good morning my name is jeff fuller i'm the special magistrate who's been assigned to the pinellas county code enforcement special magistrate agenda for today october 20th 2025. welcome to pinellas county code enforcement special magistrate hearings the special magistrate is charged with conducting hearings to determine whether an alleged violation of the county code has occurred in order to meet that obligation all parties or their representatives will be allowed an opportunity to be heard on matters relevant to the alleged violations all witnesses offering testimony or presenting evidence will be required to swear or affirm that the testimony they provide is the truth the order of presentation will begin with the county presenting their evidence of the alleged violations and then the respondent shall present his or her case both parties shall have an opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses the special magistrate may question any witness the clerk will announce the names of the cases from the agenda when you hear your case called please respond by coming to the podium with your representative and or any witnesses to be sworn in when addressing the special magistrate please speak clearly into the microphone we don't always follow the numerical order on the agenda so listen when the clerk calls the name any person who decides to appeal the decision of the code enforcement special magistrate with respect to any matter considered this hearing will need a record of the proceedings and for such purposes may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based the record is not provided by pinellas county nicole will you read item number two from the agenda item number two continued from september 8th 2025 department code enforcement matter minimum housing code violation zoning code violation case number ccm-25-00062 officer b hughes owner 4730 st pete llc notice address 4730 st pete llc 4730 county road 16 st petersburg florida 33709-3130 and 4730 st pete llc 10888 100th avenue seminal florida 33772-2402 and kennedy erica jr and kennedy edward m authorized member of 4730 st pete llc morse Authorized member of 4730 St. Pete, LLC, 8737 Matthew Street, Seminole, Florida, 33772. Violation address, 4730 County Road 16, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33709. And who's here for that case? Officer Hughes from the county. Jason Goldstein on behalf of the respondent. Is there going to be any testimony? There could be. We've mostly come up with an agreement. The main thing was the court costs. We weren't able to come up to an agreement for that. We were able to come up to an agreement for the violations and the deadline timeline. The issue is this is operated as one parcel, but there's five. So there's five separate violations and five separate sets of court costs. And when you total all that up, we're at a substantial amount. That has created an issue when there's been, as of this date, substantial compliance on all the issues. Except for one which requires a permit, which is in application right now. But we've reached an agreement on everything. We're just hung up on the court costs total. Can we read the other cases into the record so we only have to discuss this one time? Is that satisfactory to everybody? Yes, sir. Yes. So, Nicole, if you would read item three, number four, five, six. Item number three, continued from September 8, 2025. Department, code enforcement, matter, minimum housing code violation. Case number, CCM-25-00063. Officer, B. Hughes, owner, 4730 St. Pete, LLC. Notice address, 4730 St. Pete, LLC. 4730 County Road 16, St. Petersburg, Florida 33709-3130 and 4730 St. Pete, LLC 10888 100th Avenue, Seminole, Florida 33772-2402. And Kennedy, Erica, registered agent for 4730 St. Pete, LLC 8737 Matthew Street, Seminole, Florida 33772. And Kennedy, Edward M., authorized member of 4730 St. Pete, LLC 8737 Matthew Street, Seminole, Florida 33772. And Kennedy, Erica L., authorized member of 4730 St. Pete, LLC 8737 Matthew Street, Seminole, Florida 33772. Violation address, 4740 County Road 16, number four, St. Petersburg, Florida 33709. Item number four, continued from September 8th, 2025, department, code enforcement, matter, minimum housing code violation, case number, CCM-25-00064. Officer, B. Hughes, owner, 4730 St. Pete, LLC. Notice address, 4730 St. Pete, LLC 4730 County Road 16, St. Petersburg, Florida 33709-3130 and 4730 St. Pete, LLC 10888 100th Avenue, Seminole, Florida 33772-2402. And Kennedy, Erica, registered agent for 4730 St. Pete, LLC 8737 Matthew Street, Seminole, Florida 33772. And Kennedy, Edward M., authorized member of 4730 St. Pete, LLC 8737 Matthew Street, Seminole, Florida 33772. And Kennedy, Erica L., authorized member of 4730 St. Pete, LLC 8737 Matthew Street, Seminole, Florida 33772. Violation address, 4740 County Road 16, number two, St. Petersburg, Florida 33709. Item number five, continued from September 8th, 2025, department, code enforcement, matter, minimum housing code violation. Case number, CCM-25-00065, officer, B. Hughes, owner, 4730 St. Pete, LLC. Notice address, 4730 St. Pete, LLC 4730 County Road 16, St. Petersburg, Florida 33709-3130 and 4730 St. Pete, LLC 10888 100th Avenue, Seminole, Florida 33772-2402. And Kennedy, Erica, registered agent for 4730 St. Pete, LLC 8737 Matthew Street, Seminole, Florida 33772. And Kennedy, Erica L., authorized member of 4730 St. Pete, LLC 8737 Matthew Street, Seminole, Florida 33772. Violation address, 48th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33709. Parcel ID, Parcel ID 06-31-16-70020-100-3202. Item number six, continued from September 8th, 2025, department, code enforcement, matter, minimum housing code violation. Case number, CCM-25-00068, officer, B. Hughes, owner, 4730 St. Pete, LLC. Notice address, 4730 St. Pete, LLC 10888 100th Avenue, Seminole, Florida 33772-2402 and 4730 St. Pete, LLC. 4730 St. Pete, LLC 4730 County Road, 16 St. Petersburg, Florida 33709-3130 and Kennedy, Erica, registered agent for 4730 St. Pete, LLC 8737 Matthew Street, Seminole, Florida 33772. And Kennedy, Edward M., authorized member of 4730 St. Pete, LLC 8737 Matthew Street, Seminole, Florida 33772. Authorized member of 4730 St. Pete, LLC 8737 Matthew Street, Seminole, Florida 33772. Violation address, 48th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33709. Parcel ID 06-31-16-70020-100-3204. How much are the costs to case in order? For each case? Yes, starting with item number two. Item number two, CCM-25-00062. The cost is $462.25. For item three, CCM-25-00063. The cost is $444.40. Item number four, CCM-25-00064. The cost is $439.30. Item number five, CCM-25-00065. The cost is $441.85. Item six, CCM-25-0068. The cost is $439.30. Mr. Goldstein, go ahead and give me your argument as to what you think the taxation of costs should be. Well, the only argument that I think I really have, I understand that it's separated into separate parcels, but it's operated as one business. It's a nursery. The damages are the result of a few things, which is mainly being the loss of a substantial amount of the merchandise or the plants that are sold on the property as a result of the second storm that we had. Yes, the greenhouses, there were disrepair. There was roofs that came off. There was inventory that died. Plastic plant holders were everywhere. There was a lot going on over the last year. The only real issue with the property, which my client didn't know about, was the pavers in a right-of-way, which was purchased that way. When he bought the property, the pavers were, I believe, there was 2016 or 17? Between 2014 and 2016. It was purchased in 2022. He didn't know about it. It was brought to his attention last year. He has applied for a permit to have those to be able to stay there. He's lost in the permit process. He hasn't followed up with that. The permit application was submitted in December of 2024. And a lot has just happened since then. In addition to getting his business back in order and up and running, he's trying to help other people who need the same tree work done, trees removed, stumps ground, new landscaping put in, jobs up and down the beaches. So, back, I kind of got off on the entire case, as we are. Again, there has been substantial compliance. I think you'll hear that from the other side. There still is. I don't necessarily know that we agree on the issues that are still pending, but it doesn't matter because they're small enough that we're just going to do whatever we need to do to make everything go away. We have been offered a substantial amount of time to do that. We're going to comply with that. We are going to work with the county on getting the permit issued within that same period of time for the pavers. If not, and it's not issued or denied or there's more things that need to be given, we're going to show that to them. If it's just denied, they're going to be removed. So, we've kind of fallen the sword on everything that needs to be done out there, whether we like it or we don't, and I just think that to assess, I didn't calculate it, but I believe we're probably somewhere between $2,200 and $2,500 in fines on really what's one piece of property is a bit, it's not fines, it's court costs, but it's kind of excessive. And I would like to see it assessed as one property, but I don't know that my argument is going to get there. If so, then we'd be looking at somewhere around whatever the highest fine is here, like a concurrent court costs on all of these properties. And that's really the only argument that I have, but I do understand that we're here on one issue across five separate pieces of property because they haven't been combined as one. Right. What says the county? Basically, the special magistrate liaison calculates those costs, unfortunately, because it is a property that is situated on five parcels. I did just pull up this real quickly to show you. The main parcel is right here for the nursery. However, they've got two parcels out