Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Hearing September 25, 2026 8:30 AM - Sep 25, 2026

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 violation of 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 begin with the county presenting their evidence of the alleged violation of violations. 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. Any person who decides to appeal the decision of the code enforcement special magistrate with respect to any matter considered at 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? Such record is not provided by Pinellas County. Call the first case. Item 13. Department code enforcement matter. Short-term rental violation. Case number CCM-26-00-115. Officer E. Stevens. Owner, Rhodes Colburn. Notice address, Rhodes Colburn. 14180 83rd Place, Seminole, Florida. 33776-2817. Violation address, 10701. 59th Avenue, Seminole, Florida. 33772. Officer, state your name for the record. Officer E. Stevens. Raise your right hand, sir. Do you swear a firm any testimony you get today would be the truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Counsel? Kevin Hennessey with the law firm with Johnson Pope here on behalf of Colburn Roads. Yes, Your Honor. Okay, and it's going to be compliance in 30 days and there's a cold cost of $420. Yes, Your Honor. Okay, both of you agree to that? Yes. Okay, are they getting their rotors today? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Step to the side and I'll get that for you. Good. Thank you. Okay. Baby cakes once again today. Item 5, Department Code Enforcement, Matter, Short-Term Rental Violation, Case Number CCM-26-00110, Officer D. DeVall, Owner, Galage Dritten, Notice Address, Galage Dritten, 10516, Juliano Drive, Riverview, Florida, 33569-8712, Violation Address, 1774, Albemarle Road, Clearwater, Florida, 33764. Case number. Your name, sir? You're right in Gilage. You own the property on Albert Marley Road. Council, I mean, officer, if you could state your name for the record. Officer D. DeVall. If you could both raise your right hand. You swear from any testimony you get today, but the truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Officer, we have just one violation, the advertising violation, I believe. That is correct. Okay, and compliance is one month? Yes, sir. 30 days? Yes. This cost of $420? That is correct. You have 30 days to comply? I guess it's an advertising requirement. You've got to post something. Okay. You want to let her know once you've done that? Yes. We will be in constant communication. Okay. You'll get your order right over here. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Item 3, Department Code Enforcement Matter, Short-Term Rental Violation, Case Number CCM-26-00112. Officer E. Stevens, Owner, Nassenstein Rick, Nassenstein Lisa. Notice Address, Nassenstein Rick, Nassenstein Lisa, 135 Harbor Drive, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34683-5404. Violation Address, 135 Harbor Drive, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34683. Do you want to put that in? Oh, yeah, that's yours. Okay. A second here. What number? Number three. Number three. Officer, if you could state your name for the record. Officer E.J. Stevens. And your name, sir? Rick Nassenstein. You own the property at 135 Harbor Drive in Palm Harbor? Yes, sir. You could both raise your right hand, please? Do you swear firm that any testimony I give today be the truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Yes. Officer, we have three violations here? That's correct. Okay, so we have basically one of the three violations. Do you know what they are, the three violations? Yes, sir. And so we've got the advertising, you've got a – I guess that's the – registering the The short-term rental. The short-term rental, as well as getting a number for the short-term rental. That's correct. Okay. You have 30 days to comply is what you've agreed to. Is that correct, sir? Yes, sir. And this court costs of – is that $420? Mm-hmm. That is correct. All right, I'll enter the order, and she'll give you a copy right here. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Item 11, Department Code Enforcement, matter short-term rental violation, case number CCM-26-00108. Officer D. Duvall, owner, Becker, Catherine, Wynn, Johnny. Notice address, Becker, Catherine, Wynn, Johnny, 12233-94th Street, Largo, Florida, 33773. Violation address, 12233-94th Street, Largo, Florida, 33773. Officer, if you could state your name for the record, please. Officer D. Duvall. Can you – your name, sir? Johnny Wynn. I'm sorry? Johnny Wynn. I mean, I would say Nugent. That works just as fine. Wynn's the right way. However you'd like. Now that – let me get it right. Give me a second. Okay. Just one violation, officer? That is correct. Oh, let me – raise your right hands, officer. Do you swear a firm that any testimony we give today be the truth, nothing but the truth? I do. The phone's going to be placed on silence, please. Just the one violation? That is correct. G1 is the – For the certificate. Getting the certificate, registering it. Correct. And 30 days for compliance? Yes, magistrate. Okay. Do you know what you have to do, Ms. Duke? Yes, sir. Okay. And it's $420 cost? Yes, sir. Okay. I'll sign the order right now, and she'll give you a copy. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Item 14, Department Code Enforcement Matter, Short-Term Rental Violation, Case Number CCM-26-00114. Officer E. Stevens, owner, Tauber John R. Notice address, John R. Tauber, P.O. Box 1196, Crystal Beach, Florida, 34681-1196. Violation address, 613 Mayo, Crystal Beach, Florida, 34681. Have a good weekend. You're welcome. Officer, state your name for the record, please. Officer E. Stevens. And your name, sir? John Tauber. Tauber, you own the property at 613 Mayo? Yes, sir. In Crystal Beach? If you could both raise your right hands. You swear, affirm, any testimony we give today be the truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Yes, sir. You have the three violations here, officer? That is correct, magistrate. Okay. So we've got the, you've got to get a certificate of use, and then we have the two advertising requirements, right? That is correct, magistrate. Do you understand what they are, sir? Yes, sir. Okay. So he has responded to the property, only has 30 days to come into compliance. Is that correct? That's correct. Or there'll be a daily fine, a cost of $420. That's correct, magistrate. Because you need to let him know within 30 days you've done these things. Yes, sir. I'll keep in communication. Thank you. You got it. She'll give you a copy of the right here. Thank you. I appreciate it. You too. Item 12, Department Code Enforcement Matter, Short-Term Rental Violation, Case Number CCM-26-00109, Officer D. DeVall, Owner, Piorno Teresa de Jesus Lopez. Notice address, Piorno Teresa de Jesus Lopez, 9709 Cedar Street, Tampa, Florida, 33635-5914. Violation address, 6956 300th Avenue North, Clearwater, Florida, 33761. Officer, if you could state your name to the record. Officer D. DeVall. Okay. And your name? Your name. Teresa de Jesus Lopez, Piorno. And help me, Carol, if any of this interpreting, if I need it. Do you own the property at 6956 300th Avenue North in Clearwater? Usted es la dueña. That's your property? Yeah. Officer, just the one violation, which is the certificate of use? That is correct. Register the property on the internet. You have 30 days to do it. Okay. Yes, you understand that? This court costs $420. Okay, I'm satisfied. Now sign the order and go to this lady here to get a copy. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Captain. Thank you, Madam Chair. Officer, just the one. Communications, please stop recording. Okay, so November. Yeah, because I had originally October 12th. Okay. If there are any phone calls or anything, please take them outside. Let me see the oldest one of them. Oh, sorry. That's how I really get ready. This one is bringing it. Item 6. Department code enforcement matter. Short-term rental violation. Case number CCM-26-00087. Officer B. Hughes. Owner, Affordable Housing Corp, Inc. Notice address, Affordable Housing Corp, Inc. 2433 11th Avenue, Southwest, Largo, Florida, 33770-4359. Violation address, 10182 West Bay Street, Seminole, Florida, 33776. Thank you. Officer, state your name for the record, please. Officer Hughes. You're Steven Mortimer? Yes, sir. Good morning, sir. We'll get you out of here. We have two violations here? Yes, sir. Okay, you're agreeing to one's $500 a day, the other's $200 a day. However, they get abated if there's a compliance within 60 days. Yes, sir. Is that right? And a $420 fine? Yes, sir. Okay. Is that your understanding, officer? Yes, sir. I swear anybody in. Okay. So we'll do the order. Just give me a second to review it. Good job. Thank you. Give me a second here. I'm sure you do. That's really good. He's a little terrible. I'm like, what? Seven. No, the last one. What was the last one? We just did six. Six. Oh, you want to call seven? Go ahead. Item seven. Department code enforcement matter, short-term rental violation, case number CCM-26-00095. Officer B. Hughes, owner, KLN Heavenly Homes, LLC. Notice address, KLN Heavenly Homes, LLC, 423 Watercourse Way, Lawrenceville, Georgia, 30046-8466. Violation address, 3365, 57th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33714. The officers, state your name for the record, please. Officer Hughes. Your name, ma'am? Diana Perez. One second here. Say that name again. Diana. Anna what? Perez. S-A-L-D-A-N? S-P-E-R-E-Z. I'm sorry. Say that again. Diana. Diana. Perez. Perez. Okay. I'm sorry. It's been a long word for me. Ms. Perez, what's your connection to KLN Heavenly Homes? I work with the property management. I'm sorry? Property management. You work with property management. Yeah. Do they authorize you to enter into agreements for them? Well, we're working with the property management. Okay? I know. We have a letter from the owner that, yes, we are authorized. The owner being KLN. Yes. The LLC. Yes, and it's Mr. Long Nguyen, who is an authorized member of the LLC. Thank you. Okay. How about both of you raise your right hand right now? Thank you. Do you swear or affirm? Carolyn? Could you? I'm sorry. Could you translate this for me? Just want to get it on the record. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give today be the truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Do you understand? