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 motions and outcomes were entered by the magistrate from the hearing record; where the transcript specified a start date for fines or a status hearing date, that date is included. If a detail was not specified in the transcript, it is noted as not specified.

Votes at a glance

- Case 20250504 — lien‑reduction request (agenda note): continued to Dec. 8, 2025. (city requested continuance)

- Case 20250069 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Annie Nguyen & Jimmy Truong (20555 Fifth Avenue): magistrate found continued violation; ordered fines of $250 per day beginning Sept. 19, 2025, until compliance; awarded $330 in administrative costs and any recording costs if a lien is needed.

- Case 20250426 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Marilyn Rymar (5404 Pally Way): city reported repairs and a construction fence; magistrate found the property in compliance, assessed $330 administrative cost only; no fines.

- Case 20250394 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Martin Mara (6802 Gulf Winds): magistrate found property noncompliant and ordered $250 per day beginning Sept. 24, 2025, until compliance; assessed $330 administrative cost and any recording costs if necessary.

- Case 20240193 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Brightwater Beach Condo Association (50 Fifth Avenue): failure to obtain after‑the‑fact permit for a vinyl fence around a dumpster enclosure; magistrate ordered $250 per day beginning Sept. 16, 2025, until compliance; assessed $330 administrative cost and any recording costs.

- Case 20250220 — City of St. Pete Beach v. (mister) Starkis: status hearing; property owner reported insurance delays and structural damage/mold. Magistrate continued to Nov. 10, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. (status hearing) and directed owner to use good‑faith efforts to secure either an insurance resolution, contractor estimates, a demo permit or demo plans; no fines assessed at this hearing.

- Case 20250185 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Robert Ruhlman (401 Gulf Way): city reported compliance; magistrate found property in compliance and assessed $330 administrative cost only.

- Cases 20250312 / 20250417 / 20250418 — City of St. Pete Beach v. SunGold LLC (consolidated): city reported compliance for consolidated cases; magistrate found properties in compliance and assessed a single $330 administrative charge for the consolidated order (one administrative fee for the consolidated cases).

- Case 20250420 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Kenneth Huttman (2893 West Divina Del Mar): retaining wall not addressed; magistrate ordered $250 per day beginning Sept. 3, 2025, until compliance; assessed $330 administrative cost and any recording costs if required.

- Case 20250341 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Scott & Lisa Shaming (2817 Passagirl Way): no driveway permit application filed by the compliance deadline; magistrate ordered $250 per day beginning Sept. 16 (date in prior order referenced) until compliance and assessed $330 administrative cost and any recording fees.

- Case 20250299 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Babette Simon (305 Gulf Way): city reported after‑the‑fact permits obtained for garage doors and AC repair; magistrate found property in compliance and assessed $330 administrative cost only.

- Case 20250002 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Marilyn L. Nolan Revocable Trust (103 First Avenue): city reported compliance; magistrate found the property in compliance and assessed $330 administrative cost only.

- Case 20250538 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Passagrel Beach Condo Phase 1 Association, Inc. (709 Gulf Way): issue cited was beachfront lighting (turtle‑lighting season) and interior light bleed; magistrate allowed 14 days for interior light/TV “bleed” remediation (order to comply within 14 days, status on Nov. 10); if not complied, fines to be considered (city sought $250/day and $330 admin if noncompliant; magistrate gave 14 days and scheduled status check).

- Case 20250489 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Mark & Deborah Colburn (1803 Passagro Way): outdoor storage addressed but garage door remained boarded; magistrate ordered $250 per day beginning Oct. 11, 2025, until compliance and $330 administrative costs and any recording costs; respondent appeared and reported a permit application in hand — magistrate allowed 14 days for installation of a new garage door and set a Nov. status hearing if needed.

- Case 20250530 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Brandon & Alexandra Owens (3972 Poinsettia Drive): overgrown lot; magistrate ordered 7 days from the date of order to come into compliance and scheduled Nov. status hearing for fines if not resolved.