of the four that are located here, another parcel here, and another parcel there, which adds up to five. I typically don't have an authority to change court costs. I appreciate that it is significantly higher because it's on five parcels, but because we have to do all the process with the notices of violation, notices appearing, affidavit of violation, and I don't know that we have – I certainly don't have any ability to change them. So, magistrate, that would be entirely up to you. So, unfortunately, each parcel requires us to do the same amount of work for each case, basically. I'm going to rule that each case costs are going to be assessed separately. With that ruling, Mr. Goldstein, do you still want to enter into an agreement with the county? You're not agreeing to that. Speak with my client for a second? Yes. I think, Your Honor, based on that, I think we would just proceed on and challenge the violations. All right. We'll start with item number two, which is case number CCM-25-00062. Is your client going to testify? Yes. Okay. Sir, if you would please come up here. Anyone for the county other than you, Officer Hughes? No, sir. The two of you, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. You may have a seat. The county may continue. Okay. Magistrate, I apologize for the record. May we have the gentleman's name? Oh, I'm sorry. Edward Kennedy. Thank you. And, Magistrate, would you like me to try to present this all as one or do it just each case separately individually? Let's do each case separately at this point. All right. So, the first parcel that we're talking about, just to kind of reiterate, we've got this parcel, two parcels here, another parcel next door, and then this one in the far corner. So, the one that I'm discussing right now is this large parcel right here. Okay. So, the property where the alleged violation exists is 4730 County Road 16, St. Petersburg, Florida 33709, located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner is 4730 St. Pete LLC and is represented by Mr. Goldstein today. The violations have been in occurrence since Arnold before November 6th of 2024. They had an early assistance meeting regarding the paper violation 154-231 on May 4th of 2023. I would like to enter into evidence the notice of hearing and composite Exhibit A into evidence. Any objection to Exhibit A? Exhibit A will be admitted into evidence. Okay. So, on July 29th of 2025, the property had minimum housing violations. For example, there was the top rail of the fence was broken. The sign area was falling over. There was debris in the right-of-way. The roof was in disrepair. There was a large amount of overgrowth in debris and equipment that weren't operable. There were basically, the right-of-way was being utilized. It had piles of dirt in the right-of-way. It had vehicles being parked in the right-of-way. And the pavers had been added in the right-of-way. And basically, this is the, again, the parcel that's being referenced. The violations that were cited were basically the minimum housing violation for the properties and structures in deteriorated condition disrepair, not free from nuisances to include overgrowth of vegetative matter, the chain-link fence that was missing with a broken top rail, damaged interior-aided buildings and accessory structures with a damaged roof, and inoperative machinery or equipment on the property to include the black utility trailer with an expired registration tag. Also, 154-231 for placing, installing pavers, fill, and assorted items in the right-of-way without having first obtained a right-of-way utilization permit. So those were the two items that were cited. So on August 27th, when we initially were going to have the hearing, the violations continued on that date, and I would like to submit them as composite Exhibit B. Any objection to Exhibit B? Exhibit B will be admitted into evidence. So the property did remain similar. There was still the pavers in the right-of-way. There was still piles of sand and debris, assorted, just tires and other miscellaneous items that were on the property. The chain-link fence around the gate was still broken. The chain-link fence in the front was still broken. And again, there was just different pieces of debris around the property and overgrowth. Again, more overgrowth, the roof and disrepair, and more debris in the right-of-way, the broken fence still. And the pavers were still present. The vehicles were not present on that day. So after the continuance, I visited the property again on October 13th, and I'd like to present those as Exhibit C, if I have no objection. Any objection to Exhibit C? Exhibit C will be admitted into evidence. So as they testified to, they have made significant progress since the initial violations. So there was a small amount of debris in the right-of-way. The top rail fence was still broken, and some of the screening on the fence was in a little bit of disrepair. However, the roof had been repaired. Much of the debris was gone. All the vehicles that were in the right-of-way have been removed. So the only issue for the right-of-way violation that's left is that the pavers are still present, and they haven't finished the right-of-way utilization permit to find out whether they can either keep them or remove them, as they said. So while there were still some minimum housing violations, they have done significant progress on this property and actually all of their properties. There's been a lot of progress. So, Magistrate, the county requests that you find the property in violation and issue in order to have the property brought into compliance for Code Sections 22-231 and 154-231. All right, Mr. Goldstein, this is your opportunity to cross-examine Officer Hughes. Sir, can you speak into the microphone, please? Thank you. Do you know what date the respondent began cleaning up the property? I do not. It appeared to be after, at least a significant amount, appeared to be after the August 27th visit. So as of today, have you been since October 13th? I have not. And as of October 13th, the only major violation that's out there at this point in time is the pavers? For major, yes. There are still a few minor minimum housing violations, but yes, the major violation is still that one. You testified earlier that there were inoperable vehicles. How do you know they were inoperable? The tags didn't have current. That was one trailer? I believe there were one or two. Do you know as of the 13th if there's a current tag on the trailer? I do not, and that's not considered part of my violation at this time since I wasn't able to verify whether it was or wasn't. But it was originally part of a violation? Originally, yes. How many inoperable vehicles were there? I'd have to go back to my notes. I'm sorry. I know I listed one. I mean, I'm not testifying right now that that's no longer a violation. So the violations, as we're for what we're here for today, are identified on an October 13th photo that you were out there, and there's a fence that appears, a fence top photo, page one, bottom right corner, that appears to be disconnected? So it's not in good repairing condition, yes, sir. Can you identify the violation in the photo above that with a green piece of equipment? I believe it's some overgrowth still and some tree debris, it looks like, and the top rail fence is broken also. Does the county have a position or a definition of what overgrowth is on active nurseries? This isn't a plan. This would be intended growth of vegetative matter. It looks like it's up over the top of the tire. That's what I'm asking. What's the violation? Because I see there's a piece of equipment on the top right picture, and there's a bunch of palm trees around it. I think it's mostly because of the broken rail with the fence. Okay. So the picture top right and bottom right are essentially the... Excuse me. Can you put the photos on the seal? Thank you. So the picture top right and... Yeah. So it's the fence, mostly. There's a close-up of the fence. Okay. There's some debris in the right-of-way and some overgrowth and some vegetative debris, and then you've got the screening that's in disrepair. Have you... Is there screening around the entire premises? Most of it. It wasn't around the entire premises, but most of it. Like, there was none right here. So... But for the greenery on top of the screen, the screen would be acceptable? It's basically falling down, and I believe there were holes in it. And the second page of the October 13th is all pavers. Yes. Which is the right-of-way violation that there is an... As we sit here, there's an active permit application. That was back from... It's been in a waiting plan status since December of 2024. Nothing has happened recently with it. To your knowledge, has it been denied? No. So it's still an active permit? I would not say it's an active permit. In fact, usually a permit after six months expires. If they haven't updated the system, that might be the only reason why it's saying awaiting applicant action. Other than page one and two of your October 13th visit, is there any other violation for this parcel? For that parcel, no, sir. It's basically a matter of repairing the fence, getting any of the debris in the... You know, that's in the front out and getting the right-of-way permit finished. In the fence top, is that the same fence or two different pieces? I believe that's the same. It was just a close-up. I don't have anything further. All right. Anything else from the county? No, basically just magistrate. We had agreed upon when we were discussing earlier that I have no problem with 90 days. I know there's not a whole lot left for the minimum housing on this particular parcel. It may take them some time, however, to get the right-of-way utilization permit for the pavers in the right-of-way to be completed. They have... They did do a meeting back in 2023 on this. So this shouldn't be anything of a surprise. This has been going on for a while. So basically, I would like to ask for the allowance of 90 days and to allow them to come into compliance. And if not, to assign a daily fine amount of $100 per day per violation. Thank you. Anything else from the county? No, sir. All right. Mr. Goldstein, this is your opportunity to present your case. The record. Edward Kennedy. What is your position with this property that we're talking about today? I believe the corporate name is... 4730 LLC. St. Pete LLC. What's your position with the company? President. What type of business operates at this location? A nursery. Tree and landscape. Do you sell trees to the public? I do. Do you install trees for the public? I do. Do you sell trees without installation to the public? Yes. Does the public come to your establishment to purchase trees? Yes. On August 27th, 2025, let me back up a minute. When did you purchase the property? 