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I do. Okay. And you have authority to act for KLN. If that's correct, we received the letter. Is that correct? Ask of that. She's saying for the letter that he's given to our office directly. Three violations, right? Is that a yes? Yes. Yes. Okay. I'll try to give you a hard time. I just want to be sure. Okay. You have 30 days to come into compliance, correct? Tienen 30 días or is that a finding of fact? Yes, it's a finding of fact. Yeah. Oh, it's a finding of fact on all of them? Yeah. Yes, sir. Yes. Okay. Hang on. I believe it's just court costs. It's there in violation. Okay. It was a violation. In violation. Oh. I'm going to get the wrong one in front of me. No wonder. Okay. It's this one. All right. I'm sorry. I had the wrong one. There's only two violations, right? The findings of fact. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Yeah. That's why I kept calling it. It's sold down in I-3. Okay. Give me a second here to look at this. At a compliance date and everything? Okay. It's all good. Just check. Just let me put this on the record. Property owner agrees to pay hearing costs. No. Property owner admits they are in violation of these two sections. And it goes on to state property owner has been found in violation of these two sections. However, they abated the violation on or before September 25th. Do you mean to say the 24th? Is today the 25th? Today's the 25th, yes, of September. It's for your benefit, by the way. I want to make it right. Thanks. So you're only agreeing to pay costs, right, for the? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Sorry for the confusion. My mistakes. You'll have the author in 40 in two seconds. Thank you, sir. Just want to make sure it's right. Thank you. Sorry about that, Carol. No, you have. I gave you my card. What number is this? Number two. You can call it if you want. Item two. Department code enforcement matter. Short-term rental violation. Case number CCM-26-00106. Officer E. Stevens. Owner. Saldan Rudolph. Saldan Kimberly. Notice address. Saldan Rudolph. Saldan Kimberly. 718 Ohio Avenue, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34683-4271. Violation address. 718 Ohio Avenue, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34683. Officer, can you state your name for the record? Officer Stevens. Your name, sir? Rudolph Saldan. You can both raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm any testimony to give today to be the truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. I do. You can correct me on this, officer, but I believe there's three violations? That is correct. You've got the use certificate here, and I believe you have the, I'm ready to post the number as well as the advertisement. That is correct. Is that your understanding, sir? I do. Okay. And county has agreed to give you 30 days to come into compliance? Yes. Okay, and the court costs are $420. That is correct, my strength. This is how, then, you realize that as soon as you come into compliance with these, you want to get in touch with them so you can verify. I sure will, yep. You feel good? Okay, I'm going to sign the order, and she'll give you a comment. Okay. Thanks for your patience today. Somebody has to be last. Thank you. Is it cashier's check on money order? Okay. We'll check it out. We'll get your order ready. I hope I'm assigning these dates to the 25th. I think you are. I'll check. It's not a big task. Communications, please stop recording. Item 16, Department Code Enforcement matter. Motion to initiate foreclosure. Case number CFC-26-00003. Officer B. Hughes, owner Hagerty Betty Estate. Notice address Hagerty Betty Estate, 5340 West Pine Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33709-2337. Let the record reflect that there's no one else in the gallery, and no one has responded to the call of the case. Officer, if you could identify yourself with the record. Officer Hughes. If you could raise your right hand, Officer Hughes. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give today be the truth, nothing but the truth? I do, sir. I have the notice of hearing in the package and the motion to initiate foreclosure. I've read it, so please explain to me what we're doing. Sure. So, pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 8 of the Pinellas County Code and Chapter 162 of the Florida Statute, Pinellas County is seeking a motion to initiate foreclosure against the following respondent, Betty Hagerty Estate. The property in which the county is seeking foreclosure action is located at 5340 West Pine Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33709. The property is a non-homestead property in unincorporated Pinellas County, and the county would like to submit the evidence, the motion to initiate foreclosure, which consists a history of the case and the attached exhibit. So, we've got the notice of hearing for today. We've got the signed motion from the housing official. We've got the exhibit A is the Pinellas County property appraiser showing the owner of record as Betty Hagerty Estate. Exhibit B is the warranty deed. Exhibit C are the initial notice of violations that went to the property owner for the minimum housing, for the prohibited vehicles, and for the trash and debris. We then have the notice of hearing back in October of 2022. We have the affidavit of violation and request for hearing with the violation codes that I'd already mentioned for minimum housing, prohibited vehicle, and trash and debris. We have the posting notices that were posted at the courthouse and on the property. We have the order, Exhibit E is the order assessing administrative fine until compliance is achieved. F is the affidavit of noncompliance. G is the lien that was recorded on February 2nd of 2023. They were sent the notice of the lien as Exhibit H back in February 3rd of 2023. We also have, since that time, a condemnation notice. Excuse me, this is another notice of... Yeah, the condemnation, I think it's in April or whatever I've seen it. Yes, another notice of lien. Sorry about that. And I just have a few photos showing that I was at the property on July 29th, and there was still a large amount of trash and debris, prohibited vehicles and operative vehicles, just items stored throughout the property. And this is a mobile home. We have a vehicle, a prohibited vehicle up on Jack's with flat tires, no tag. We did do an air search. J. Yes, sir, I'm sorry. I did Exhibit J because it wasn't the name of an estate. And you'll notice that Alan Haggerty was also on the initial notice of violations. So he's pretty much the person that's been causing the violations. And Exhibit K is basically just confirmation that there is no legal water source at the property and also that there is no legal source of power. As a result of that, the area officer had condemned the property or sent a condemnation notice as it not being habitable as of April 14th of 2026 and had sent the notice of violation also back in 2024 for the lack of water and power. So, Magistrate, the property continues to be owned by the respondent. The property has been declared, has not been, excuse me, the property has not been declared to be homestead by the respondent. The petitioner has interest in the property by virtue of Pinellas County Code Enforcement Magistrate Lien in the amount of over $15,433 as of February 3rd of 2023. So it is well over the capped amount at this point since it's also been accruing daily fines in addition to interest and still has not gained compliance. The petitioner provided the respondent with notice that the property was found to be in violation of the county's ordinance. The petitioner provided the respondent with notice that the property remained in violation of the county's ordinances after the respondent was afforded due process and given a period of time in which to cure or remedy the violations of the county's ordinance at the property. The respondent had actual or implied knowledge of the process and procedures employed by the petitioner, its code enforcement division, and special magistrate for the imposition of the code enforcement lien. Magistrate, based on the evidence provided in the motion, the county requests that you issue an order granting the Pinellas County the ability to initiate foreclosure. Thank you, Officer. I reviewed the motion and all the attachments. There's also a condemnation notice on April 14, 2026, not that it's necessary to initiate that. I had this document. Yes, it was just mostly for information. That's what I figured. Okay, I was just making sure the lien's valid. I'll be entering an order to initiate the foreclosure. Thank you very much, sir. You're going to do that? You're not going to do that right now. So it's an order, right? Mm-hmm. It is an order, okay? All right, you'll get into the course. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Go. You know, I thought you were asking me for an order. Yeah, that's why I was confused. That's why I was asking. Of course, in here, it's in an order. I'm going to sign an order. Yeah, I'll give you the order. Yeah, you should. These are the notions. I'm just confirming that you have all the pockets, but if anything, I'll just... That's fine. That's fine. This is perfect. This thing's perfect. So I'll keep that. I'll do this whenever you want. I'm sorry? You can do this now? Yes. Let's do it. You can do it now. Item 1. Department. Code enforcement. Matter. Short-term rental violation. Case number CCM-26-00082. Officer B. Hughes. Owner. Murphy. Carey. Carelli. Nicholas. Notice address, Murphy, Carey, Carelli, Nicholas, 1360 Glenbrook Road, Meadowbrook, Pennsylvania, 19046-2516. Violation address, 10925, 124th Avenue North, Seminole, Florida, 33778. Let the record reflect that the gallery is vacant and no one's in the gallery and that no one has answered the call for 10925, 124th Avenue North, Seminole. Officer, state name for the record. Officer Hughes. Sue Hughes. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from then any testimony we give today to be the truth, nothing but the truth? I do. What do we have here? So basically, this is a short-term rental that I have had communication with the owners and they've been very cooperative. So I don't know if you want me to present all the evidence. They basically were in violation of not having the short-term rental certificate and their advertising was also not corrected immediately after they received their certificate. However, they have gained compliance for both. So I'm basically asking for finding a fact order just to make sure that it stays in compliance for 22319G1 and for 22319I2 and I3. Again, it's because they had been in violation but are now in full compliance with both the certificate and all their advertising. I'd be more than happy to submit the evidence. No, I'm looking at it now. I understand. Just give me a second. Sure. And you've spoken with them? I've spoken with them multiple times and as a matter of fact, when I posted the property, they were there. So I spoke with them then. We've communicated by phone and email. They've been very cooperative and got everything corrected as soon as possible. Good to hear that. And they are only not here today because they do live out of state. They do come back and forth but they're out of state right now. They were very much aware of what I was going to request a finding of fact and that there would be court costs. I did not have the court cost number at the time but they were explained that they would have those along with the finding of fact request. Okay. And I see the short certificate of use here. