Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hearing Summary 2025 09 08 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Special magistrate orders compliance, fines and administrative costs in multiple Saint Pete Beach code cases
Summary
At the Sept. 8 special magistrate hearing, multiple properties were found in violation or in compliance with orders; magistrate assessed fines, administrative costs and continuances for several cases.
Get email alerts on the Hearing Summary 2025 09 08 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The special magistrate’s Sept. 8 code-enforcement hearing in Saint Pete Beach produced a string of rulings: properties were found in compliance in some matters and assessed fines or administrative costs in others, while one case was continued to Oct. 6 for status review.
Erica Augello, the special magistrate, heard presentations from code enforcement staff and property representatives and issued written orders to follow. Pete Doer, the city’s code enforcement manager, and Ayaka Ruckshell of the city’s code enforcement team presented staff findings in several matters.
Key outcomes included: - Lake Merrick Partners LLC (636 Corey Ave., case 20250185): The magistrate found the property remained in violation and assessed a $250-per-day fine beginning Aug. 16, 2025, until compliance, plus $330 in administrative costs and recording fees if necessary. City staff reported no permit had been applied for as of the hearing.
- Fresh Development LLC (6800 Sunset Way, case 20250231): The magistrate found the property compliant as of Aug. 29, 2025, but assessed $250 per day from Aug. 16–Aug. 29 and $330 in administrative costs, because the permit was obtained after the original compliance date.
- Hagan Trust / All Over Solutions LLC (case 20250010): The property sold on Aug. 12; purchaser John Kramer of All Over Solutions LLC said he promptly engaged contractors to clear overgrowth and apply for demolition and construction permits. The magistrate closed the case for the prior owner, found the property in compliance for the new owner, and assessed $330 in administrative costs to be assumed by the new owner.
- Starlight Tower Inc. (case 20250211): The magistrate found compliance as of Aug. 6, 2025, and assessed $330 in administrative costs but no daily fines. Edward Wolf, a unit owner and board member, said the association would pay the administrative fee.
- 333 Capital LLC (case 20240470): A carport and painting had been completed, but substantial outdoor storage — including kayaks and surfboards — remained. The magistrate found substantial but not full compliance and assessed $50 per day starting Aug. 16, 2025, until compliance, plus $330 administrative costs. The magistrate specified kayaks and surfboards as inappropriate outdoor storage and directed removal of recent concrete blocks and construction materials.
- Gulf West Properties LLC (7060 Boca Ciega Drive, case 20250388): Staff recommended $500 per day for a repeat violation but the magistrate assessed $250 per day from June 19–June 24, 2025 (six days) plus $330 administrative costs and any necessary recording fees, noting this was a repeat matter with prior violations in 2023 and 2024 and warning that future repeats could lead to higher fines.
- Parkshore Investments LLC (case 20240584): The city reported an after-the-fact permit application was denied by the fire department for missing information and remained in review; staff sought $250 per day from Sept. 3 and administrative costs. Emma Gammes, the registered agent, said new permit material had been submitted and the case was in active review; the magistrate left the matter pending and required updated contact information.
- Several vegetation and debris matters (including cases against Matthew Getz, Mara Martin and others) resulted in orders giving owners 14 days or more to remove debris or maintain landscaping, or in fines of $250 per day plus administrative costs where no contact had been made.
Augello consistently distinguished between discussion, directions to staff or owners, and formal orders. In cases where a permit had been applied for and later approved, she typically assessed administrative costs but reduced or declined daily fines. Where staff reported no contact or no permit activity, she imposed daily fines and directed recording fees and administrative costs as appropriate.
The magistrate set a status conference for Oct. 6, 2025, for several matters and directed the city to issue written orders reflecting the day's rulings.