2023. Since the date that you purchased the property, has there been a paver? Has the front of the property been landscaped with pavers? Yes. At the time you purchased the property, were you aware that the pavers were in violation of any code? No. When did you become aware that the pavers were in violation of a code? About six months after purchasing the property when code violation came out. Have you applied? Were you instructed on what to do to keep the pavers in that location? Not exactly. We just applied for a right-of-way permit. When did you apply for the right-of-way permit? December 24th. Have you heard from the county regarding the right-of-way permit? No, sir. Since the date that you applied for? No. On August 27th, 2025, did you have any inoperable vehicles at your premises? Not that I know about. Did you have any vehicles that had an expired license tag? No, I believe that was a customer that left the dump trailer there that was expired. It wasn't even my dump trailer in the picture. Is the trailer still at the premises? No. How many vehicles do you utilize in your business? Six. Of those vehicles are some equipment, some trailers, or what does that consist of? Six trucks, three skid steers, a couple lifts. Did your property suffer any damages as a result of one or both of the hurricanes that came through in the end of 2024? Absolutely. The business was pretty much lost in one night. We lost almost all of our inventory, and like 70% of our vegetation was wrecked. Palm trees were thrown all over. How about the structure of the premises, the buildings? I lost one roof on the two-story barn. The back shed lost its roof, and then the soffits and fascia on the office. Do you utilize portable greenhouse? We used to. Portable storages for your plants that have screening or plastic tarping-type roofing? Well, I lost three of my greenhouses. Two of them was a double, 60 feet by 100. The one in the back, completely gone. And then the one behind the building was 30 feet by 100. Both. Both were wrecked. That's some of the metal that you can see that was on the back. We had to cut up with torches. In August, on August 27, 2025, were you made aware of code violation complaints regarding fencing, structure, plants, and debris? I found some of the packets actually came in the mail about a week later, and then there was a business card that was taped to one of the fences. After? After August. After getting that notification, did you make repairs to the premises? Yes. Did you clear out debris in the right-of-way? Yeah, literally, we closed the company down for a week, and I paid the guys after already losing the nursery, and then paid my employees to start trying to get this up to speed. But it was kind of tough when you lost your business, and then you're paying guys to work for a violation that... Did you remove the debris that was in the right-of-way? Absolutely. Did you repair the fence around the perimeter of the premises? I thought I did every one. I don't know where that location is it, but I fenced 40% of the linear footage around two acres. Did you repair any soffit, eaves, and roof structure to the buildings that are on the premises? Absolutely. Did you remove the, you called it, screening plastic cover over the houses? Yeah, we put up, took the screening, we had to cut the greenhouses up because they were shot. Were the greenhouses made of? Metal. It was twisted. And are you in the process of removing the metal, just getting it off the property to someone else? Yeah, most of the greenhouses are gone. A lot of the pieces of metal that they were speaking of were just new fence that I had to put in because the old fence went down when the trees fell on it. Have you replaced the screening around the fencing? Yes. And by screening? Well, I'm just trying to keep it private. That's the silk fabric on the pictures. As of now, are you aware of any sagging, drooping, or misplaced fabric around the fence? No. Prior to this, was there fabric, prior to August 27th, was there fabric around the fence? No. Is that something you recently added? We added that. And again, to your knowledge, there's no vehicles that are in disrepair or inoperable on the premises? No, there's not. Do you utilize the vehicles that you have in your work every day? Every day. Okay, me further on. Thank you. Any questions? I guess we can agree there were violations on the property. Were there violations on the property when you received the notice? Yes. And they were not in compliance as of the first notice that you got, which had a deadline of November 22nd of 2024? And that was right before the hurricane? That's right after. After the hurricane, there was probably a lot of violations. I lost my business. Because that came in September, right? That was in November of 2024. And then you were noticed again in April 25th of 2025. Right, but what I'm saying is the hurricane came in September. November comes after September. Yes. Prior to the hurricane, there was no violations. And let's see here. So you originally received the first violations in November 6th of 2024, which was after the hurricane. Is that right? That's what I'm saying, yeah. And they've just recently, most of the minimum housing violations have just recently come into compliance? Correct. Okay. So it did miss the deadline, and it's been almost just shy of a year from when the first notices went out? I agree with that. Okay. But I think what I'm trying to state is, due to the hurricane, I kind of lost 80% of my business. And we're worried about little things that were done when we're just trying to work to stay afloat right now. So I don't have any more questions for him. I will have a summary. I'd like it when we're all done. All right. Anything else from you, Mr. Goldstein, from a factual? No, Your Honor. All right. County may proceed with a summary, and then Mr. Goldstein will have an opportunity for a summary. So I appreciate the difficulty after the hurricane, and I have already testified that many of the minimum housing violations are very close to compliance. I appreciate the work, and that's also why when we were having our pre-meeting as far as agreed to the 90 days, and I'm still recommending that 90 days to allow them to finish. The paver violation actually was a violation that was open when the property was purchased. They were renoticed again about the paver violation, went through the early assistance meeting, and they did submit the right-of-way utilization permit application back in December of 2024. However, no documents were submitted, and so the reason it hasn't gone any further is because the process hasn't been completed. Again, I am going to ask the 90-day allowance to let them finish that process. Our goal is compliance, so I am going to request that it's been almost a year since these violations were sent to the owner. There had been a code case for the paver violation, 154-231, when the property was purchased. That code case had to be closed because of the name change, and as he testified, he was aware of the violation because he had the early assistance meeting and did put in the application for the right-of-way utilization permit. However, never followed through with anything. So I would like to ask that the property is in violation of 22-231 and 154-231 with the allowance of 90 days and, again, $100 per day per violation if not in compliance. Thank you. Mr. Goldstein. General, I would submit that the property, that the owner of the property has gone through a lot of expense to clean up what's been out there. Some violations were agreed to, some weren't, but irrespective, a lot, I think you can see from the pictures that everything has been done out there. I mean, at this point, we're hunting around the property looking for small things that are just, I don't think, are right to cite for. What we're really here, I think, about is the pavers. You heard testimony that he was unaware of the paver issue when he purchased the property, when he was made aware of it. Yes, he did go down and apply for a permit to keep them there and utilize the right-of-way for parking, as he's been doing. Then again, the hurricanes came, and I don't know where he's at with the process of that permit being approved or disapproved, but we have reached an agreement to allow, hopefully allow 90 days to follow up with that process, either get it going again or remove it, at which point in time, within that 90 days, the pavers are going to be removed if they're not approved. I think that's really what the violation is, if any, on this property here, but I would ask that there be that 90 days given to figure out what's going on with the pavers and not hold them in violation until that's resolved. Okay, thank you. I'm going to find that there is a violation of Code Section 22-231. That is a lengthy violation list, and of the list, I am finding that all were present, with the exception of the inoperative machinery and equipment throughout the property, to include but not limited to black utility trailer with an expired registration tag, VCT329, expiration 0124, front-end bucket