Code Enforcement - Regular Meeting

Okay. I'll call the meeting to order. The City Of Marco Island code enforcement magistrate hearings is, is open. It's called to order. Today is 01/27/2026, I think. Am I getting a ring back? Maybe it's just me. It's all in my head. Okay. Good morning.

My name is Robert Deeprett. I'm an attorney, and I will serve as the special magistrate today in all of the code enforcement hearings. My task is to hear testimony and take any other evidence to make findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence and then to make a determination of guilty or not guilty, and to issue an order based upon the evidence received today. Joe Natello is the city attorney who will be announcing the order of the hearings and will announce each case. I will then take testimony and evidence from the city's representatives, then from the respondent or the respondent's representatives.

By law, all testimony today must be taken under oath. So I will administer, the, oath now. So anybody who may wish to say anything at any hearing today, please raise your right hand. Okay. Sir. Same thing with the code enforcement officers. If if anybody's going to speak today, raise your right hands, and I'll give the oath. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give in any case today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. Okay.

Thank you. I think we're ready to I think we're just about ready anyhow to call the docket today. City of Barco Island versus Barco Custom Builders? Correct. And Al?

Okay. And are you here for that case, ma'am? Yes. Okay. We'll hear from the code enforcement officer. You have a right to cross examine the code enforcement officer or to present your own case. And I promise we'll hear from you also. Okay? Thank you.

Okay. Alright. So let's just call it. Let's let's do it so we can get this next lady out of here. If you don't mind.

Fine. I was what I was expecting.

I apologize for that. Keith Richter, Dakota Force from Marco Island. Magistrate, this is a, a change of magistrate order from, homeowner and contractor to just contractor.

Okay. And, this is an order that has been issued. Is that correct?

That's correct. Alright. I I can show you your original order. This was Morco Custom Builder.

And number three at the top, it says that the contractor and and owners jointly has double x's, or jointly and severally severally shall correct the violation within fourteen days, etcetera, or pay a fine. Is

that correct?

And that's what you wanna change?

Yes, sir. I wanna change that to, contractor only.

That is an option that's entirely up to the city.

Yes, sir. No. I agree.

No problem with doing that. Ma'am, do you anything else you'd like to say?

And I want to hear. Yeah. And the amount would be $200.

Okay. Yeah. I can't change the fines, the amount of the fines, or anything like that, but it is totally the option of the city as to whether it wants to proceed against the contractor. In this in this case, it's a contractor. It could be somebody only.

Yes, sir.

And the owner or just one or the other. And that's Yes. Certainly up to the city, and I have no problem with making that change.

Thank you, sir. Okay.

So done. So ordered. This this is a little bit unusual, in that I don't think I've seen this before, but it certainly can be done. Is everything okay with the clerk? Yeah. You're just changing it from a contractor and the owner to the contractor only. Thank you.

Next up is letter f as in Frank. No. I'm sorry. Correction. Sir, your case is closed. You pulled the permit.

No, I did not.

Okay. We'll call F as in Frank, 361 Meadowlark Court. That's case 251577.

My address. I have it as the the the permit from her.

Let's let's call the hearing. I'm calling f as in Frank.

This is versus John Menorath and wreck a demolition work without a permit. Right. And, sir, you're here on that case? No. No, sir. I'm not. Oh.

We don't we don't have

Well, that was issued from you guys.

No. I understand that. But you're not on the docket today.

I have it as a permit from her.

No. But this is this is not that case. It's not that that's their case is not on the docket.

What's next? That gentleman is just watching. We have

this Okay.

So just so you know, your permit was issued after the violation was cited. So we have to call your case. Okay? So we're gonna call letter r as in Romeo. 252294 is the case number for 994NorthBarfield.

Okay. And that's Zach Szymski. Handicap parking violation citation. R Romeo. Thank you.

Good morning, mister magistrate. My name is James Muldoon, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 994 North Barfield Drive, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On 12/01/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of handicapped parking, which is a violation of Marco Island code 50 dash 36 subsection a. I took pictures of the violation, is an accurate reflection of what I observed.

This is the sign at the head of the parking space. The van. The van is a work van, Southern Comfort Air. And this is the license plate of the van.

Can you go back

to that previous picture, please? Sure. Can you zoom can you zoom in on the the front tag? Scroll down.