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Well, I'm going to – anything else? No, sir. You can consider the public portion of the hearing closed. I'm going to enter an order with three findings of fact on those three, you know, 319G1, I2, and I3 and grant costs to the county of – do we know the figure now? $420. $420, sir. $420 costs and three findings of fact. Okay. Nice job. Thank you, sir. Next one if you want. Item 4, Department Code Enforcement matter, short-term rental violation, case number CCM-26-00102, Officer D. DeVall, owner, Audrey Drive, LLC. Notice address, Audrey Drive, LLC, 409 South Fremont Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33606-2194. Violation address, 1818 Audrey Drive, Clearwater, Florida, 33759. That direct reflect that there's no one in the gallery, no one answered to the call of the list. Officer, if you could state your name for the record. Officer DeVall. Officer DeVall, if you could raise your right hand, please. Do you swear, affirm, that any testimony you'll give today to be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. What are we looking at here, Officer? Magistrate, this is similar to the last case for this property at 1818 Audrey Drive in Clearwater. I am going to be looking for a finding of fact. The property is in compliance. The compliance is achieved due to the fact that they have removed this as no longer being used as a short-term rental. It is actually the primary residence now for this property owner. So I do have a short-term rental certificate affidavit of ceasing rental operations. I have received that, and I have also confirmed that their advertisement has been removed and or made inactive, so no longer advertising as a short-term rental. So I would be looking for the finding of fact for Code Section 22319 G1 for obtaining this certificate that is no longer needed. Also looking for court costs of $420. Do you need findings of fact on the other two? Why the entire situation? That would be the Code Section. The other one was not having the number posted. The advertising. Yeah. Correct. The advertising has been removed, so that would be... And they're not going to get a number. I'm just saying if they technically were in violation. Correct. It's up to you. I'll give you a findings of fact on all three if you want it. 22319 I1 and 22319 I2. You want findings of fact on those? Please. Well, that's what I thought you were asking for, just G1, and that's why I was bringing up the other two. You wanted all three, right? We'll get it for all three just in case it fires back up. Yeah, I think... Okay. I feel strongly it probably won't simply because the property owner is now living at the property. It is his primary residence, but you never know. No, no, I got it. Just give me a second here on the fact. We've got court costs here of how much? 419. 419. Excuse me, 420. I'm sorry, 420? Yes, sir. Okay, anything else, officer? No, that will do it, magistrate. Thank you. I'm going to consider the public portion of the hearing closed. I'm going to find for the county on the three violations. Since there's been compliance already, I'm going to do a findings of fact on those three and award cost to the county of $420. We'll do the order later. You'll get it. Thank you, magistrate. Next one. Item 8, Department Code Enforcement Matter, Short-Term Rental Violation, Case Number CCM-26-00097. Officer B. Hughes, Owner, St. Petersburg Estate, LLC. Notice Address, St. Petersburg Estate, LLC, 43 Wilshire Drive, Chestnut Ridge, New York, 10977-7029. Violation Address, 10755 Clara Lane, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33708. Let the record reflect that there's no one here in the gallery. No one answered the call to the list regarding 10755 Clara Lane, St. Petersburg. Officer, state your name for the record, please. Officer Hughes. Officer Hughes, could you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear a firm that any testimony gift today would be the truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. What do we have here? So basically, this, I've had no contact whatsoever from the property owners at 10755 Clara Lane. So basically, they are still have, I can't speak to you apparently, they still have, not only do they not have their certificate as of this morning, I double-checked, but they also continue to advertise it as a short-term rental. Sorry, I'm getting to that part. Here it is. So when I initially looked at it, their short-term rental listing showed as active, minimum nights of one, so less than 30, showing that it was a short-term rental. And when did you do that? Pardon me? When did you do that? That was on. So I'm going to put all this into evidence. Let's go through the package real quick. Okay, sure. You don't have to go through every document. I have the notice of today's hearing, right? Yes, sir. You've got the notice of hearing, you've got the notice of violations, all the property appraiser, tax collector information, the sunbiz. Okay, and you've got the warranty deed showing the... Showing the ownership, yes, sir. Go ahead. Okay, so basically, when I did my initial... Oh, you also have the notices that have been sent by the housing official prior to the notice of violation. I call these the code enforcement letters. Yes, sir. Okay, tell me, now, they're still in violation now regarding the advertising? Yes. Yes, so I'll go ahead, actually, on the, as of yesterday, I double-checked just to make sure. They're still, their listing is still active. They're still advertising more than there are 10 that are permitted and don't have all the advertising included. They're also having documented stays less than 30 days. That is a document that's not in my package yet, right? Um, yes, I'm sorry, I've got... See, I'm trying to just... I know, we're trying to speed up. You're getting way ahead of me. We haven't put A into evidence yet. We are, so let me go back to A. And that's okay. I know, we've been kind of trying to shorten it, but I'm going to go back to A just to show that they... Yeah, just go through A. I've seen that A, and I've seen the advertising violations there. All right, so Exhibit A still shows that they're active, they're advertising for less than 30 days. And they don't have a certificate of use. They do not have a certificate then, and I will end up testifying they still don't as of yesterday, or as of today, actually. It shows that, you know, they're having multiple documented stays. And then the advertising itself is showing up to 16 guests. Right. Um, it just shows the listing. It's showing that people are reviewing, saying that they're, you know, staying there. Got it. There are other listings, same thing. Active, minimum nights, one. And documented stays. I'm good with each... The VRBO advertising. With the composite aid for the county. Okay. I'll set that into evidence for the record. Thank you. Um, so as of yesterday, um, I did investigate, um, the property and the short-term rental listings and advertising continue. They still do not have their certificate, and I would like to submit them as composite exhibit B. Yes, you may proceed. Would you like a copy of that, sir? Um, yeah, if you've got it right in front of you. Um, so again, basically this is just showing that the listings are still active. As of short-term rental, which... This was run 9-24, I see, in the last few days. Yes, as of yesterday, 9-24. And I did double-check this morning that they still do not have any certificate nor a, um, an application for one. And I have not received any communication either. Um, again, it's showing a minimum of two nights in their advertising, so less than the 30 days, and this was as of yesterday. Someone's doing this, right? Yes, sir. Um, again, showing documented stays, um, and then in their other website, it's active, minimum nights of one, so less than 30 days, and none of their, uh, website advertising has any of the required, uh, verbiage nor occupancy. So they did take this one site down, the other one is still, well, excuse me, they didn't take the site down. They did show that you could not rent on this site anymore, but the other one is still showing as active. All right. So at least one, at least one of the, um, sites is still showing as being active and as a short-term rental. So magistrate, the county... I'll accept the composite B into evidence, right? Um, yes, sir. So magistrate, the county requests that you find the property in violation of 22319G, and, uh, also 22319, I'm sorry, I, um, and ask for, is asking for the allowance of 30 days to comply, and if still found in violation, to assign a daily fine amount of 500 per day per violation, again, for code sections 22319G and 22319I. Okay, let's see if I know what you're asking. So you, you want the no certificate of use? Yes, sir. Okay. And, uh... And that the advertising is correct regarding, um, basically... And they're advertising short-term rentals without the use? Yes, sir. So you're looking for those two? Yes, sir. And the, you know, how it says the required statement that needs to be in there? Yes, I understand. It's right. The statement, yes, sir. Yes, sir. Short-term rentals are included in all advertisement. It's got to put that into there, right? It's got to say you're a vacationer, a residential, I'll be a good neighbor, et cetera. Yes, sir. Those are the two violations you're seeking. $500 each? Yes, sir. Daily? To the costs? Uh, $420. $420 costs. Anything else? No, sir. That concludes my testimony. Okay. I'm going to sit in the public portion of the hearing concluded. I'm going to fine for the county. I'm going to fine the, uh, responded to me in violation of 22-319-G and 22-319-I. Opposed to fine at $500 a day. That fine can be abated at any amount of time. I guess I should have asked you that. Oh, at 30 days. I apologize, sir. I probably would have done the 30th, within 30 days, in course of $420. Thank you so much. Item 9, Department Code Enforcement Matter, short-term rental violation, case number CCM-26-00099. Officer B. Hughes, owner, Udin-Ala Sultana Nargis. Notice address, Udin-Ala Sultana Nargis, 8471-141st Street, Seminole, Florida, 33776-2839. Violation address, 8471-141st Street, Seminole, Florida, 33776-2839. Let the record reflect that the gallery is empty and no one has responded for the property at 8471-141st Street, Seminole, right? Is that correct? Mm-hmm. Officer, please state