loader, S250, turbo bobcat, green boom lift, and other assorted items throughout the property and on the right-of-way. I'm going to find that the evidence does not support that as a basis for violation of 22-231. For the violation, I find I'm going to order the property to be brought into compliance within 90 days. When is 90 days? Sunday, January 18, 2026. January 18, 2026, at 5 p.m. Failure to do so will assess a fine in the amount of $100 per day. I'm going to find that there is a violation of Code Section 154-231. I'm going to order that the property be brought into compliance within 90 days. Failure to do so will result in the imposition of a fine of $100 per day. 90 days is January 18, 2020. I understand that a different county department than we are may be responsible for the delay that is going on, and if we approach January 18, 2026, Mr. Goldstein, I would recommend that you contact Officer Hughes and see if you can agree to an extension. If you can't reach an agreement on an extension, you can request an extension and come back before a magistrate on that. And I will assess the costs that were previously put on the record of $462.25. Carolyn, do you want time off for preparing an order? No, we don't have a printer today, so we're just going to mail them out. So we can proceed. Thank you. All right. All right, we will proceed with item number three, which is case number CCM-25-0063. Officer Hughes and Mr. Kennedy, I would remind you that you're still under oath. I just indicated that we're going to proceed to item number three, case number CCM-25-0063, and that Officer Hughes and Mr. Kennedy are both still under oath. You may proceed. Thank you. Okay, so the property where the alleged violation exists is 4740 County Road 16, number 4, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33709, located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner, 4730 St. Pete LLC, is represented by Mr. Goldstein today. The violation has been in occurrence since on or before June 27th of 2025, and I would like to enter into evidence the Notice of Hearing and Composite Exhibit A into evidence. Any objection to Exhibit A? Exhibit A will be admitted into evidence. Okay, so basically this property is two parcels. Actually, let me find that. Sorry. Let me just start with. So, this was the main parcel we were talking about the first time. This is basically the parcel here in this corner is basically two parcels. So, this property, it did have some overgrowth. It did have a trailer with a flat tire parked in the front. It did have some debris around the fence area. The awning was in disrepair. The fence was in disrepair. And this is just another picture of the awning. And the fence didn't have a, or excuse me, the sign just had this frame. There was a lot of the potted plants that had debris or were just, you know, were just plastic containers that were laying around. The soffit was missing. There was some overgrowth and debris on the side. So, Magistrate, the property was re-inspected on August 27th, and the violations continued. Photos were taken on that date, and I would like to submit them as composite Exhibit B. Any objection to Exhibit B? Maybe, Your Honor. The photos that you just had up here, what case was that for? This is for... It's not in my packet. 63. The ones that you just had here with the tire? Yeah. Wait, the tire? You had referenced a trailer with a tire. Yeah, the flat tire. I don't have that. Do you have 63? You've got composite B, not composite A. No, Your Honor. Oh, that's okay. It said B will be admitted into evidence. Okay. Could I see it, please? Yes, sir. I'm so sorry. So, again, I went back out on August 27th, because the hearing had been scheduled previously and got continued to today's date. The fence was still in disrepair. The awning still hadn't been repaired. There was still some trash and debris on the property, and the soffit still wasn't repaired. And, again, there was just more items being stored, some overgrowth, and more potted plants that were discarded. So, because it was continued, I went back to the property on October 13th and would like to submit composite Exhibit C. Any objection to Exhibit C? No, Your Honor. So, again, as I had testified previously, they have done a lot of work on all their parcels, this one included. The fence was no longer in disrepair. There were no vehicles present that had expired tags or flat tires or went inoperable. Honestly, just about the only thing that was left to be completed, they had had a face sign placed on their sign. The only thing really left was the awning that was still in disrepair, and that was pretty much it. So, Magistrate, the county is, again, asking just to stay consistent, the allowance of 90 days to comply and to be found in violation of 22-231, and if not in compliance, to have a $100 fine amount assigned for Code Section 22-231. Any cross-examination, Mr. Goldstein? Yes. So, I'm showing you, and I'd like to focus attention on bottom right photo or top right photo of the awning. Is this the awning in question you're talking about that has a destroyed panel on the top? Yes. Now, we're on the left side here of your photos on Exhibit C. The panel has been removed. Would you agree or disagree? I would agree it's still not in repair. Are you aware of any requirement that a panel be installed on there? I would say that that is not in good repairing condition because it has holes to the exterior, and an awning, I believe, would be to cover the frame. So, what you're talking about is the center panel on the top has been removed, and my question is, is that a hole or is that just a panel that has been removed? And if so, are you aware of a requirement that that structure have a panel on the top of it? So, I'm not aware that that structure would require to be there in the first place. However, if it's there, it should be in good repairing condition, and that would include having the covering over the entire structure. Do you know what that structure is for? It's an awning. I don't know what it's for. Okay. You had mentioned earlier vehicles in disrepair again, I believe. Is there anything other than photos on the right side of a trailer with a flat tire? Is there any other vehicle that you're referring to? No. There have been many vehicles that have come and gone on this property, but this one just had the flat tire. It's no longer there, so it would no longer be an issue, just like with the other ones. So, no longer there. It's no longer a violation. So, you don't know one way or the other whether that vehicle is there for one day with a flat tire and it's utilized in the business operations? No, sir, I don't. All I know is it was there and it had the flat tire. Was it making it inoperable? But, again, I've already complied to the fact, or, excuse me, stated that it is no longer a violation. Nothing further, Honor? Anything further from the county? No, again, really, you know, I understand that they have done a lot of work. The main thing that I'd just like to reiterate is that they were sent the notice of violation for this property on June 27th of 2025 with a deadline date of July 28th, 2025. It was not in compliance by that deadline date. I have not received any communication from this property owner or his attorney until the continuance was requested. I would have been more than happy to work with them prior to this. So, it not only didn't, wasn't in compliance on the deadline of the notice of violation, it wasn't in compliance on August 27th when it was, you know, before the original hearing and it was continued. So, it was in violation, did not come into compliance prior to the deadline. And they definitely have done a lot of work. I have no doubt that they will continue and it should be in compliance within 90 days. But it was in violation and I would like to find that it was in violation. Assigned 90 days to come into compliance and if not $100 per day for violation. All right, Mr. Goldstein, do you have any testimony to offer? I'd call Mr. Kennedy again. What's the first date that you learned of code violations on the property other than what we talked about in the last case, the paver issue? When I received the packet in the mail to my house. Packet? Manila envelopes. Do you recall the date? No, I don't know. Did the packet inform you of a hearing? Yes. Was that the hearing that you came to my office about? Yes. So you have no prior notice of any code violation before that date? Besides the right-of-way that I applied for the paver. Did you have a trailer in the right-of-way with a flat tire on it? That is not my trailer, but it is a friend that parked it there for the evening. You can see it's not my business as stated on. And the trailer's gone now? The trailer's gone. Do you do landscaping and irrigation? Yes. Is that, what am I looking at on exhibit? One-inch PVC pipe. A. Top left. Is that merchandise that you use in furtherance of your business? Daily. As a result, storms of last year. Let me back up. Do you recognize this cover that I'm pointing to, top right picture? Yeah, that's the entrance to the office. Is that entrance used for anything else? We hang orchids and other plants for filtered light. Did that get damaged as a result of the storm? Yes. I've always had a small opening in the middle, which helps light going into the office. What is, let me back up. What is exhibit C representing now in relation to the overhang or cover going into your office? We took off the busted panel on the side. And what is the purpose of taking the panel off? To let more light in the office, but there was always an opening in the middle. So there was always an opening in the middle as if you're walking under it and you look up, it's open to the sky. Correct. Is it open to the sky now? Yes. The damage panel has been removed? Correct. Do you still hang plants in there? Yes. When you received first, your testimony is the first time you received notice of these violations is when you got the