Special magistrate issues fines, continuances and compliance orders in St. Pete Beach code-enforcement hearing

Erica Augello, the appointed special magistrate for the City of St. Pete Beach, presided over a code-enforcement hearing on Oct. 6, 2025, that resolved more than two dozen cases involving property maintenance, permits, tree removal and short-term rental rules.

Augello opened the session by reciting her authority under Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes and the City of St. Pete Beach Code of Ordinances and explaining procedure for testimony and evidence. City code-enforcement staff, chiefly Steven Rivera and Ayaka Ruckshell (listed in the record under variant spellings) presented cases; property owners and representatives appeared for several matters.

The hearing followed the agenda with staff presentations and testimony. For multiple properties the magistrate found violations of the city’s property-maintenance and nuisance provisions, ordered either fines at $250 per day from specified start dates until compliance or assessed administrative costs of $330 where owners had since remedied the violations. In a handful of matters the magistrate continued or reserved ruling to allow applicants to pursue permits, submit demolition applications, or to resolve long‑running administrative questions (including a request for a city memo on whether the local tree‑removal ordinance is consistent with recent state law changes).

Several case outcomes were routine: the magistrate found some properties now compliant and ordered only administrative costs; others remain out of compliance and were assessed daily fines beginning on dates tied to prior compliance deadlines. The magistrate repeatedly instructed respondents that it is the property owner’s responsibility to notify the code‑enforcement office when the property comes into compliance and, in at least one case, clarified that code enforcement — not the general city mailing — should be referenced in the orders. In one short‑term rental case, the magistrate continued the matter to allow the owner to pursue a pending “grandfathered” nonconforming‑use application and to provide missing documentation.

Courtlike rulings and procedural directions included: - Immediate fines at $250 per day were entered in multiple matters (examples below) beginning on specific dates set in earlier orders or the magistrate’s ruling; $330 in administrative costs was commonly assessed where the city reported compliance after the notice period. - Several matters were continued to the Nov. 10 or Dec. 8 hearings to allow property owners to apply for permits (including demolition or after‑the‑fact permits), demonstrate insurance action, secure contractor schedules, or pursue proof of grandfathered short‑term‑rental status. - In one matter involving beachfront lighting the magistrate allowed 14 days for the condo association to address interior light “bleed” that remains during the turtle‑lighting season.

Below is a case-by-case “Votes at a glance” summary capturing each case number, respondent, address (where reported), the magistrate’s action and key deadlines or amounts. All…