your name for the record. Officer Hughes. If you could please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony we give today be the truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Can you briefly take me through what I believe you'll call a composite A? Okay. So, yes, sir. So, they basically, as you can see from the notice of violation, been in violation since August 18th of 2026. And Exhibit A, of course, has the notice of violations, Pinellas County tax collector, property appraiser, the warranty deed, the short-term rental notices from the housing official, and the short-term rental listings and advertisements. So, again, with this property owner, I've had no communication from any of them. Really? None at all? None at all. Okay. No, sir. So, they don't have a certificate, and they are advertising. So, this document pretty much shows that they do have active listings, that they're for more than the maximum of 10, and that the minimum night is for one, which, you know, less than 30 days, making it the short-term rental. Not to be difficult, but, see, I see that all the time. Now, tell me, is it the dates running on the left-hand column so I know these are all days you checked it, right? I'm trying to figure out when you did this. Oh, what this is? I see what you're saying, what this page that I'm showing right here, what this document is. Yeah, in other words, I know you run it because there's a date in the corner, but I can never find it. So, what this is, is when we go into the website that the county is. Oh, I know what it is. Oh, okay, I'm sorry. I'm trying to figure out when I look at this, when it is. When did you do this? How do I know from looking at this? Um, I... See, when you do it later, you printed it out, just like in the last file. In the top left-hand corner, it gives a date when you print it out. Now, that's like I can never see it. Oh. There it is. Right there, 827. Got it. Okay. Good question. Okay. All right, I can pull them apart. All right, fine. I got it. I know how to read those. I know exactly what they are. Okay, so it's definitely a short-term stays. I can see the dates running down. Yes, sir. It's active. It's less than 30 days. You've got the website showing that they're continuing to advertise without the required information. And then, um, another listing, same, showing it's active, less than 30 days. August. That's in August, right. And that was the same date, August 27th. All right. And, um, just the VRBO listing showing the same, that it's continuing to be advertised without all the required things in it. I see there was the code enforcement, what I call the code enforcement letters are in here, too. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Um, so, magistrate, the property was reinspected on September 24th, yesterday, and the violations continue. The short-term listings and advertisements continue, and they still do not have a certificate. Um, may I submit those as exhibit, composite exhibit B? Okay. I presume you're referring exhibit A into evidence, which I'll accept. Okay. And, um, yes, please. You want to give me a copy while you're doing it? Read it up. Thank you. I'm glad you made that point about that big thing at the top of that line. Yeah, I've always looked for it. I was, I never, I always wanted to ask. And we, I'll make sure I don't staple over it anymore. No, you can staple over it. This makes it quicker for me to do. Yep. So, you can see here. Well, I get that in other things when I get uncontested orders, too, and I'm looking at them all the time, and I'm thinking, now, where's the date on these things? Yes, sir. I kept stapling over it. I'm not going to do that anymore. Well, because you're, somebody's making copies of me, and I don't see it. Go ahead. So, again. Exhibit B. You're on Exhibit B. I interrupted you. Go ahead. Oh, that's okay. So, Exhibit B, you can see, again, the list, this was as of yesterday, and I did verify as of this morning. There's still no certificate application, nor issued certificate. You can see the listing is active, advertising for less than 30 days, more than the maximum occupancy. Allowed of 10, just had, then, you know, of course, the documented stays, et cetera. And then you have the listings that are still showing on the website, again, over the maximum occupancy, and not showing the required information, like that you're in a residential zone. It shows that they're renting for less than 30 days. Their other one, apparently, they did pull down as inactive back when this was crawled, or were checked. However, when I went onto the website yesterday, they were still advertising, and for less than 30 days, and did not have the required advertisement. Stayed for four nights, stayed for four nights, so they're definitely renting for less than 30 days. I'll accept Exhibit B into evidence. I'm good with that. Thank you. What are you looking for, officer? So, magistrate, similarly to the last case, we're requesting the property be found in violation of 22319G and 22319I, and asking for the allowance of 30 days to comply, and if still found in violation, to assign a daily fine amount of $500 per day for the code sections 22319G and 22319I, and award costs in the amount of $420. I'm going to consider the public portion of the hearing closed. I'm going to find for the county, find the respondent in violation of 22319G, as well as 22319I, and oppose a fine of $500 a day. That fine can be abated if there's compliance within 30 days, which, by 5 p.m. that day. August 25th, or I mean October 25th. October 25th, be specific, 2026, by 5 p.m. And I'm going to award the county costs of $420. Thank you, magistrate. Thank you, magistrate. So, magistrate, in order for us to be here for the 1.30 docket, we're going to have to take a break now, and then we'll resume at 1.30. You want to come back and do these at 1.30? Yes. Okay. And then he's going to do his case? Yes, and then he'll do his case. Well, you go first, and then he does his case. That's fine. Yeah, super. Perfect. Communications, please stop recording. I can leave everything here, right? Item 10, Department Code Enforcement, matter, short-term rental violation, case number CCM-26-00107, Officer D. DeVall, Owner, Gomez Angelica, notice address, Gomez Angelica, 214 North Highland Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, 33755-6038, violation address, 1130 Wyatt Street, Clearwater, Florida, 33756. Good afternoon, Officer. Could you state your name? Officer DeVall. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give today be the truth nothing but the truth? I do. You may proceed. Okay. Good afternoon, Magistrate. This property, I am actually looking for a finding of fact. I have had communication with the property owner. She is working and unable to be here. She has brought the property into compliance by removing her advertisement, making all advertisements inactive, and signing the affidavit of ceasing rental operations. So I'm looking for a finding of fact for those codes that she was in violation of. All three? Yes, sir. Let me just write that down. And I can give you those specifically. I have it as 319-G1, 319-I1, and 22-319-I2, correct? That's correct. Three violations. We will also be looking for court costs of 420. 20. Okay. I have composite Exhibit A here in front of me. It seems to be in order. I'm going to accept Exhibit A in light of that statement. Okay. I do have Exhibit B showing the proof that she has complied the property. Okay. I'm going to accept Exhibit A into evidence. Go ahead. You can proceed with B. Okay. And B, I mean, just simply this just shows the short-term rental certificate affidavit of ceasing rental operations that was signed by her and notarized. And then this is the record of rental showing that her status is inactive. And this was from VRBO, so she is compliant according to county code, and it does show that her listing was removed on 9-17. Okay. I'll accept the composite B into evidence. Anything else, officer? No, magistrate. That is all. Okay. I'll consider the public portion of the hearing concluded. I'm going to find for the county and enter a finding of fact on the three violations, which is 22-319-G1, similarly I-1, and 319-I2, and impose grant costs to the county of $420. All right. Magistrate, would you like it to be, or? You can just hand it up there. I saw it when you put it up there. Okay. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Item 15, department code enforcement matter, short-term rental violation, case number CCM dash 2-6 dash 0-0-1-1-3, officer E. Stevens, owner, Palm Harbor Estate, LLC. Notice address, Palm Harbor Estate, LLC, 6 Pine Knoll Court, Monsee, New York, 10952-5224. Violation address, 1679 Tampa Road, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34683. Officer, could you state name for the record, please? Good afternoon, magistrate. My name is E.J. Stevens. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear, affirm, that any testimony you give today to be the truth is nothing but the truth? I do. You may proceed. Yes. Magistrate, the property where the alleged violation exists is located at 1679 Tampa Road in Palm Harbor, Florida, located in the unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner, Palm Harbor Estate, LLC, is not represented or present today. I also want to note that there has been no telephone contact or emails at any time during this investigation. The violations have been an occurrence since on or before July 17th of 2026. I would like to enter the Notice of Hearing and Composite Exhibit A into evidence, which includes Notice of Violations, Pinellas County Tax Collector, the property appraiser, deed, Division of Corporations out of New York, letter from our Pinellas County Housing Representative dated March 28th, 2025, and a solid report showing closed or expired short-term rental application, a rowing unit record, an active Airbnb, VRBO, and a POM guide listing, which are all showing active. Which one's the expired one in this package? I haven't gotten to that yet. The short-term rental application. It'll be in the Acela record. Put that a little bit here. You got to, you have page numbers on this. What's the page number? Yes, it's going to be on, I can go to that, sir. What's that? That's going to be located on page 11, sir. Yes, that is the page. Page 11. And what are you showing me here on 11? Where's it expired? No, I'm sorry. That's what you said, so that's what I'm, the first to me. Page 11, it's closed and expired short-term rental application. Oh, first time I've seen that. Appreciate it. You're welcome. 