> 01:39:18.880
>> just deny and or determine you don't have the authority. >> Well, okay then. I'm happy to do so then. Based on the arguments that have been presented here today, I find it credible that the case law that has been presented, you said you had a couple cases. >> Yes. And I can provide those to you.

324
01:39:18.880 --> 01:39:41.199
Yes. >> If you could please provide me those case citations. >> Correct. Yes. >> Two cases. Would you like me to quote them or just the citation? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. The quote section 16211 provides that an agrieved party may appeal a final administrative order of an

325
01:39:41.199 --> 01:39:56.880
enforcement board to the circuit court and that such appeal shall be limited to appellet review of the record created before the enforcement court. The plain reading of that section clearly provides for plenary appeal to circuit court as a matter of right. That is from MGM of

326
01:39:56.880 --> 01:40:14.639
West Florida LLC v. Manatee County and the citation 406 SO3D 351 the pin site is 353 >> and that's second DCA. >> Uh yes yes ma'am.

327
01:40:14.639 --> 01:40:32.159
>> And what year? >> 2025 and I have another case as well. >> Okay. Review of a code enforcement board's order is by appeal to the circuit court and that is Sarasota County v. Bo B

328
01:40:32.159 --> 01:40:53.960
point on G Condominium Developers LLC and that is 974 SO2D 431 Psite 432 footnote 2 and the year is 2007.

329
01:40:56.800 --> 01:41:12.639
>> Okay. And Mr. Shashon, aside from your reliance on just that we rely on the rules of court, do you happen to have any case citation or anything that you would be able to give me here today? >> No, this has always just been done administratively. We've never had this

330
01:41:12.639 --> 01:41:28.880
problem before. I've never had this problem before in 30 years of representing cities. So, um, you know, we always give we always give either a code enforcement board or a magistrate an opportunity to correct errors before we go running off to court with an

331
01:41:28.880 --> 01:41:44.320
appeal. >> And in those jurisdictions, have you had the ability to do so within the the jurisdictions code? >> Some of them some of them particularly mention it. Most of them do not, like this one. >> Okay. Okay. um based on the evidence or not the evidence but based on the

332
01:41:44.320 --> 01:41:59.840
argument presented here today and not having anything in the city's code that gives me the authority and understanding the Palm Bay case as well as the two cases represented by respondents council I do not believe I have the authority to hear a motion for reconsideration um of the order that was previously

333
01:41:59.840 --> 01:42:21.920
presented. Um, so I'm going to deny the motion for reconsideration and I will get an order to that effect. >> Thank you, Special Magistrate. >> Thank you, Miss Gagn. >> Thank you.

334
01:42:21.920 --> 01:42:40.639
>> Okay, moving on to agenda item 8A, case number 2024172, City of St. P Beach versus NXT Acquisitions Corp. >> Thank you, Madam Magistrate. Sam Rivera, City of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. This is a uh lean reduction request

335
01:42:40.639 --> 01:43:01.199
application for NXT acquisitions. This uh see here, case number was 2024172. The total uh amount for the leans uh I'm sorry, the total amount lean recorded for fines and administrative fee totaled

336
01:43:01.199 --> 01:43:20.840
out to $164,900. Um they're requesting that this be reduced to $5,000. The property does have their permits. They are compliant at the present time. Put this on the overhead for you here.

337
01:43:22.080 --> 01:43:50.400
So here is the lean reduction application. Next page here this is instruction. This is signatures and not uh the notary

338
01:43:50.400 --> 01:44:21.199
one here. This is all part of the uh limited power of attorney. >> Right. Right. Back here. And this is the receipt for the taxes being paid. >> It's the uh city's position that we

339
01:44:21.199 --> 01:44:36.239
would uh request that the full amount be paid. I do believe there is a representative here from NXT Acquisitions and come forward. >> Uh anyone from NXT Acquisitions here in support of their petition for a reduction in lean request? If you could please state your name and affiliation

340
01:44:36.239 --> 01:44:51.360
with the uh property owner for the record. Yes, ma'am. Uh, my name is Kaylee Arn and I am director of operations for the company. >> Okay. And Miss Arn, I have seen you before me. Yes. Previously. Can you explain to me? I I see that it says it's

341
01:44:51.360 --> 01:45:07.280
beyond your control. However, there were hearings where nobody from NXT showed up, notices were sent, nothing was done. So, can you explain to me um why you said this circumstances are out of your control? >> Yes, ma'am. So, as far as the original

342
01:45:07.280 --> 01:45:24.960
hearing that resulted in the um the lean itself being issued, uh we actually had someone that was supposed to be here as part of like our permit coordination team that we had hired to take care of this. I'm in Miami. I'm based in Miami. I literally drove up here this morning for this hearing and I always drive up

343
01:45:24.960 --> 01:45:41.280
for the hearings um when you've seen me in the past. Uh so, this person's actually local and they didn't come to that specific um hearing at that point. Um, we have gone through three different general contractors throughout this whole process. Um, we've gone through