It says New Jersey, I think.

Okay. New Jersey. I see.

And it has a purple heart on the front.

This is the license plate that was in the back of the van. I issued a parking citation for violating 50 dash 38 subsection a. And I posted on the windshield. This is the notice of hearing. Certified docs, and the response on the citation checked off for a hearing.

Can you pull that up? I'd like to see the capitalized paragraph. No. Up the other way. At the bottom. I wanna see the bottom. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

This gentleman has no previous history. He has the gentleman is here today. He did provide a defense package or letter that he sent in code. Saying that he parked the vehicle in that spot unintentionally. And he has provided a handicapped parking tag.

However, this is read out of the Cap parking tag. I just wanna point make note of the fact that it was issued on 12/05. My citation was on 12/01. That's all I have except that I would met like to make comment that at the time that I arrived at this location, I had a very nice conversation with a gentleman. I asked him several times to just move the vehicle. There were several other parking spaces available and that if he just moved the vehicle, there'd be no problem. He refused, and, I issued a citation. That's all I have.

Okay. Sir, would you like to Yes. Give your side of the story? Okay. Identify yourself. I assume you're mister Sikinsky. But go ahead.

Good morning, your honor. My first name is Zach, last name Sisemski. My business is located at 994 North Barfield Drive. I've been there for twenty nine years. The parking lot originally did not have any handicapped parking spots.

In the last, ten years, we have a new a new person that bought some property there or bought some warehouses. I've had constant feud with this gentleman. The parking spot that there that I was cited in, that parking spot is not legal. I've and I and I explained that to the officer who was giving me the summit. That parking spot was put in after we had a a repavement of the parking lot completely.

John Bowen, who's an owner of one of the of several units in that in our industrial park, decided to add that spot because one of his reasons is is that my truck, which was parked there for the last twenty years before a handicapped spot was put in that spot, was blocking people to view his storefront. And we bickered back and forth. And right after right after the pavement, he went and decided to put a handicap parking spot in that particular place. It has no rhyme or reason. Somebody got out if that is a handicap spot, and if somebody got out with a wheelchair, they'd fall into the grass.

If they got out on the left hand side, they'd fall in the grass. There there is no there is no easement for anybody even with a cane to walk up to any one of his storefronts because, first of all, they're not even handicapped storefronts. There's there's there's a stoop. How do you get in? His entrances are on the other side.

Now, the original the original scope of that property does show two part two handicapped spots, which were there when it when it when it was originally built. Those spots are properly marked. They're by a bathroom on each side and they're by walkways where somebody can walk without falling. That spot is not a legal spot. The other reason it's not a legal spot, and this is what I was trying to tell the officer, okay, is that it was put in without a permit.

I spoke to the city. My attorney spoke to the attorney of the Island Industrial Park attorney. Okay? Mister Pringle. My attorney spoke to him. And based on the information that we got, is that the city has no reference that there's even park handicap parking spots on that property. There is no reference. A permit was never taken out. According from what I understand, you need a permit in order to put even if it's so the two that are were always were there, okay, were there on the original drawing. That spot right there was never there.

So if it's a new spot and a new handicapped spot, a permit should have been pulled to the sit by the city, from what I understand. I've I've I've I've I've contacted several people in the city and the permitting department, and then the spot could have been put in. No permit was ever pulled. So technically, that's not a legal spot. Even though yes. Now, I do have a handicap, which I the other thing is I didn't have it on that day. I was waiting for for it to come in. I because I applied for a handicap. That came in three days later. As the officer pointed out, I've I received it on the fourth.

And I got the summons on the first. But technically, that is not a legal spot. It's not a legal spot today. It's not a legal spot. It doesn't have a permit, and it was never assigned by the by the city the city of Markle Island has no idea that that spot is there other than they came by afterwards and they apparently after after we paved it, because they did take out a permit to pave the lot. So they did come by after and they probably ran through. Figured that was always there, but it wasn't. It was never there.

Alright. Thank you. You're welcome. Any rebuttal from the city?

Yeah. I'd I'd like to call mister Muldoon again. Mister Muldoon.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

Did you

do any researching into the the pavement issue of this parking lot?