4-9-25. Okay. Would you like me to go through the rest of the packet, sir? I've looked at all the, regarding the advertisements and the fact that you've confirmed it meets the short-term rentals. I've seen that. I don't need anything else. Okay, thank you. I've seen it all. Are you going to put anything else in? Yes, I have an exhibit B as well, sir. I'm going to accept exhibit A into evidence for the county. Go ahead. I have exhibit B here, saying that it's still, as of yesterday, on 9-27. I'm sorry, on 9-23, it's still showing expired and closed, according to our county Acela program. This is going to be the rental unit record, still showing that the property was still being rented on August 8th, was the last time it was recorded. And further, as I get into this here, shows the record, how many times it was, the documented stays. Right, and above the, going back a page, they've removed it after that, right? On this kind of situation, anybody can go on to booking.com or any of the other websites. They can take it down to active status and then bring it back on again. They just, they take it off and put it back on. I got it. I was just curious. I hadn't seen that about it. You had skipped those two. Go ahead. Out of all the active Airbnb and VRBO and Palm Guide listings, the Palm Guide listing is the only one that's still open at this point in time. The Airbnb had been taken down and the VRBO, as I'll show you here, you can tell as of on the 23rd, the Palm Guide website can still actively be rented under their guide. But on the VRBO, everything has been checked out until 2028, and they can no longer be in used. Again, I have no telephonic contact with those parties, and nobody has responded by email or by telephone. When you say it's been checked out, every single date wouldn't be taken unless someone took it off? Absolutely. That's your presumption. Okay, sir. I'll accept the composite B into evidence. Thank you. Magistrate, the property was reinspected on September 9th and initially and again on September 24th, which coincides with my Exhibit B. The county requests that you find the property in violation and issue an order to have the property brought into compliance. The county is asking for an allowance of 30 days to comply, and if it's still filed in violation, assign a single-day filing amount of $500 per day for the violation of 22319G and 22319I. And that includes the court costs of $420. So it's 22319G and I. Let me just get it right here. You say G, you mean the operation out of certificate of view is right, G1? Yes, sir. And I is combined with subsections 1 and 2 on the same address of violation. 319I. 22319I? Yes, sir. Okay. Okay, we'll make it 22319I. Okay, so two violations? Yes. $500 a day for it. Okay, anything else? That'll be it, Magistrate. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to consider the public portion of the hearing closed. I'm going to find for the county on there being a violation of 22319I as well as 22319G1, opposed to a fine of $500 a day. You said that could be abated if there's compliance in 30 days? That's correct. And I stand that to be October 25th, 2026 by 5 p.m. and award the county costs at $420. Thank you, Magistrate. Thank you. Okay, let's go. Oh, we don't need this. Are we done? Are we done? Okay. Communications, please stop recording. Officer Stevens, we don't need Exhibit B because we have... Would you please read item number 17. Item 17, Department Code Enforcement Matter 154-231, Zoning Code Violation. Case number CCM-26-00060. Officer D. DeVall. Owner, McLean Children 1, LLC. Notice address, McLean Children 1, LLC. 400 Harborview Lane, Largo, Florida. 33770-4009. Violation address, 400 Harborview Lane, Largo, Florida. 34685. We're here on this matter after an August 10, 2026 hearing, so this is the conclusion of that hearing. It had been continued from July to the August 10 hearing. Not my purpose when I set the view to become a fact witness. I wasn't going to go out there and start looking and making a determination, and I was going to give the parties an opportunity to state what they thought they were seeing. And my purpose of me wanting to go out was to get a better layout of the land. It was really hard. The pictures are so focused that I don't really have a great idea of where it was. But with that, we were, I think the way to handle this is I'm going to let, first of all, anybody who's already been sworn in this case is still under oath. So if somebody comes up to testify that hasn't testified before, please alert me and we'll administer an oath. But I think I'm going to begin with Mr. Morrell stating where he thinks we are and calling any additional witnesses that you think are necessary. Thank you. My recollection is that at the prior hearing, the county presented its evidence. We presented evidence in opposition to that. Our argument at that time was and still is that the county has not put forth what is the documented standard by which it's deeming my client to be in violation. We pointed out that the April report cites to a diagram that the report alleges is in the Transportation Design Manual, but the diagram itself is not in the Transportation Design Manual. Therefore, we believe that the county failed to meet its burden to show what the standard is or that there was a violation of the standard. We believed at the prior hearing that all the evidence had been presented. We do object. I think there's an additional report that the county has indicated they want to rely on today. We object for a couple of reasons. One, as I said, I think the county had rested its case. And two, if you look at the new report, it suffers from the same defect as the prior report. The diagram that's in this September 22nd, I believe, is the date, site distance report, just doesn't exist. So the report itself is unreliable. We object to the report coming in because it's unreliable and because the evidence was closed. All right. I don't know anything about this latest report. So, county, do you want to present that? Yes, magistrate. Good afternoon. David Barrera from the county attorney's office. I'm going to let staff present any additional findings that they have. I wanted to address some of the legal issues before the magistrate. So, magistrate, as you're aware, we're here today for a code violation under 154-231-A for applicable zoning standards. The applicable ordinance specifically reads, It is unlawful for any person to construct, install, remove, relocate, perform, or perform other work activities or installations or improvements or place temporary items or structures or make improvements within, on, or under, or above the right-of-way without first having obtained a right-of-way permit with the exemption of trash and recycling receptacles and bulk debris, which can be placed in the right-of-way for no more than 48 hours. Mailboxes, irrigation, and landscaping, provided the placement in the right-of-way, is in compliance with subsection B of this section. Subsection B states it is unlawful for any person to utilize the right-of-way in a manner that impedes the public access, restricts vehicular access and sight lines, or possesses a risk of damage to public infrastructure, including but not limited to, and then there's an enumerated list, without first having obtained a right-of-way permit. Magistrate, notably in this instance, we're dealing with a transportation manual that is used as a guide to illustrate the applicable sight lines. There's allegations that one of the diagrams was not included. Magistrate, when a county transportation manual fails to include a diagram due to clerical or ministerial error, but is dated with the same creation dates as the attended complete version, the admission does not automatically invalidate the manual or render it unenforceable. The missing diagram does not affect the operative requirements of the manual, and that any party relying on the manual would have had adequate notice of the applicable standards if a right-of-way permit had been applied for. Notably, the missing diagram was not intended to provide the visual standard against which compliance is measured. The missing diagram is identical in scope of requirements for sight lines. It is just a different illustration of those requirements than the one that is already in the applicable transportation manual. And notably, it states within the transportation manual, all plantings within the clear zone must meet the county's sight line requirements as depicted in figure 19-1 and have a trunk diameter at maturity of 4 inches or less when measured at 6 inches above ground. Magistrate, it is legal semantics to argue that the county has not put its applicable sight line standards within the transportation guidelines. It is simply another illustration of those same identical requirements. I'm going to let staff present anything that they need to present, but I wanted to clear that up for the magistrate. Thank you. All right. You may. So I don't think respectfully that it is the same. There are different degrees of required sight lines for safety purposes. We are being asked, you're being asked, Mr. Magistrate, to take a diagram that's intended to address sight lines at roadway-to-roadway intersections and apply that to a private driveway on a 25-mile-per-hour private residential street. It doesn't make any sense to do that. I'll show you some prior ordinances. Let me back up. So the transportation design manual I want to show contains this diagram. And I have another binder if you'd like to have a copy of the link. Some do, some don't. Okay. So you'll see here, it's roadway landscaping. You have a roadway. There's a sidewalk. This is the other primary roadway, if you would call it. It addresses sidewalk traffic and a visibility triangle at this roadway. If you'll look, and you may not be able to see, but down here, there's a date on this document. It's March 3rd of 2017. So I don't know. I assume that's around the date that it was prepared. I don't know why this document was prepared. But I do know that beginning in 2018, the ordinances itself provided different standards. Here, let me stop here, too. Okay. So this is the first one we looked at is the actual diagram that is in the transportation design manual, figure 19-1. This is another, this is a copy of the alleged, you know, figure from, it says explicitly, this is from the transportation design manual standard. But it's not. It depicts a driveway. It says here, residential driveway. The date appears to be the same. Curiously, the document number is the same. So I'm not sure if this was based off of that or not. But, and again, it's 2017 was the date, allegedly, that both of these documents were prepared. And this does show a 50-foot site visibility triangle that's 14.5 feet back from the roadway, which is consistent with what the county would have you apply today. However, I want to show you, and it sort of stands in support of our position, that it doesn't make any sense to just swap one in for the other. To say a roadway intersection, you need