Madeira Beach magistrate issues deadlines and fines across multiple code‑enforcement cases; inspections and after‑the‑fact permits required

A special magistrate hearing in Madeira Beach ended Tuesday with a slate of compliance orders, fines and deadlines across a lengthy code‑enforcement docket that largely centered on post‑storm repairs, rental listings and unpermitted construction.

Key orders included a finding that the vacant property at 350 Boka Drive is a repeat violator; Deputy Cory Schneider testified the pool was “half full, green and black” and that the site contained extensive palm and tree debris. The magistrate found a repeat violation and ordered a $500‑per‑day fine to run from the date of inspection (May 18, 2026) until the property is brought into compliance.

The hearing also covered a series of proactive and complaint‑driven matters where city inspectors had identified interior remodeling and other post‑storm repairs advertised on short‑term‑rental sites or observed by code officers. Typical outcomes: the magistrate ordered after‑the‑fact permit applications, set 30‑ to 45‑day compliance deadlines and established per‑day fines where life‑safety concerns or active rentals were identified. Examples:

- 350 Boka Drive (case 2026.015): Repeat violation; $500/day from May 18, 2026 until compliance (magistrate order).

- 1416 North Beayshore Drive and 14016 North Bay Shore Drive: Code officer testimony described trash, inoperable vehicles and extensive debris; owners were given 30 days to comply or face fines generally proposed at $250/day.

- Short‑term rental/property repair cases (multiple addresses including 15403 Gulf Boulevard, 13105 Bokea Avenue, 13100 Bokea Avenue, 13123 4th St E): Officers found listing photos or contractor activity suggesting interior work was done post‑storm without permits. In most instances the magistrate ordered owners to apply for after‑the‑fact permits or remove unpermitted work, gave 30–45 days to comply, and set fines in the $100–$250/day range where the property was rented or posed life‑safety concerns.

City counsel and code specialists repeatedly said the city seeks safe, permitted repairs and that after‑the‑fact permits are the usual corrective action. Some property owners said they had relied on licensed private providers or state inspections; in one case (13100 Bokea Ave) the owner presented a Florida DBPR lodging inspection report and the magistrate continued the question of local rental‑license requirements to the next hearing for the city to research regulatory overlap.

What this means: Many owners must either obtain after‑the‑fact permits or remove unpermitted work within the deadlines set by the magistrate, or face accruing fines. Owners who believe their work was inspected and approved by licensed private providers or state agencies were told they must coordinate with city staff so an official city inspection and affidavit of compliance can be filed to clear the code record.

Representative quote from the hearing: Deputy Cory Schneider described the state of one property: “The pool was half full, green and black and numerous tree debris, dead palms, dead branches surrounded the property area.” Magistrate Valdez explained enforcement consequences repeatedly: “There’ll be a $500 per day fine based upon fact is a repeat violation and that fine will run from May 18th until the date [the property is] brought into compliance.”

How to follow up: Affected owners should contact Community Development or Code Compliance to confirm required permit packages; the magistrate instructed owners to return for old‑business dockets if technical delays prevent timely compliance.