package in the mail. Correct. And did you move upon receiving the violations to repair the issues in those violations? Absolutely. So the trailer is now gone? Yep. Do you still utilize PVC in your business? Yes. Do you have a new sign that you put up? Yes. The yard has been cleaned up? Yep. You removed the panels on the overhang? Yes. Replaced the soffit and fascia? You replaced the soffit and fascia? Threw all this out, the vegetation? And the pots? Yep. Where they are. Any cross-examination? I would just like to clarify for the owner's benefit, is the address and property appraiser not correct? So the mailing address is the 4730 County Road 16 for all but one of your parcels, even though we sent them to vote. Yeah, but all this is forwarded to my home address now. Okay. The only reason why I was asking is you said you didn't get notices, but we've been sending notices to those addresses. When it came to my house, I received them, so it probably went back to the mail and then back to the forwarding address, which we could lose a week easy. So I just want to make sure we have the right address on record. I guess the only, as again, I've testified multiple times of how much work you've done, absolutely. They requested a continuance to get more time to complete the work. They were in violation at the time. They missed the deadline. I would still say that the only item left, really, is the awning. So whether they're working toward compliance on the awning, it was in violation, missed the deadline. And again, I am asking for 90 days to bring everything into compliance. It's very close. The inoperable vehicle is gone. And all the items that either were in the right-of-way that had tags that were expired or had flat tires, they're all in compliance now. I don't want to say any differently. So, again, it's mostly finding that the awning just needs to complete the, to be finished for the repair. Everything else has been brought into compliance. However, it did miss the deadlines. That's all I have. Now, if I plan on keeping a panel off of that to allow some light in the office, is that still going to be in non-compliance? Because it's actually not attached to the structure. It's more of a gazebo. An awning would have to be attached to the building. This would be just more of a freestanding. That's essentially what I'm getting at is I don't know that there's a requirement to have a panel on it. It serves its purpose, which is for hanging plants and to let light in. The panel on an awning that's not, not even utilized as an awning, but it's utilized as a hanging plant structure. I'm not so sure that's even a violation. I'd argue that it's not a violation. When it was in dish repair, yes. If there's a panel that's broken off, flapping in the wind, like the first picture, but it was, it was removed in an alpha squared up panel with a sunroof. All right, I'm going to make a finding of fact that there was a violation of Code Section 22-231. I'm going to find that the property is currently in compliance, and I'll make no further order concerning this, including will not assess costs. Will not? Will not. Okay. Okay, I believe we're up to item number four, which is case number CCM-25-00064. I would remind Officer Hughes and Mr. Kennedy, you're still under oath. County may proceed. Okay. All right. So just, so we've finished the main parcel. We did one of the two parcels that are on this property, so this is the second parcel for that one. Okay, so the property where the alleged violation exists is 4740, County Road 16, number two, St. Petersburg, Florida 33709, located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner, 4730, St. Pete LLC, is represented by Mr. Goldstein. The violation has been an occurrence since on or before June 27th of 2025, and I would like to enter the Notice of Hearing and Composite Exhibit A into evidence. Any objection to Exhibit A? Exhibit A will be admitted into evidence. Okay. So basically, this is on the back side of the property. They had awnings with basically just the screening material that had been over it was falling apart and in bad condition. They had some items that were basically just on the ground, some overgrowth. And this picture is a little bit hard to see, but they had a lot of the potted plants that were in the back as well that were discarded after the hurricane, just like a bunch of the other ones. So on August 27th, 2025, I re-inspected the property due to the fact that the hearing was scheduled prior to this and was continued to today's date. Voters were taken on that date, and I would like to submit them as composite Exhibit B. Any objection to Exhibit B? Exhibit B will be admitted into evidence. So again, there was still just some of the material that's hanging off the frame. There was some overgrowth. There was still some items that were lying on the ground, some of the plants in the back, and some overgrowth on the side. And the property was re-inspected on 10-13-2025. Photos were taken on that date, and I would like to submit them as composite Exhibit C. Any objection to Exhibit C? Exhibit C will be admitted into evidence. Okay. So again, as I've previously testified, most of it has been cleaned up. The only thing really left has been just a little bit of the tattered tarp on the side. Otherwise, I would say that they've brought that into compliance, and I'd actually, again, it's just that little minor bit of a tarp. Otherwise, the potted plants and everything else has basically been cleaned up and has been complied. So, Magistrate, the county requests that you find that the property was in violation of 22-231. Again, the only thing that I would request that they finish is some of the tattered tarp that's still hanging off the structure be removed to allow 90 days to come into compliance, and $100 a day, if not. Any cross-examination, Mr. Goldstein? Just so we're clear, the violation is the alleged existing tarp that's still there, not the fact that the structure is there. No, sir. It's just the tattered tarp. That's it. That's all that I'm asking for to be removed. I have no cross. Anything else from the county before Mr. Goldstein presents his case? No, sir. Mr. Goldstein, it's your opportunity to present your case. Again, Mr. Kennedy, when did you receive notice of violation? The same as all of them came in the mail, but right when I retained you. And as soon as you received violation, you proceeded with the cleaning up of this property or this parcel? Absolutely. As we sit here today, is there still a tarp left on the back corner there? Not now. Nothing is there except for the awning to hang plants and the table, which was made. And you utilize that for plant storage? Yes, sir. Anything further? Any cross-examination? No, sir. Again, as I've testified that the potted plants that were debris that were there have been remediated. The other debris that was there has been remediated. I'm just asking that the last little bit of the tattered tarp be removed. I'm working on getting you a picture right now, actually. It's gone. You're going to be able to get me that picture while we're here today? Yeah, they're literally on Treasure Island doing a landscape. I asked them to take lunch. Okay. Which I can text it to you if that's done today. Because basically what I'm looking at is on October 13th, it's there. Today's October 20th, and you say that sometime in that week it's been removed. And if you can get me a photograph, it would make life easier on me. So we will adjourn this one and go on to item number five. Item number five is case number CCM-25-0065. Officer Hughes and Mr. Kennedy, you're still under oath. Counsel, when he comes back, will you tell him he's still under oath? Yes, I've got you. Okay. Okay, so this next property that we're discussing is basically the one next door. So we've done the main nursery, the two parcels where the offices are located, and now we're at the adjacent property right here. Okay, so the property where the alleged violation exists is 48th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. PID number 063116700201003202, located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner 4730 St. Pete LLC is represented by Mr. Goldstein today. The violations have been in occurrence since on or before, June 23rd of 2025, and I would like to enter the notice of hearing and composite Exhibit A into evidence. Any objection to Exhibit A? Exhibit A will be admitted into evidence. Okay. So basically, it's a lot of the same thing. There was some overgrowth. There were some pilings left in the right-of-way, potted plants. One of the awning structures is in disrepair, and it's parts of metal. That was part of the metal. I believe he said he's still in the process of getting scrapped. The, again, there was, you know, some debris, some overgrowth, and the screening that he had around the fence had fallen down and was in disrepair. So, Magistrate, the property was re-inspected on August 27th, again, in preparation for the hearing. It was continued to be in violation. Photos were taken on that date, and I would like to submit them as composite Exhibit B. Any objection to Exhibit B? Exhibit B will be admitted into evidence. So they still had pilings in the right-of-way. There was still some overgrowth, some still potted plants that had been, you know, discarded. The screening on the fence was still in disrepair. Again, debris, some of the pieces of metal and scrap from one of the awnings that had fallen down. They had the metal? So to prepare for today's hearings, I went to the property again on October 13th, of 2025. Photos were taken on that date, and I would like to enter them as composite Exhibit C. Any objection to Exhibit C? Exhibit C will be admitted into evidence. Okay, so a lot of work had been done on this property, just like the others. The only thing really left is there was still some overgrowth along the fence, a little bit along the fence, along 48th Avenue as well. They do have screening