the same visibility as you would for a small driveway. This is a 2018 version of the ordinance. The ordinance itself, the code, Pinellas County code. Prior to 2021, which is when the transportation design manual was first promulgated, this is what the code provides. And it's similar in some respects. It requires site visibility triangles. But it actually gives us these diagrams here. And you can see the first diagram is a street-to-street. It has a 25-foot site radius from 25 feet back. We then go a little further down, and you see here a diagram that provides for driveway-to-street connections. Magistrate, it's a 10-foot visibility triangle there. And it's from 10 feet back. So the county wants you to apply the diagram that's in the transportation design manual that on its face doesn't apply to the scenario that is dated 2017 before the code itself prescribed a smaller visibility triangle for driveways and alleyways and streets. So my clients have been asking from, you know, jump, what is the standard? Where does it come from? What do we need to do to comply with it? And here we are months later. We're seven months into this enforcement action. I think I actually checked that. I think it may be six. I think it began in March. Nobody's answered that question. We were here in August. They put forward a standard that doesn't apply. They acknowledge the standard doesn't apply. Now we're here in September, they're putting forward the same standard that doesn't apply and doesn't come out of the transportation design manual. So our position at this point is what are we doing here? What is the standard and what do we need to do to comply with it? Magistrate, I'm going to let staff that is the subject matter expert respond. All right. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Sean Tipton, Public Works, Right-of-Way Permanent Coordinator and Traffic Studies Investigation Supervisor. As the attorney mentioned that we're using a diagram that does not exist and it is not in the transportation design manual, I do want to point out that that document is, if you compare what we have, and I have two separate samples to show you, what's in the transportation design manual. So what's in the transportation design manual is what we're showing here today. If you compare side-by-side, and I don't know if you can see both, yes. If you compare these side-by-side, all of your measurement points of reference are the exact same. The only difference is whether there is a sidewalk present or not. If there's a sidewalk present, the driver's eye or point of reference on-site where you need to obtain, start your line of sight, is 14 1⁄2 feet back. If a sidewalk is present, it is 14 1⁄2 feet from the back of sidewalk to where the driver's eye would be. If sidewalk is not present, then it is 14 1⁄2 feet back from the edge of pavement. The address we're talking about does not have sidewalk. The neighborhood does not have sidewalk. So the driver's eye would be measured at 14 1⁄2 feet back from the edge of pavement. Then from that point, as you can see, you need a clear line of sight, 50 feet, looking both directions. The subject address has plantings in there that is limiting and reducing that line of sight. You also put into play that they're a double-frontage lot between Harborview and Oakwood. So you have any vehicle that could potentially be making an eastbound right off of Oakwood onto Harborview could come around the corner as they're attempting to back out of their driveway. Conflict point. Again, no sidewalks. Pedestrians, bicyclists, forced to use the road. So the point of reference, the sidewalk present, not present, is the same. The diagrams are the same. The only thing that is different is in the title block, residential driveway versus sidewalk traffic. Everything else is applied the exact same. No difference. And unfortunately, we are not able to update the transportation design manual or the code until 2027 because of the storms in 24. And the document that he was referencing in Chapter 138, the attorney referenced in Chapter 138, this was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. It is mentioned in Chapter 154, which is what we work out of, not 138. So, in my opinion, is it supersedes what he presented to you and that the violation still exists. Counsel, do you have questions? Yeah. Are we going to – so we're going to – yeah. All right. I guess my first question is, is there a ruling on the objection as to whether this report, the new report, is going to be admitted into evidence? It's going to be admitted into evidence for what it's worth. I think I've addressed, magistrate, the big difference here and its context. You know, the citizens of Pinellas County are entitled to know what is the requirement for their scenario. We didn't write the transportation design manual. I appreciate that the transportation design manual isn't necessarily going to have a diagram for every conceivable construction of a roadway connection. But this is clearly a different context than that diagram that's in the transportation design manual. And I think it doesn't mean that there isn't a site visibility requirement. It just means this diagram doesn't apply. And the numbers that are in that diagram shouldn't apply to this different context. I think the magistrate can still make a determination, you know, looking at the site based on the testimony of my clients as to the lack of an issue on the ground, et cetera, that there's not a site visibility problem. But, again, it's not my job. It's not my client's job to say here's the standard and here's the objective facts that show you didn't meet it. So I think at minimum, to meet their burden, the county needs to come in with something more than a site distance report that cites to the wrong standard, includes a diagram that we don't know where it came from, and the diagram itself is older than prior existing code that clearly differentiates between a driveway and an intersection of two roadways. All right. Anything further from the county? The county attorney's office has nothing else, but if staff has any additional information that the magistrate should consider at this time, they should present it for your consideration. Mr. Morrell, can I see that folder you said you had a copy? You have a table of contents in the front, right? You have a table of contents, I believe I saw. Counsel, would both of you come up here so I can ask a question? I have a question, and I'm looking at your eye, which purports an table of contents to be a current view of the landscaping. I'm looking at the pictures and stuff I have. This looks like a comparison. It is a comparison. Okay. That's exactly right. So the ones on the left are the county's pictures. Okay. The ones on the right are photographs that were taken after my client, not knowing what the standard was, still went out there and tried to remove some things from the area and comply. So those pictures, I believe, were in August, the ones that we, the comparison photos. If anything is, anyone speaking has to go in the microphone so we know. There are some full-page photos. I think they may be looking at them now or taken in the last few days. Another copy of the binder if you don't want. Thanks. Anything further from the county? Yes, Mr. Manager, I just wanted to present you with this as well. This is, and you can take a look at it, sir. This is Tim Walker who performed the original site distance evaluation back in April. Because of the last hearing, we were informed that the parcel owner had did some remediation, some trimming, removal to try to open up the line of site. So we had staff go out, same staff member go out, lay out the site triangle once again. This was done, as you can see, September 22nd, just this week. And as you go through, same measurement, 14.5 feet for the driver's eye. The first, the page that I'm showing here is from the driveway to the south, the neighbor's driveway. You can barely see the cone at the 50-foot mark. If this vegetation is not maintained, first, if you look at the diagram back here, you're supposed to have a clear line of sight from the 2-foot to 8-foot for the crown tree. That is not present today in this photo because of how full the vegetation is, how thick it is. So I do not believe that sufficient trimming and trying to clear it out and open it up was completed accurately. Again, you look at here, this is from the subject driveway, the owner's driveway. Again, you can barely see that. You give that a week, a couple weeks, this vegetation has grown back in. We're back to the exact same concern, the exact same issue as what we're here for today. Okay, we're just going to be repeating this process, which is a burden on the county. It's a burden on the taxpayers in general. Go to the next page. The sign-up line of sight, virtually impossible, not obtained. You do not see a cone. It's obscured due to the palms and vegetation. This is from the northern part of the circular driveway. Again, barely obtained. Still, vehicular, pedestrian, line of sight issue. There is a concern. It puts the county at risk. We knowingly know the vegetation was planted in the right-of-way. It does not meet the current requirements. Therefore, it shall not be there. Here's new plantings. And there's been other new plantings that have been installed at this property in the public right-of-way since. So this report, again, is premised on this diagram from 2017, which has not been ever approved or incorporated in any way into the ordinances or into the traffic design manual. Now, these photos assume that the standard is the intersection standard of 50 feet, which we know doesn't bear any resemblance to what used to be the case prior to the transportation design mode in the ordinance itself. And you look at these photos, they're taking 14 and a half foot back into the driveway. But who stops 14 and a half feet back in a driveway to look down the road to see who's coming? This isn't an intersection. There's not a crosswalk. There's not stop bars at a stop sign. There's not things that are preventing you from pulling up. And even from this viewpoint, you're going to see a car coming down that road. This one's actually great, this figure five, because you see the car coming down the road. So, again, what is the standard for driveways, what is safe, and does my client's property meet it? We don't even know the first part of that, of what is the standard to be safe. If you look at the prior ordinances, it's far less than what the county is asserting here today. It's a fit. It's 10 feet previously. Now they're saying it's 50 feet. It sounds like they would like to update the traffic design manual. But they're here today, and they're relying on this diagram that doesn't depict the situation that you're being asked to decide, is this or is this