Magistrate upholds Madeira Beach denial of permit to rebuild four‑unit property

A special magistrate in Madeira Beach on the record denied an appeal by property owner Samantha Alspaugh and upheld the city’s February 5, 2026 denial of a building permit to reconstruct a four‑unit (forplex) residence at 100B Street, saying the city code requires a business tax receipt or occupational license to be in effect at the time of the declared disaster.

The city’s planner, Joseph Petraia, told the magistrate the pre‑existing forplex was substantially damaged in the Sept. 26, 2024 declared disaster and that the permit denial rests on section 110‑95/110‑96 of the city code, which conditions a rebuild of certain nonconforming multifamily structures on a current business tax receipt or occupational license at the time of the disaster. Petraia said the structure was issued a demolition permit on March 5, 2025 and that staff could not find a code provision allowing retroactive acceptance of the business tax receipt.

‘‘The pre‑existing forplex . . . was assessed to be substantially damaged from the 2024 hurricanes,’’ Petraia testified during the administrative hearing, and the city’s packet included the relevant code excerpts and prior ordinances that added the BTR/occupational license requirement.

Appellant counsel Jose Spataro urged the magistrate to weigh equitable and proportionality concerns. ‘‘This is in essence a life sentence for a misdemeanor,’’ Spataro said, arguing the underlying municipal fee and inspection requirement (about $9.73 per rental unit annually plus a $70 inspection fee, by Petraia’s testimony) should not bar reconstruction after a catastrophic loss and that the owner had relied on city guidance during pre‑application discussions.

Alspaugh testified she had engaged the city beginning in November 2024, spent roughly $21,000 on initial mitigation and additional tens of thousands on plans and consultant work, and that she did not believe the code sections applied to her property. She told the magistrate she had worked with a contractor and an architect and had relied on city statements about what could be rebuilt.

Magistrate Bart Valdez said he found the city’s interpretation consistent with the plain language and intent of sections 110‑95 and 110‑96, noting those provisions pre‑date recent amendments and specifically condition the nonconforming‑use exception on the existence of the tax/license at the time of the declared disaster. ‘‘Based upon the plain language of the ordinance . . . I do find that the city was correct in saying that they cannot allow the nonconforming use to continue and be rebuilt as a forplex,’’ the magistrate said in ruling from the bench.

Valdez acknowledged the appellant’s hardships and said the ruling did not prevent the property owner from pursuing legislative change: the magistrate suggested the owner present concerns to the city commission or pursue administrative or judicial appeal. The city attorney will prepare a written order and provide copies to the parties by mail.

What’s next: The magistrate’s written order will be mailed to the parties and will be the operative determination for administrative‑appeal purposes. The appellant may request the city commission consider an ordinance change or pursue the judicial appeals available under Florida law.

Speakers quoted: Joseph Petraia (City planner); Jose Spataro (appellant counsel); Samantha Alspaugh (appellant/property owner); Special Magistrate Bart Valdez.