now, and there was still a little bit of, through the fence is kind of hard to see, but some of the metal pieces that are laying on the ground. And again, just a little bit of debris along the fence line, some overgrowth here, the metal scrap debris, and they pretty much have redone all the screening along the fence on 48th Avenue. So, magistrate, the county requests that you find that the property was in violation of 22-231, and to allow 90 days to bring the property back into compliance. Again, it's just basically some of the scrap metal, some of the overgrowth, and some of the debris along the fence, like I said, to allow 90 days to come into compliance. Otherwise, a request to find of $100 per day. Any cross-examination? Is there a specific violation for the storing of the scrap metal on the property, that the respondent is not permitted to store scrap metal on the property? So, anything that's supposed to be for outdoor storage should be, well, so, to me, that's an awning, in fact, let me grab the picture, that's basically in disrepair, and it's just pieces of metal on the ground. So, yeah, things are supposed to be stored where they're either, not just as pieces of metal that are basically on the ground. So, this long structure here is basically falling apart, and that's what the metal pieces are that are on the ground, so I would consider that basically metal debris that's just laying there. Nothing further, Your Honor. All right. Anything else from the county before Mr. Goldstein presents his case? No, sir. All right. Mr. Goldstein, this is your opportunity to present your case. Notice of violation on this property. When did you receive the notice of violation for this property? The same with the packet. It came with all the rest to my home. And did you move to correct the notice, the violations in that notice when you received it? Absolutely. Attention has been brought to this half-silver, half-open structure. You recognize that structure? Yes. Has it been taken down? So, this structure she's referring to is a structure that was the last one with the canvas. I believe that it's this part of the property is what she's referring to now. I think I got the structures moved because there's actually no fence line on this piece because this piece is connected to this home. But that structure is the one that I'm getting you the picture for the canvas from the previous violation. I thought that was that one right here. That's the one closest to the building. Well, then that's still up. There's no scrap metal there at all. So, what are these? I'm sorry. I'm not supposed to ask questions. Oh. I'm sorry. Okay. Let me make it easier. So, does this photo identify structures that have a metal cage with, at one point in time, a tarp or a screen or something over them? We have one, two, three, four. Correct. And the previous case, we saw this or a combination of these two that's still up. Is this the one that's been taken down? Yes. And when you took it down, do you still have the metal on your property? Very little. Did the metal have value? Yes. Are you disposing of the metal? Yes. Are you getting compensated for the value of the metal? I'm actually just giving it to a scrap guy as he comes and can fill his trailer. When you took it down, did you store it on the property? Yes. Is it stored in a manner that is... Accessible for him to come pick up? I wasn't going to ask that, but is it stored in a manner where it's located near gates, it's visible from the road, and the person is able to come in and get it out of there? Yes. Is it cut up into pieces? Yes. Does this photo represent the screening that you've put up around all the fencing? Yes. And the fencing has been repaired? Yes. It's been alleged that you have debris in the yard. Is this photo representative of the area that you received a photo where there was debris in the yard? Yes. Is the debris now cleaned up? Absolutely. Can you show this photo in these pictures? Top right? That's what it looked like. Yeah. You can see the little bit of the house, greenhouse behind it. So the land has been cleared up and the debris is moved? Yes. Or cleared out? Yeah, that's the back. That was representative of the screening that's been put up all around the fencing. So similar to the screening in the violation photo? Yes. The point of these pieces of metal that you're seeing is what you tie your trees to so they don't fall in the wind. Those are... So is that the purpose of the pilings or landscaping logs that are on the property as well? That's to stop the neighbors from parking on my property. But do you have pilings? When I describe a piling, I'm talking about these. Do you have those upright that lean trees against? Yeah, absolutely. So as we sit here today, have the violations that you were noticed at some point after August 27th been remedied or cleaned up? Absolutely. And are you aware of any other further violations regarding this case? No, sir. And this parcel? Anything further? Any cross-examination? No, actually, just to clarify, my goal is not... My goal is compliance and we're getting really close. These aren't even there anymore, so that's not even an issue. The only that are even left is there's one buried in this corner over here with a little bit of debris that's along this fence line. When I go back out to do the re-inspection, this looked like scrap material, but if you can show me that it's from the awning, I would be more than happy to see that it's not for that purpose. There's a little bit of overgrowth along the fence, so again, I absolutely agree. We've come a long way. It was in violation. We're very close to compliance. I don't think it's 100% there yet, and if I am wrong that this is not the scrap metal, that would not... Again, my goal is compliance. I'm very happy with how far we've gone. It did appear to be metal that was discarded. If I'm wrong, I will absolutely not worry about that one. Just a little bit amount of the debris that's left in the right-of-way and a little overgrowth, the vast majority of it, again, I testify absolutely, a large amount has been done. The only reason we're honestly here to a large extent is I was never contacted to try to... Prior to being here, we're here because I received no contact. Anything further, Mr. Goldstein? This is moved. No, Your Honor. Okay, I'm going to find that there is a violation of Code Section 22-231, order that the property be brought into compliance within 90 days. 90 days is when? Sunday, January 18, 2026. January 18, 2026, by 5 p.m., failing to do so, we'll assess a fining amount of $100. Also assess the court costs the amount of $441.85. We will proceed to item number 6, which is case number CCM-25-00068. I will remind Officer Hughes and Mr. Kennedy that you're still under oath. County may proceed. Thank you, sir. Okay, so this is going to be the last one, and it's this little triangular-shaped property in the back. That's the last part of the nursery properties. So the property where the alleged violation exists is for 48th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33709, parcel number 063116700201003204, located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner, 4730 St. Pete, LLC, is represented by Mr. Goldstein. The violation has been in occurrence since our honor before June 27th of 2025, and I would like to enter the notice of hearing and composite Exhibit A into evidence. Any exhibit to Exhibit A? Any objection to Exhibit A? No, Your Honor. Exhibit A will be admitted into evidence. Okay, so here you can see that there's a large amount of debris, some overgrowth. The screening on the fence is in disrepair, and the awning for that back nursery area had fallen down. Again, it's just closer up of the awning that's on the ground, overgrowth, debris, just basically some screening. They had the potted plants and more debris on the property. So, Magistrate, the property was reinspected on August 27th of 2025, and the violations continued. Photos were taken on that date in preparation of the original hearing date, and I would like to submit them as composite Exhibit B. Any objection to Exhibit B? Exhibit B will be admitted into evidence. Okay, so the debris was still present. The screening was still in disrepair. There was still overgrowth present, and again, the screening and disrepair. There was a large amount of debris still on the property. It did look like they were starting to clean it up at that time, but there was still overgrowth, the screening and disrepair in debris, including the awning. And so, Magistrate, in preparation for today's hearing, I visited the property on October 13th. Photos were taken on that date, and I would like to submit that as composite Exhibit C. Any objection to Exhibit C? Exhibit C will be admitted into evidence. So, again, as I've testified, they are continuing to work on the property. They have screened some portions of it with new screening, as he had a picture, and I'm sorry. Pardon? So, I will testify that some of the screening is new. Some of it is instilled in disrepair. There's still some debris. However, as I've testified, it is much improved. I don't believe I have that picture, but I will testify that there's a large section that has brand-new screening on it. But there is still some debris that they need to finish, which he's already discussed, and some of the tarp is still in disrepair as of the date I went out on October 13th. So, Magistrate, the county is asking for the allowance of 90 days to comply and have found in violation a sign daily fine amount of $100 per day. All right. Any cross-examination? I'll double check. I don't have it, but as I've said, I will absolutely testify a large amount of the screen has been redone that's along 48th Avenue. So, I'm just trying to understand the violation. The violation is the violation, the medal that we discussed in the last case, and the screen. This is as of the 13th. Yes. So, this screening that was still in disrepair. There you