not an unsafe obstruction of the sight lines at this property? We think the county has not met its burden. I would encourage the magistrate to decide the matter. If needed, my clients are here and can provide testimony. Anything further from the county? Sir, I just want to reiterate, again, the two diagrams that I showed side-by-side previously. Again, you look at the point of reference, the points of measurement, the 14 1⁄2 feet back, the 50 feet. The only thing that is different between the two diagrams is a title in the subject, the header box. It says sidewalk traffic versus driveway. That's the only difference. When you are applying it for safety, the distance, the measurements, the offset is the exact same from diagram to diagram. So whether we applied diagram A versus diagram B and we go out there, we're still going to be using the same exact points of reference, the same measurement. If it would also be helpful, we have Tom Washburn. He is our traffic engineer for Public Works. He also has reached out to FDOT. They confirmed that they apply an intersection, a roadway, and a driveway the same when they are doing their line-of-sight evaluations. So if any additional testimony from Mr. Washburn you think would be helpful for you to make a judgment on this, Mr. Washburn is here to present. All right. Let's hear from Mr. Washburn. And I'm not sure if he was – do you know if he was sworn in? Okay. Good afternoon, magistrate. After our last hearing, we did some research, and I've got some information to share. So I did reach out to FDOT, asked them if they – how they applied intersections versus driveways versus interchanges to the sightline standards. So this is a response from their access management engineer in District 7. They referenced the Florida Green Book at that reference here. So what I've got highlighted is right out of the Florida Green Book standard. Requirements and design criteria contained in this section are applicable to all driveways, intersections, and interchanges. The last bullet discusses sight distance. So in terms of roadway versus roadway intersection, roadway versus driveway intersections, they apply the standards the exact same way. Same question from a different source. They referenced the criteria in the Florida Design Manual. Again, they note that sight triangles are applied, whether it's a driveway or an intersection. This is the reference from the Florida Design Manual. What I've got highlighted illustrates clear sight triangles for intersections and driveways. I don't know if you can see it in here if we zoom in, but that 14 1⁄2 foot reference from the back, from the edge of the through travel to the reference point is the exact same 14 1⁄2 foot dimension that we apply. Let me see the – so, and just to tie it together with our transportation design manual, we do reference in the design manual any place that we don't provide the dimensional requirements. We've got references that we rely upon, the two references that we just cited, we do include in the transportation design manual. So we tie all of these references together. Can I use those, please? Sure. I don't know if you brought me copies. Okay, so this is the FDOT design manual. First of all, this is a manual for state roads. We're talking about county roads. If you look in the county ordinances, it doesn't incorporate the requirements of the FDOT design manual to county roadways. So it's completely inapplicable. Second, if you look at this, this is a demonstrative figure. If you look down further, it provides differences for two-lane undivided meeting, two-lane with left-turn lane, four-lane undivided, four-lane undivided with left-turn lane. These are all different roadway types, which is important because there are distinctions, critically, between roadway connections. If you look and find it, a provision that says... You can just move the microphone from your jacket. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. It's okay. There's a provision that says these requirements and these calculations are only for roadways that are greater than 40 miles an hour. We're dealing with a 25-mile-an-hour residential roadway here. And if you look in the code, what it says is that the transportation design manual applies. The transportation design manual is not this. I'll find that and get it to you. Anyway, this is a new argument that's being presented. I did spend a good bit of time looking through this design manual. Nowhere in the code or in our transportation design manual will you find anything that says that the requirements for sight lines in the FDOT design manual apply in this case. We do have that covered, sir. I just showed you in the design manual we referenced both of these documents. He is correct that the FDOT design manual applies to state roads. The FDOT green book applies to county roads. I also showed that reference. And the point of the documentation is to show that the intersection of a roadway versus a roadway, roadway versus a driveway, the sight lines, that design criteria is measured the exact same way. That's not been the case historically. Thank you. Anything further from the county? Council, anything further on behalf of your clients? Yes, my clients would like to address the magistrate. Can you tell the magistrate when you purchased this property? In April, 2025. In April, 2025, was there landscaping in the right-of-way between the driveway entrances in your property? Yes, there was. Okay. Now to exhibit R, which I think I swapped these exhibits. This is a Google Earth photo. It's dated down here, March of 2025. Does that depict how the area appeared when you purchased it in 2025? Yeah, a little more even more over. And those trees that are there, the two foxtail palms, have they been there a while? I've got an exhibit P. This is a Google Earth photo from 2008. It's January of 2008, so I just want to show you the timeline that we're dealing with as far as how long this landscaping bed, including the two foxtail palms, have been in place here. After you purchased the property, did you make any changes to the landscaping? And I'm talking about just the landscaping that's along Harborview Lane that's at issue in this case. We cleared all that out because you didn't. Okay. You took out some of this vegetation that was there. And did you then add some additional vegetation in? For the record, we don't have, we live there. We don't have any problem. I talked to our neighbor next door yesterday. He doesn't have, we have no problem with line of sight. We don't have any problem when we stop before we pull out our driveway. And furthermore, when nobody's mentioning, dead in front of our home is a stop sign. Right dead in the front of our home. So anybody driving down that street is either going to slow down and stop or, and there's no sidewalks. So when there's no sidewalks, even in their design manual, we don't even have a requirement. There's, even though we're careful, there's not even a pedestrian requirement. There's a vehicular requirement for line of sight. But they don't even have sidewalks in there. We're careful because it's our neighborhood. None of this started, none of it, until we complained about the safety on the bridge. I'm going to get there. Is this a photo that accurately depicts how the property appears now? No, there's less trees now. Okay, recently. Do you recognize this photo? Is this a photo that you took earlier this week? Okay, does this depict the front entranceway of your home? So you've removed them from the earlier photo, you removed some of the shrubs here. Were those blocking sight lines before? Could be construed that way. So if it even, we thought if it had any to block it, we blocked either. These current plantings, they appear to be further back away from the roadway than what was there when you first bought the property. Is that accurate? The trees, they've already grown up above where some of those utility lines are hanging. Is that right? That's correct. And I personally called Duke Energy myself and asked them to come out for engineering to come out and address the safety in the trees after the last hearing. And they came out and they actually marked the road for us and told us it's clear they don't have any. That happened since the last hearing? Since the last hearing. Okay. Have those trees ever interfered with these electric lines? You mentioned that your neighbor had never complained about sight lines. Has anybody else ever complained? Guests to your home? Anybody else? No. We're struggling. The petitioner is. Who it is, that's complaint. And there is, we've done the formal requirement based on this here. When we were in the first hearing, they told us where to look it up in the record. We inquired. There is no complaint on record. The county has not been able to demonstrate a complaint even to initiate this. Was there a bridge project that was ongoing near your home? Yes. And was that a bridge project that was being undertaken by Pinellas County Public Works? Yes, it was almost five years it took for them to be. And Public Works is the department that made the initial complaint in this case, correct? Yes. The person who runs Public Works is in our neighborhood. She lives two streets away. And when we complained, we literally, it was ours, right away responded by having them show up and start to threaten to remove and we're going to cite you and all got the direct response to our complaint to misleading. Okay. Did you receive, after you made those complaints to Public Works, did you receive what's, I think, commonly called a red tag from Public Works? No, Public Works doesn't do red tag. Code enforcement is supposed to be doing red tags. Public Works is empowering themselves by doing what they call a red notice. Red notice. Okay. So it's something that isn't in the bylaws anywhere. It's not in any kind of, it's a self-empowered, self-little system that they have created for themselves. And did you get a red notice at any time before you started making complaints about the bridge? Eventually, you received a notice of violation from code enforcement, right? Was that in March of this year? And I might add, as a matter of procedure, 165, I believe it's 165-12, that code enforcement officer is supposed to be here. And that code enforcement officer is supposed to be in this procedure and supporting this so that we know he validated this ordinance and did all this wonderful stuff. And it seems this procedure seems to be a little out of the norm here because there's nobody here. And we went down to code enforcement. After you received the notice of violation, did you contact the code enforcement office? I'm showing now a letter that's drafted from Mr. McLean on behalf of McLean Children 1. Is this a letter that you sent? Yes, it is. And that's to Mr. McDermott? And in this