344
01:45:41.280 --> 01:45:57.119
probably half a dozen, maybe even closer to a dozen different um, plan review changes throughout the time. Uh, engineers, you know, every time you get plan review, it takes three to four weeks minimum to get all that back again. So, just time just continued and

345
01:45:57.119 --> 01:46:12.560
continued and continued. And with those time delays also resulted in specific GC's no longer being able to do the job, just be changing circumstances, having to go find another GC to attach and then kind of continue to move forward. Um, at this point, the request is that there is

346
01:46:12.560 --> 01:46:27.840
a significant reduction in the fines um because as you mentioned earlier, the point of code enforcement is for compliance. It's not for punitive damages. However, I do recognize that the city has put in time and energy into

347
01:46:27.840 --> 01:46:42.239
this case. So, that's why we recommend the $5,000 reduction so that there's some obviously some payment towards those um efforts as well, but not so much so that it's going to cause financial significant financial hardship

348
01:46:42.239 --> 01:46:59.920
to the homeowner. >> Okay. So, then explain to me the vi underlining violation was for failure to secure permits. It was for doing unpermitted work to begin with. So while I can understand your plight not being able to get contractors, the fact of the matter is that the first violation was

349
01:46:59.920 --> 01:47:16.560
issued because there was work being done on the property without a permit. >> Correct. To my knowledge and at this point like I wasn't involved in this whole thing is that there was a um property construction manager that was helping. That person is no longer on the team. Um hasn't been working for quite some time at this point. And there was

350
01:47:16.560 --> 01:47:33.520
somewhere miscommunication. Um I believe they he even spoke with Mr. Rivera and there was a little bit of kind of back and forth that occurred. Um so that just unfortunately is just something that the homeowners out of what is like out of city and just kind of allowing employees

351
01:47:33.520 --> 01:47:51.040
to run things and hopefully do what he's paying them to do which is go through the proper steps and you know take care of these items. >> Okay. Anything else that you'd like me to know Miss Ar? Um I mean we we at this

352
01:47:51.040 --> 01:48:06.560
point we obviously we have the the permits issued. Um we have a a general contractor that we're working with currently. We're waiting on um some materials to be delivered so that we can you know continue construction and you know hopefully get it to a point that's resolved.

353
01:48:06.560 --> 01:48:23.040
>> Okay. So per and according to Mr. River you said the permits have been issued correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. But the project is not complete. Right. >> Thank you Mr. Arn. I appreciate it. Anything further from the city? >> Uh, no ma'am. >> Okay. So, sitting in my capacity, this

354
01:48:23.040 --> 01:48:38.880
the city's code says that I need to take into consideration when issuing the lean or the fines the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, any previous violations committed by the violator. Um, Mr. Rivera, NXT Acquisitions is a name that I I believe

355
01:48:38.880 --> 01:48:55.119
I've written several orders on. Do they have any previous violations? Uh it primarily was the uh work without a permit. Uh was back in the end of 23 I believe is where it started. Um there was some overgrown grass violations. >> That was a different property or the

356
01:48:55.119 --> 01:49:09.520
same property? >> It was the same property. I think it was when they were kind of going through the motions of changing hands of who was responsible. Um this all stemmed originally from a complaint. Uh the neighbor next door uh complained about the condition of the

357
01:49:09.520 --> 01:49:27.199
property. uh upon inspection is when we found out that there was a permit application to enclose a small portion of the house. Uh at inspection we realized the whole inside was gutted. Um there was it was way beyond the scope of the permit at the time. Um then there

358
01:49:27.199 --> 01:49:42.719
was an issue with the permits expiring which I believe is when it came back. >> Yeah, I recall that. Okay. Okay. Um thank you very much Mr. Rivera. Um, and Miss Arn, anything in response to that that you'd like to address before I make my ruling on this?

359
01:49:42.719 --> 01:49:59.600
>> Uh, I mean, I just we just need to be able to get this construction done and hopefully have the money to be able to finish it. So, this fine is beyond anything that's that's reasonable. Um I

360
01:49:59.600 --> 01:50:16.719
did receive a um email this morning at approximately 7:15 in the morning um from the city regarding some level of settlement agreement that I had requested probably half a dozen times and no one ever said that that was a possibility. Um they said no you have to

361
01:50:16.719 --> 01:50:31.760
come to the special magistrate. Um they did provide me whoever this is provided me an itemized breakdown which at this point I believe to be a little bit ridiculous. Um, so that's uh kind of like my last things.