- Case 20250356 — City of St. Pete Beach v. (Juliet) Baranakota / Baranacato (500 Eighth Avenue): property in disrepair; owner indicated plan to demolish and provided one estimate; magistrate ordered application for a demolition permit within 30 days and scheduled Nov. status hearing to confirm the application had been submitted.

- Case 20250438 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Presentacion Faranda (536 Eighth Avenue): city reported large dead tree removed but debris remained and no post‑removal permit applied for; magistrate reserved ruling and requested a city legal memo within 3 days on whether the local tree‑removal ordinance complies with state statute; ruling reserved pending memo.

- Case 20250439 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Raymond & Esther Kenara (9145 Gulf Boulevard): city reported cleanup; magistrate found property in compliance and assessed $330 administrative cost; magistrate reduced the administrative charge to $150 based on testimony and circumstances.

- Case 20250444 — City of St. Pete Beach v. James & Aaron Maroli (60170 Seventh Avenue): overgrown property; magistrate allowed 7 days for compliance and scheduled Nov. status hearing for fines if unresolved.

- Case 20250486 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Richard & Barbara Schnackenberg (8040 Gulf Boulevard): property cleaned after notice; magistrate found property compliant and assessed $330 administrative cost only.

- Case 20250497 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Tricia Figgins (43470 Ninth Avenue): overgrowth; magistrate allowed 14 days for compliance and scheduled a November status check; fines and fees to be considered there if not resolved.

- Case 20250495 — City of St. Pete Beach v. James E. Strebler (Kon Tiki property, 41070 Third Avenue): arborist reported multiple dead trees; magistrate ordered removal of the identified dead trees within 14 days from the date of the order and scheduled Nov. follow‑up for fines if not removed.

- Case 20250505 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Nancy & William Howard (44580 Fourth Avenue): city reported property cleaned up after notice; magistrate found property in compliance and assessed $330 administrative costs only.

- Case 20250509 — City of St. Pete Beach v. Natalia Rutherford (50270 Ninth Avenue): construction debris removed per updated photos; magistrate found property in compliance and assessed $330 administrative cost only.

- Case 20250484 — City of St. Pete Beach v. John Scott Olsen Jr. (7921 Boca Ciega Drive): unregistered boat trailer/scooter/vehicle cited; magistrate ordered proof of registration or removal of unregistered vehicles within 14 days and scheduled Nov. follow‑up for compliance/fines if not remedied.

- Case 20250507 (repeat violations) — City of St. Pete Beach v. Karish (Karush) Bakhtiarian (2606 Passagro Way): short‑term rental violations alleged by multiple online booking reviews; city sought $1,500 per repeat violation (three repeat violations listed, $4,500 total) plus $330 administrative cost. The owner provided documentary records and said an application for a grandfathered nonconforming use had been filed; magistrate continued the matter 30 days to the November hearing to allow the owner to work with city staff and provide documentation on the grandfathering application and tourist‑tax records. Magistrate warned that if grandfathering cannot be established, the citations will be evaluated under current code.

What this means locally

The magistrate’s orders emphasize that property owners bear responsibility for timely permit applications, cleanup and for notifying code enforcement when work is completed. Where owners face insurance or mortgage obstacles, the magistrate in several cases gave time to pursue insurance adjustments or demo‑permit applications rather than immediately imposing new fines. The city repeatedly sought the common administrative cost amount of $330 when work was completed after the initial notice. For owners who did not appear or who did not apply for required permits, the magistrate entered daily fines that will accrue until the property is brought back into compliance.

Ending

The special magistrate scheduled widespread status checks at the city’s November code‑enforcement hearing (noted repeatedly as Nov. 10, 2025) and left several matters continued to December where long continuances or lien reductions are pending. Property owners with outstanding orders were repeatedly instructed to notify the city’s code‑enforcement office when they are compliant so the orders can be recorded and fines halted.

(See the “Votes at a glance” list above for case‑by‑case outcomes and deadlines.)