The parking lot was repaved, the entire parking lot. And in order to get it to have it repaved, they needed a permit. The building department said issued a permit for repaving.

Now were there were there requirements in order to successfully close the permit? Requirements regarding handicap spots?

The requirement regarding the ADA, when it was repaved, they made 51 parking spaces. And because it went over the limit, they had to have three parking spaces for handicap and one additional handicap parking space was added.

Now the the the picture that's on the screen now, do you are you familiar with that picture?

Yes, sir. I am.

How are you familiar with that picture?

I took that picture.

Okay. Now, is that a fair and accurate representation of the, the parking space and the conditions on the day that you took that picture?

Yes, sir. Okay.

I wanna direct your attention to the left of the van, to the left of the white grid striped parking space. You'll see some white concrete boarding the grass. What is that concrete?

That's a walkway up to the building.

Is it would that be considered a ramp? Or is that a stairs?

That is flat at the street. I believe what the gentleman is speaking about when you which is out of the picture. When you go up further towards the building, there's a slight curb.

Okay. But I'm I'm just asking about this this concrete here. Is that a do you understand what I mean by a ramp?

Yes,

sir. Okay. Is that a ramp?

I I have no comment on that. I can't really say what I mean, it it's it's just a a sidewalk that existed that was there. I didn't it I don't believe it was added.

I'm I'm not asking if it was added. I'm asking if it's a ramp.

I don't know. Alright. Alright.

Okay. Anything else? No. Could you go back to was there signage? I think there was a sign. Was there not?

That is the that is the sign you're referring to?

Is that sign in front of the It's of that particular parking spot?

Yes. It is, sir.

Alright. Anything else from either party? Sir, you wanna speak again? I'll let you speak again. Go ahead.

You could yes. You're pointing out the signage. Now from what I understand, and I spoke to our management company, the board never voted on this signage. This gentleman who owns that particular warehouse and store that's that's that we're we're seeing in the picture decided to go around and put the signage up on his own. There's no board member that ever allowed him to do that. The management company told me that directly. John was never allowed to do that, but he went around, got these lines, and put them up.

Okay. As to the documents that were submitted, do you have any objection to them being admitted into evidence?

No. Not at all.

Okay. They're admitted. Thank you. Yes. Thank you.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the date, and time it testified to. I conclude it's matter of law that the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinance of the city of Marco Island, so the finding is guilty. I'd like to talk about the, a proposed penalty in this matter. I see I think I saw somewhere that the, somebody can opt out of the hearing by paying the $250 fine and that the maximum fine can be $500. So what I would like is, first to hear from the city as to a recommendation for the fine.

And, sir, I'll give you an opportunity to speak also. But the finding is guilty. So

So the the city requests a finding effect and $50 administrative costs. That's it.

No fine? No fine. Sir, do you object to that? No. Well said. Thank you. Very smart. Yeah. Okay. That'll be my order then. $50 in cost. Sir, cost of prosecution is a cost that's based upon the the cost of having them come out and and, doing the inspection and so on. And that's it's a in in Marco Island, fortunately for you, it's a fairly minimal cost. So the the recommendation from the city, think, is very fair. And try not to do that again, though.

I know it's easy. My wife has a handicap sticker too and I forget to sometimes I forget to put it in the windshield and things like that. So, my gosh. So but please, it is kind of important. So thank you very much.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Alright. Next case. And thank you for your service. Sir, and thank you for your service.

Thank you. Alright.

Alright. Starting with letter a as in Alpha, please 231229700 Rockport Court.

Magistrate Keith Richter, Kona Force, Marco Island. I have four additional cases as in letter c where we wanna change, from owner and contractor to just contractor with the, magistrate orders as we did in letter c.

Since each case stands on its own, I we have to call each case and stand,

and Yes, sir.

Have the consideration of that. Sir, are you here on one of those cases?

I'm not.

Oh, no? Okay.

Letter a is 700 Rockport Court. I'm gonna show you our original magistrate order.

Could I see, the top of that? No. Oh, that wasn't it. Okay. I I was looking for number three there, I guess. Okay. So that's just so the contractor and owner jointly and separately shall correct all violations, etcetera, or or be a fine. And your rec your request is simply to take off the property owner take the property owner off of that portion of the order to amend the order there. Okay.

Yes, sir.