362
01:50:31.760 --> 01:50:49.600
>> Okay. All right. Um, I appreciate you coming here today, Miss Ar. There's been a lot with this property, but you are correct. It shouldn't be punitive. You are trying, your company is trying to work to resolve the issue. Permit has been secured. You've testified here under oath that you are working towards

363
01:50:49.600 --> 01:51:11.199
completion. Uh, I am not going to I am going to grant the lean reduction request, so I'm not going to grant it to the $6,000. Um I am going to reduce it to um to by 30%. So I'm going to take 30% off

364
01:51:11.199 --> 01:51:28.719
of that and reduce it to $49,470 plus the $325 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. Um, and I say that with this, and it's the same thing I've said to other people that have come before me. You buy property within the jurisdictional

365
01:51:28.719 --> 01:51:45.599
boundaries of a city, you are required to uh comply with the city's code. Violations of non-permitting for Florida building code issues. You could have avoided all this if you got a permit to begin with. I'm not here to rehash the case, but I am here to take into the gravity of the violation. There were two hurricanes that happened. These are post

366
01:51:45.599 --> 01:52:01.840
hurricane repairs or renovations. They were done without a permit. they were done um interiorly interiorly um and based on the testimony here and previously and the changing of hands I I don't find it credible that efforts were

367
01:52:01.840 --> 01:52:17.199
made that this was just a mistake especially since the permit that was given was expired etc. So given the nature of the violation um and the gravity of the violation, the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and previous violations committed by the violator, I think a 30%

368
01:52:17.199 --> 01:52:33.520
discount is sufficient enough. Um it is taking into account your credible testimony here today. Um and that is going to be that I will allow 30 days um to pay the reduction. If it's not paid within 30 days from the date of my order, it will revert back to the full

369
01:52:33.520 --> 01:52:49.679
amount. is am I able to say anything else? >> You certainly can. I don't know that it will change my ruling. >> Uh I mean city they provided to me a settlement that was approximately $44,000. >> I have nothing to do with the

370
01:52:49.679 --> 01:53:06.159
settlement. I don't even know if they have the authority to settle code enforcement leans without my authority underneath their code. That's between you and the city. >> Yeah, they I mean they specifically told me that it it wasn't possible. So, the fact that they I mean they sent this to me literally this morning at 7 a.m. I'm not exactly sure what the like what the

371
01:53:06.159 --> 01:53:20.320
situation >> I have no knowledge of that and that's that's I'm not even taking that into the calculus of of the lean reduction. I'm only allowed to look at the three things for imposition of a of a lean in order to reduce the lean under the city's

372
01:53:20.320 --> 01:53:36.719
code. So, um that is what I am bound by and I and I have looked at that. I have told said on the record the reasons for it. I'm reducing it by 30%. Um, so again, you wouldn't be here if if if

373
01:53:36.719 --> 01:53:54.239
you know, NXT had followed the laws to begin with and if it wasn't such a long and drawn out process. So, um, with that being said, uh, again, I will get you an order to that effect and you'll have 30 days to pay the reduction or it will revert back to the full 164. >> What is the total? uh $49,470

374
01:53:54.239 --> 01:54:12.880
and then the $325 in reasonable administrative fees. >> $470 and then 300 >> 25. Okay. And I like I said, I'll get you a written order that I believe I have your email address from before, but just make sure it's on that list.

375
01:54:12.880 --> 01:54:31.360
>> Yes. Um right. Thank you, Miss Arn. I appreciate your time here today. Okay, I believe that is the last thing we have on the agenda for today. >> It is. Uh, but I have a request, please. >> Yes. >> Um, previously we were able to email either

376
01:54:31.360 --> 01:54:46.960
you or um your administrative assistant to have corrections made to the orders. If we are uh if we have orders specifically, the city clerk would email you. We tried to stay away from communicating with US code enforcement.

377
01:54:46.960 --> 01:55:04.719
>> But if those orders have uh whether it's scrier's errors or any other errors that we would like to have corrected, how do we communicate that to you please? >> So you can email my admin my parillegal no longer works at our firm. >> Yes ma'am. >> Or anyways um and uh I presently our my

378
01:55:04.719 --> 01:55:20.239
new parallegal does not start until Monday. So presently you can email me. >> Yes. Um, I will not be correcting substantive errors or what you perceive as substantive errors unless they do not comport with what was said on the record at the hearing. Right. >> Otherwise, that's, you know, it's my

379
01:55:20.239 --> 01:55:35.440
ruling. It's my ruling. Scrier's errors. I have no problems with with uh doing it. I will let you know the reason for those is I sit and I do all of the orders. >> I usually have a parallegal go over it and catch those. Um, >> and here we are. Yeah. So, okay. Um, I

380
01:55:35.440 --> 01:55:52.000
have been trying to do my best and and put not a ton of time because again, my time is money to the city. >> Um, but I want to make sure that I get you the correct order. >> Absolutely. And the other >> We appreciate that. And the other request is could you please add to your orders the reasonable administrative

381
01:55:52.000 --> 01:56:08.159
cost of the city in the amount of whatever that amount is for the um reasonable administrative cost and the actual costs incurred in recording and or releasing a lean in this matter. Please, >> I can do those. >> Thank you. >> Um, all of you want those on all orders

382
01:56:08.159 --> 01:56:23.360
and say if applicable or do you want them on only the fine orders? >> Um, orders where they're that that information is applicable. Yes, please. >> Yes, I can certainly do that. >> Thank you. >> Of course. Anything else, Mr. D? >> That's it. Appreciate your help and your time.

383
01:56:23.360 --> 01:56:29.239
>> Have a wonderful day. It is 11:52. >> Thank you.