go. There it is. Okay. So, this photo here is representative of the same area? No. There's this area, as I believe, if I remember correctly, as you can kind of see it right here, is down by the gate at the end. This portion here has been redone. And then there's, this is where that ends, and then that's where the debris is, is inside. Yeah. I think that's the only area that still had the screening that was in disrepair. And you still had some, like, you know, you've got the potted plants. You've got the awning that's still scrap on the ground. And that's the scrap metal that we just discussed. Which you said is going to be removed. Yes, but I'll ask the same questions before. Are you aware that the owner of the property is not permitted to store the removed awning on the property? It's a commercial property. He can't remove the awning that's in disrepair? I'm not saying he can't remove it, but what I'm saying is it's been removed and it's on the ground. Is that what this is a photo of? It collapsed, and that appears to be still more material from the awning is what I'm saying, which would be, to me, debris. Do you know that if this was placed in that area or if it was stationed in that area and collapsed as it sits? I have no idea. Okay. So then I'll ask, if it was removed and placed in this area, is it not permitted to be there? No, that would be debris. Okay, but as far as the fencing goes, this photo is representative of, these are all the same fences that I'm looking at? So where this long fence line goes, this has all been redone. It's out toward the, by the gate up here is where this was still in disrepair, in this portion here, as of October 13th. Okay, so if this was the position that that's in now, would you agree that that's been remedied? I don't believe this area has been. I know this area has. The area that I believe is still in disrepair is up here, and again, I'm asking for the allowance of 90 days, which is more than enough times, I would believe, for me to verify compliance. I don't have anything further. Anything further from the county? No, sir. Anything further? Mr. Goldstein? Call Mr. Kennedy. When did you receive this notice of this violation on this piece of property? In the packet with all of them. And when you received the notice, you began, how long until you began cleaning up the violations? Immediately. Is this metal here, where did the metal on the ground in this pile right here come from? That was the awning, the greenhouse that collapsed. Is that where it collapsed, or is that where you... No, that's where we moved it. It collapsed further into the property. So you, is that in pieces, or is that... That's cut up in pieces, yes. And you're currently scrapping the metal out. Correct. Are all four of these pictures on one fence line? Yes. Is this representative of the fence line? That is the fence line. And when was this picture taken? Yes. What's the... Friday. This past Friday? Yes, sir. So that's currently the condition of the property? Yes, sir. This is the end of the property, is the pine tree. Is that on... Is the pine tree on your property? The pine tree is just on my property, and then there's a 15-foot gate where it opens to right after that. And that gate opens to your property? Yes, sir. Is this still the current condition of the fencing? No. Is that the current condition of the screen? There's all new screen. So the vines are gone, and the screen is... Yes, sir. ...all the way to the gate? Yep. Anything further? Anything further from the county? No, sir. Only to say that I... It was in violation when I was there on October 13th. A large amount, again, I want to be nothing but forthright, a large amount of the screening had been replaced. It was just that area around the gate, and I would be more than happy to... Or I'm asking 90 days, which I believe is plenty of time for them to finish compliance. Anything further, Mr. Goldstein? Other than after receipt of notice, the client began remedying the situations in the notice. The metal is from greenhouses that were operational erected on the property that were destroyed. They've been taken down. I don't know that there's a requirement that they be immediately removed from the property. I believe that he's permitted on this property to store the metal, even if he wanted to utilize it again to rebuild it or whatnot. But it's down. It's not an eyesore sitting there. It's enclosed in the fence that has been re-screened all the way up and down the fence. And I don't believe that the property is non-compliant at this point in time. I would ask that this violation be dismissed. All right. I'm going to find that there is a violation to Code Section 22-231, order that the property be brought into compliance within 90 days. When is 90 days? Sunday, January 18, 2026. January 18, 2026 at 5 p.m. Failing to do so, we'll assess a fine in the amount of $100 per day. We'll assess costs in the amount of $439.30. Let's go back and review exhibit number four. Have you been successful in getting a copy? They were leaving Sunset Beach, heading to the nursery. Magistrate, I would be more than happy with the progress that he's been making to stipulate a finding of fact. I have no doubt that he'll finish it. As I've said, they've testified multiple times. We've seen a great amount of improvement. I would be more than happy to just stipulate a finding of fact. All right. As to item number four, which is case number CCM-25-00064, I'm going to make a finding of fact that there was a violation of Code Section 22-231. I'm going to find the property is in compliance as of the hearing today, and I will make no further order on that, including I will not assess the fines for the court costs. You would read item number seven, please. Item number seven, rescheduled from September 8th, 2025. Department code enforcement, matter, inoperable vehicle code violation, prohibited vehicle code violation, case number CCM-25-00061, Officer D. Duvall, owner, Haas Clinton Estate. Notice address, Haas Clinton Estate, 2991 Meadowlake Avenue, Largo, Florida 33771, and Scott D. Hayes, Ayer, 980 East, 130th Drive, Thornton, Colorado 80241, and Scott D. Haas, Ayer, 3243-56th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714. Violation address, 3243-56th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714. And who is here for that case? Officer Duvall, representing Pinellas County Code Enforcement. Please go, yeah, you're up. Would you please state your name for the record? Ayer, Scott Haas. Right, I recall in this case there was some question. Have you been appointed personal representative yet? I still have not been appointed personal representative yet. And there is an attorney that filed an amended petition for administration. Is that attorney still involved? Yep, still. Kelly Forrest is still actively the attorney on the case. Have you talked to her about this case? Yes. She, we had a meeting after this case. It took about a month. It was on October 7th. We got the next level of the documentation. I think another amendment to the document and the bond application. I forgot my photo over there. It doesn't matter. There were three documents that had to get amended because there was an address issue. We got those three documents completed and I submitted them to her the following week. That was, October 7th was a Thursday. I got the documents notarized and back to her the following week and now here we are that Monday. Now it's my understanding that the attorney was put on notice of this hearing. Is that correct, Carolyn? Yes, she was. Did you read item 7? Mm-hmm. Oh, okay. I had to read all those other ones kind of at one time. I don't know. I'm going out of order. All right, the county may proceed. Okay, thank you, magistrate. All right, the violations at this property have been in occurrence since Honor before August 13th of 2024. The property was re-inspected for the original hearing date for September 8th. Give us a second. I don't remember you being sworn in. Were you sworn in? For two, you please raise your right hand. Do you sort of tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Sorry. Okay, again, so violations have been in occurrence at this property since Honor before August 13th of 2024. The property was originally going to go before the special magistrate at the hearing scheduled for September 8th. There was an inspection done on August 28th to prepare for that hearing. I'd like to enter into evidence the notice of hearing and composite Exhibit A, which was going to be for the original hearing back on the 8th. Any objection to Exhibit A? I'm not allowed to really speak on this. I'm not the property owner. Exhibit A will be admitted into evidence. Okay. Just quickly to review and show some photos for, we have two violations of the property. First violation is for inoperable vehicles, Code Section 58270. The time of inspection for Exhibit A photos were taken back in July. We had two vehicles that we had expired tag on this little black Fiat, and then we have an expired tag on this little red vehicle that was with a Colorado tag. The prohibited vehicle violation, we have what we are classifying as a bus that's parked on the property. It's parked right directly in front of the main structure, the main dwelling. So we have just up here a picture from the street and then a little more of a close-up of the bus. We have a very large trailer parked on the side of the house. I do have an aerial shot to show measurement that this enclosed trailer is exceeding of the allowable height and length for trailers that are allowed on the property. It exceeds the allowed 12 feet and it exceeds the allowed 21 feet. This is just the aerial shot measuring the length of the trailer that shows as 32 feet 7 inches from the front of the trailer to the back. It's considered a prohibited vehicle. So, Magistrate, I did visit the property on August 28th in preparation. I've got Exhibit B photos. This was an August 28th visit. Exhibit B's