Special magistrate continues several St. Pete Beach code cases, fines short-term rental operator $6,000

A special magistrate hearing in St. Pete Beach on Jan. 9 addressed a series of code-enforcement cases arising mainly from storm damage and short-term rental complaints. The magistrate continued one commercial case to Feb. 10 after an attorney requested a continuance for health reasons and the magistrate disclosed a perceived conflict; the city had no objection. Several other property owners received short extensions to obtain or apply for building permits, while one respondent was assessed fines for short-term rentals.

The hearing opened with a continuance in City of St. Pete Beach v. Bayside Shops LLC (case no. 20240475). The magistrate said an email and voicemail from the property owner’s attorney, who cited health reasons, asked for a continuance, and the magistrate disclosed a perceived conflict involving a shared temporary employee and said the case would be continued to a date certain. “I will go ahead and continue that to the February 10th, 2025 special magistrate hearing at 10 AM,” the magistrate announced. The city stated it had no objection and will reschedule once an alternate special magistrate is available.

Several property owners whose permits were under review received short extensions to allow the city’s backlog from recent storms to clear. In City of St. Pete Beach v. Patrick Thomas McNulty and Annette Weiss McNulty (case no. 2024-0089), the magistrate continued a compliance deadline and set a hearing for April 14 after the respondent said the driveway impervious-surface-ratio (ISR) calculation required correction; the respondent asked for 60 days to refile the permit application and the city did not object. In City of St. Pete Beach v. 1008 Airport Road LLC (case no. 2024-0157), the city reported a new survey had been uploaded on Jan. 9 and was under review. The magistrate granted a two-week extension for issuance of the dumpster-enclosure permit and said the matter would return on Feb. 10 for possible imposition of fines if the permit was not issued.

Several storm-related repair cases were continued for status review rather than immediate fines. In City of St. Pete Beach v. Thomas M. Cudahy Revocable Trust (case no. 20240287), where an after-the-fact permit was sought for a backyard tiki hut, the magistrate granted a 30-day extension and scheduled a status hearing for March 10; the respondent said the house had been rendered uninhabitable by the storms and he was seeking contractors for removal. For multiple properties where unpermitted drywall or other repairs were documented after storms, the magistrate found technical violations of permit requirements but scheduled status checks rather than imposing daily fines immediately. In particular, cases involving post-storm repairs at addresses including 100 Third Ave. (Thomas Simmons), 423 85th Ave. (John O. Kylie and Constantinos Varsakis), and other storm-affected properties were set for a May 12 status hearing to allow owners and the city to pursue appeals, engineering reviews, or after-the-fact permits.

The magistrate imposed a monetary penalty in one case involving short-term rentals. In City of St. Pete Beach v. Kimberly Pipemeyer (case no. 20240502), the city presented evidence of seven short-term stays advertised online at 504 70th Avenue and recommended fines of $1,000 per stay. Kimberly Pipemeyer told the hearing she bought the property in December 2023 and listed it in April 2024, saying she misunderstood the local code’s limit on short-term occupancy. The magistrate found violations were “irreversible or irreparable” and imposed fines for six verified short-term stays, totaling $6,000, plus $325 for administrative costs; one review was excluded because it was written by the owner and no payment was charged. The magistrate said an order for that fine would be issued.

In another matter, the city withdrew its notice of violation for 6439 Second Palm Point (Donald R. Flassing trustee and Julia L. Durham trustee, case no. 2024-0557) after the city’s certified-mail notice was returned as undeliverable following storm-related mailbox loss. The city told the magistrate it would withdraw the violation but asked the owners to obtain an after-the-fact permit for a water-heater replacement; the magistrate accepted the withdrawal and directed the parties to coordinate with city staff on permitting.

A multifamily property case about storm debris at 141 72nd Avenue (case no. 2024-0636) was resolved with a determination that the property returned to compliance on Jan. 9; because the city does not pick up storm debris from multifamily properties, the magistrate declined to assess running daily fines but imposed the city’s $325 administrative fee.

Throughout the hearing the city’s code-enforcement staff and permit administrators told the magistrate that storm-related staffing shortages and a backlog had delayed permit reviews. City staff repeatedly emphasized the immediate goal was obtaining after-the-fact permits or showing good-faith progress toward permits; the magistrate repeatedly scheduled future status hearings to track progress rather than immediately imposing fines where owners showed steps toward compliance.

Orders and specific deadlines will be mailed to the listed contacts in each case. Several matters were set to return to the special magistrate calendar on Feb. 10, March 10 or May 12 for status checks or further action, depending on each property’s progress toward permitting or compliance.