letter, you're asking him to explain to you, I think, why and what is the basis for the violation. Is that accurate? You sent another letter on April 6, 2026. This one was to the code enforcement office. It's addressed to Mr. McDermott. Yes, Mr. Schlein. That's right. I'm sorry, I read the CC of the other one. This one's to Mr. McDermott. And I'll let the letter speak for itself, but it's the same general substance of what's the issue. Did you get any information in response to that? They couldn't answer any questions. And they sent you to where? We already went over a little bit of what has been removed. And with the existing condition, literally half our community, Your Honor, half our community, as our same scenario, or worse. Including Ms. Kelly Levy's home, which doesn't have eight-foot clearance. Did you communicate with Ms. Levy? Tell us who Ms. Levy is. It's the director of public works. Kelly Levy is who you're referring to when we say Ms. Levy. Okay. Did you send Ms. Levy emails with your complaints about the bridge project? And you were quite critical of Ms. Levy. I'm going to sustain the objection. The bridge issue isn't really relevant to me. We will, I want to state for record, the relevance would have been efforts by public works to retaliate against my clients due to these complaints. But I will move on. Did you visit the Code Enforcement Office on June 1st, 2026? Yes. What was the purpose of that visit? Did you also talk with Code Enforcement about this matter at that meeting? We did nothing. When I was to question what was going on with the back end of the book, the only thing that they could was full document that there was. So we thought because it showed at the time. After that meeting, did you then get an email from Ms. Levy? And was it concerning your visit to the Code Enforcement Office? It was. Do you know how she was involved in this matter or why? A few days after that meeting is the date of the initial request for a Code Enforcement hearing, correct? 3rd of June to remove landscaping at the bridge. We did not have to do it. And then right after that, someone put a petition to do a special magistrate hearing for the front of the property, which had been dormant since. When did you first get the April? Sight distance report. Was that this packet that's in our binder as Exhibit A, a notice of hearing? Yes. Okay. And what did you notice about the sight distance report? I noticed that the diagram was off, and it was done after we received the original violation. Have you ever received any documentation of how the county knew there was an alleged violation, even if we accept their standard prior to April? The one that's really trying to get clarification is because when we were originally notified, they gave us an abbreviated ordinance where they left out exception. Our applicable exception is just the landscape. For landscaping. Right. They left out the abbreviation. Or they left out the exception. After the initial, I think it was July 20th, is that the correct date for the initial hearing? Yes. Did you reach out to code enforcement again to try and get clarity on what the standard was and what you needed to do to meet it? Yes, we did. We asked somebody to come out. Public Works said they came back out, but they didn't need the courtesy to call us, let us know. We had met with them, done any of that. Crickets. You've mentioned now that there are other properties in the community that are similar to your property. Is that right? We modeled ourselves. Magistrate objection. It's selective enforcement. I'm going to sustain the objection. We're not here about what other properties do. Is there anything else? Talk about safety as well. Not about what other properties do, but we're talking, Mr. Tipton mentioned about the impact to Public Works as well as Florida, of course, voting for enforcement for safety and maintaining. Everybody, 21 homes on our property, I know you don't want to hear it, but 21 homes on our property have worse. We can't see. Nobody has been cited like this. They're not making. I've already upheld the objection to that. But we have done everything that we could to comply. They don't work with us. All we get information that's incorrect or partial or it's biased. And we feel that we have been retaliating against, even though we have tried our best to comply, even though we don't know what we're doing wrong. Also note, I don't think there are any staff engineers here or any of that effort. These are licensed drawings. I'm a builder, Your Honor. If I tried to take a drawing that was handed in and try to substitute a drawing like they tried to do from a roadway to a driveway, I'd be laughed out of the permit department. It's not applicable, any of that stuff that they presented. All right, thank you. Anything further from the county? Just closing remarks. All right, anything further except for closing remarks? No. All right. Magistrate, closing remarks from the county. A couple things. We presented you with the April sight distance to the September, three days ago, the 22nd of September. The compliance is not there. It's clear. It's evidence. The line of sight is still reduced. It's restricted. The fact of the matter we're here arguing about overall safety just blows my mind. It blows my mind. As well as the statement that there is no specialist, no engineers. Mr. Washburn just stepped up. He was introduced as Pinellas County's traffic engineer. So that statement is false. Five minutes ago. That just happened. So the back and forth. I don't know what else to say other than we're looking for compliance. The compliance is not there. The original complainant was Sharon Morris, which is a Pinellas County Public Works road and bridge inspector. She was out there to look at a drainage complaint on a curb, and she identified it. Her previous role prior to that position, she was a traffic inspector, the same as Mr. Tim Walker, who performed the line of sight. So she had the history to identify that it was a sight line issue. She brought it to our attention at that point. That's how it came across. It did not come from Ms. Kelly Levy. It had nothing to do with Ms. Kelly Levy. It came from another individual within Public Works that was out there for a service request for a curb issue. All right. Does that conclude the county's closing statement? Yes, closing statement, but the county would, in summation, we are asking for the magistrate to issue an order to have the property brought into compliance. The county is asking for the allowance of 30 days to comply and is still found in violation. In lieu of fine, we are asking for the magistrate to sign an order for us to remediate the property and bring it into compliance. The cost of remediation will be charged back to the property owner, will be invoiced back to the property owner. If that goes unpaid, then there will be a lien against the property. Thank you. Counsel? Majestic, the only evidence that the county has presented to you are these sight distance reports that are based explicitly on their face on a diagram that does not exist in the transportation design manual where the report says that they arose from. The county has the burden to show, in the absence of a diagram, what is the proper and applicable standard. In the past, the county has recognized the standard for driveways and roadway connections are different from the standard for roadway to roadway connections, and I think for very common sense reasons. So the county has not met its burden. In addition to that, my clients believe that their due process rights have been violated by the fact that there is no published standard. When they've asked for the standard, they've been given reports that have a standard that doesn't exist. There's no report that's been authored where the county explains why they believe that the roadway intersection is the applicable standard and measures it out. So my clients have also, if you've heard testimony, on numerous occasions sought to just have somebody come out and tell us, you know, what the standard is and what needs to be removed, and they just can't get that. And instead, we've had, now this is the third hearing that they've had, two of them they've had to pay me to come here, and I was sort of flabbergasted, actually, when after last hearing, when there was an acknowledgment that our report is based on a diagram that doesn't exist, at least not in the adopted standards, that they came back this month with the same diagram that doesn't exist and still can't point us to what is the standard, what is the rationale that really makes sense in the context of a residential driveway on a residential street. And they have the burden of proof to do that, they haven't met it, and so the magistrate should find that there is no violation. If the county believes that this is really an unsafe condition, that there is a violation, you know, show us. Show us your work, show us what the standard is, where you got it, why it's unsafe, et cetera. Don't pull a diagram that you say is the sole basis, you know, and really shows what the standard is for the case, but that doesn't apply at all. I'm going to skip my arguments, although we were intending to put on more evidence about, you know, what we think is some retaliatory nature of the enforcement. But I think you look at the county's actions of promulgating these notices and reports, too, now, you know, one time's a mistake. The second time, you really start wondering what's going on here. And you compare that to my clients who have written, called, gone to the office, they've tried to get the information of what's the standard, what do we need to do to bring up property compliance. And as you've just heard, I don't know if the county's still maintaining that the power lines are an issue, but these trees, you know, they're dang near 20 years old. They're grown up over where they would be interrupting the lines if they were going to, and they're not. They're actually, you know, planted in front of them. They're growing away from them. So there's no evidence of any sight line issue. There's no evidence of any interference. Oh, and as my client said, apparently Duke Energy has come out and wrote clear and paint out on the pavement around this area. So I don't think that's an issue at all anymore. We'd request that the magistrate find no violation, that the county's not met its burden, and let my clients go about their business. Okay. Thank you. All right. I'm going to make a finding of fact that there was a violation of Code Section 154-231. I am going to find that the property has now been brought into compliance, and I'll make no further order on the matter. All right. Any other county attorney matters, we've completed the docket. The hearing will be adjourned. Communications, please stop recording. Thank you.