to show the condition of the property. These were given to Dr. Haas at the time when he did show up for the hearing last time he was here. We just didn't review them, but he does have them. All right. Any objection to Exhibit B? Not the homeowner. Can't really speak on any of this yet. Exhibit B will be admitted into evidence. So, again, just reviewing. We still had some inoperable vehicles or IVs on the property showing this black Fiat. Still on the property, just still with a expired tag. The red vehicle here is still showing the expired tag from Colorado. And then there was another Toyota Sequoia that also displayed a expired tag. And the two prohibited vehicles were still parked on the property exactly in the same location. The bus on the front of the property and the very large enclosed hauling trailer on the side of the property. I did a re-inspection on the property in preparation for today's hearing on the 15th of October. To show the violations do continue, I'd like to enter into evidence composite Exhibit C. I have given a copy of this to Mr. Haas already. Any objection to Exhibit C? Same as all the other objections. I'm not really allowed to speak on any of this until probate's done. All right, Exhibit C will be admitted into evidence. We do hear, again, a shot from the front of the property. We saw the red vehicle parked on the property. There is no tag. The tag has been removed, but it would require a current tag to be parked on the property. The black Fiat was parked, was backed in, and not walking up onto the property. I was unable to observe if the tag was current or not, but I do have a feeling it probably is. So at least that had been brought into compliance. The Toyota that was displayed in Exhibit B photo, that gray sequoia has been removed. At least it was not visible from the front of the property. And we still have the prohibited vehicle parked on the property. We still have the bus, and we still have the enclosed hauling trailer. Magistrate the counter request to find the property in violations of Code Section 58-270 for inoperable vehicles and Code Section 122-37 for prohibited vehicles. And issue an order to have the property brought into compliance within 30 days or sign a fine of $100 per day per violation. Cross-examination of Officer DeVall. This hearing was continued because probate hadn't been completed yet. Was there any attempt to determine if probate had been completed, or did you just come to the property to take photos of the existing violations that were deemed? I did check public records and didn't see that anything had changed regarding the homestead status. Do we have that submitted as evidence? What's that? The fact that there were no changes? No. Okay. I don't have anything else to say. All right. Any further from the county? No, Magistrate. Mr. Haas, this is your opportunity, as you're the only one here, to present any case that you have concerning the property. I guess continuance until probate's completed. So I can bring the property into compliance as, like, the owner of the property. I can't really sign anything or do anything. The whole family, like, died, right? So, like, my dad's gone. My uncle's gone. My grandfather's gone. Grandma's gone. It just takes a while to get all the paperwork done dealing with probate. So I'm doing my due diligence. I feel like I can only go as fast as my lawyer lets me, you know, or the system surrounding within that we operate. This is concerning property at 3243 56th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33714. This is an in-rim proceeding, meaning we are going just against the property, and so there's no personal liability to Mr. Haas or anyone else. But I am going to find that there is a violation of Code Section 58-270, order that the property be brought into compliance within 30 days. Failing to do so will assess a fine in the amount of $100 per day. I'm going to find that there was a violation of Code Section 122-37, order that the property be brought into compliance within 30 days. Failing to do so will result in a fine of $100 per day. When is 30 days? Wednesday, November 19, 2025. November 19, 2025. A written order will be sent, and I want the attorney included in the written order. Yes. Carolyn. Thank you. Thank you. Am I going to be able to sign anything when we come in on November 19? Like, even if it's all, like what happened, like I'll bring everything into compliance? Like what? On the 19th, I'll do, or any time after the 19th, I will do a re-inspection of the property. Sure. And if it's complied, then things will go away. We just have the court cost that is due, and that's it. And then, but if there's still issues, then I will file an act of non-compliance. Okay. Because I can't, like, these things aren't mine, right? So, like, I get tied where, like, I'm just going to incur fines until probate's completed at $100 a day. The property incurs the fines, you don't. Yeah, but, like, I, whatever, it is what it is. Just do it. Thank you. You've got my contact information, right? So just let me know in that case. Sure. I'll come on and take a look. Sure. All right? Like, and as we, like, like, the trailers, as we kind of talked about last time, like, classified as properly allowed to be stored there because of their classifications as an RV and a tulling truck. Magistrate. Like, I can't make that classification without the paperwork being completed. So, like, I, we're going to get caught here every time where, like, I can't proceed with the paperwork to prove to you that everything's in compliance until probate's completed. Magistrate. Is this part of the hearing? Yes. Okay, so if they're talking, they need to. Oh, make sense for them, I'll call you. They need to be with the. Okay. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Um, we're going to go through the, uh, cases that, that aren't being heard that are on the agenda. So would you read item number one? I think I heard you say you don't have a printer today. No, no, we don't. So what just happened comes in the mail? Yes, it will. Thank you. Okay, you're welcome. Item number one, continued from September 8th, 2025. Department code enforcement matters zoning code violation. Case number, CCM-25-00060. Officer, D. Duvall. Owner, Burt James T. Burt Blair A. Notice address, Burt James T. Burt Blair A. 1545 Oak Lane. Clearwater, Florida. 33764-2505. Violation address, 1545 Oak Lane, Clearwater, Florida, 33764-2505. I've been informed that the property has been brought into compliance and the case was dismissed. That is correct. You read, uh, item number eight. Item number eight, joint petition granted for extension of time. Department code enforcement matter. Our first extension of time, case number, CCM-25-00037. Officer, B. Hughes. Owner, 275-HYW Holdings, LLC. Notice address, 275-HYW Holdings, LLC. 6036 45th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33709-5107. And 275-HYW Holdings, LLC. 2500 55th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33714. And Pagan Guzman, Jose E., Registered Agent for 275-HYW Holdings, LLC. 2500 55th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33714. And Pagan Guzman, Jose E., Authorized Member for 275-HYW Holdings, LLC. 2500 55th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33714. And Matt Newton, Esquire, Shoemaker, Loop, and Kendrick, LLP, 101, East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2800, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Email address, mnewton at shumaker.com. And Yanni Weiser, Shoemaker, Loop, and Kendrick, LLP, 101, East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2800, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Email address, y-w-a-s-s-e-r at s-h-u-m-a-k-e-r.com. Violation address, 2500 55th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33714. Okay. It's my understanding that this was a first request for an extension of time, that the parties agreed to it. And I signed an order September 18th, well, I entered an order September 18th, 2025, granting the joint petition for extension of time. Carolyn, do you have the original of that order for me to sign? We had signed it already. No, this is one of those that they don't want the electronic signatures anymore. Right. I thought I had received it. I'll get you that one. Oh, never mind. Your instructions were for me to sign it and bring it. Right. So, here you go. Okay. You're trying to trick me, huh? The other one, I'm not sure if it was on your agenda, the next item. However, if it wasn't on your agenda, then Magistrate Matthew signed it. We put it on here because that's when Hollins was Matthew. My file doesn't show that I did it, so Magistrate Matthew must have done it. And then that's why we just put it on the agenda because that was one that was signed in October. We're trying to keep it with the Magistrate. All right. Please read item number nine. Item number nine, joint petition granted for extension of time. Department code enforcement matter. Third extension of time. Case number CCM-24-00089. Officer B. Hughes, owner, Colin Michael H. Estate. Notice address, Colin Michael H. Estate, Earl H. Colin, Bessie W. Colin, 4000, 52nd Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33709-5618. And Betty Jane Collins, Possible Air, 571 Tulip Circle East, Auburndale, Florida, 33823. And Jason Arthur Collins, Possible Air, 2263, Parkland Drive, Lakeland, Florida, 33811. And Jason Arthur Collins, Possible Air, 6075, Velvet Loop, Lakeland, Florida, 33811. Violation address, 4000, 52nd Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33709. It's my understanding that this matter was put on the agenda for a request for a third extension of time. The parties reached an agreement, so a joint petition was granted by Magistrate Matthew for an extension of time. Correct. That concludes the items on the agenda. Are there any county attorney matters? Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned. Communications, please stop recording.