That's correct. I agree with that and approve. That is a an option that is up to the city. You're not adding any liability to anybody. You're just taking somebody off, and I have no problem with that. So that'll be the order.

Thank you. This will be LetterB240139.

This is 700 Rockport Court?

Yes, sir. Okay.

And I can take was looking at number one. I can take it that, you're asking that the property owner be removed from the order that the order be, amended, so as to remove the property owner. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay. That is certainly an option of the city, and the this does not add any liability to anybody. So I will agree with the order with the recommended with the request.

C is complete. This is LetterD24Dash1150. Again, we're asking that the homeowner be taking off and just the contractor.

That is an option of the city to remove someone from the order. So I will agree with that, and that'll be the order.

And finally, the Letter E, 761 Kendall Drive. Again, we were requesting to take the homeowner off the original order.

That, again, is, an option of the city. And the order can be amended to remove the owner.

That is all I have for those orders, sir.

So Mr. Magistrate, letter FAs in Frank, case 20Five-fifteen77 has been removed from the docket. Case is closed. So that'll bring us to g as in golf. Okay. Case 2520961599KicksambasCourt. Is it court?

K. I see one person here. Sir, are you here on any of the cases today?

I'm not. No.

Okay. Just I don't wanna keep asking every time, but, we we take, when when somebody is here for the case or respondent is here for the case, we try to take their cases first. So that's why I was asking. Thank you.

Mister magistrate, my name is James Muldoon, code enforcement officer with Marco Island PD. The address of the violation is 1599 Caxambas Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On 10/2725, I observed a code enforcement violation of dilapidated dock, which is a violation of Marco Island code 54 dash one one two subsection h. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed. I was shooting this from the street.

So with a little bit of long distance, it's a big vacant lot with a on a corner. When I show you the follow ups, it'll be a better picture of what I observed. But if you look at this picture, these are additional docks and boats from houses that are beyond this vacant lot. Right here is where the problem is with this dilapidated dock in this area here. Right in here.

This is a vacant lot that nobody there's no building structure on it. It's just this dock exists behind this vacant lot.

Before you move on from that picture, just wanna get clarification. That part that you were pointing to, is is that a displacement of the wood? Is is that the part that you're pointing no. That picture that picture, you're pointing to there.

There are missing planks.

Okay.

There. You can see it a little better on this picture. There are missing planks. I will show follow-up pictures that will show it much more clearly. Because

motors is on the dock further on. Right?

These are additional docks being on. Okay. From this angle, it's it's tough to see what I'm talking about. Subsequently, I got permission to walk on the next door lot. And I got a better angle of the dilapidated dock. And I'll show you that in the follow-up pictures. I issued a notice of violation for violating 54 dash one one two subsection h. I gave a compliance date of 12/2725.

Okay. Thank you.

Follow-up inspections were conducted on twelvetwenty ninetwenty five, onetwelvetwenty six and oneeighteentwenty six, which revealed that the location was still in violation and additional photographs were taken. Just to explain, again, I got permission on the next door to come onto their lot and take it from a different angle. And you can see it much better. Before, I was taking pictures from over here, which is a street sidewalk. So it a long it was kind of a long shot.

But here is the violation here. And over here, there are missing planks, as you can see, on the dock. And actually, the person next door was very upset about it because she had children and was afraid that they might wander onto the dock and fall into the water. These are the follow ups. See the plank missing over here. And then all those planks are missing. Unfortunately not.

I think the legal term is an attractive nuisance.

We

learned all about that in law school.

Is it notice of violation letter, affidavit of violation, notice of hearing, affidavit of posting.

Mister Maldino, I'm sorry. If I could just stop one second. Just looking at the top caption of the case, can you pull that page down a little bit so we can see the rest of the top? So just looking at the respondents, it's a trust in Toronto, Canada.

Canada. And that that's also why there are no certified mail docs because it you can't have certified mail docs when you're mailing to Canada.

Do do we have any anything showing that they were were actually mailed?

I defer to

okay.

Notice of hearing and the posting of hearing. And that's all I have, sir.

No indication that they were mailed at all like ordinary mail?

We didn't save anything. Is there anybody that can testify that they mailed it?

I'm

sorry?

Okay. That that's

that's what I was asking. And you're asking too, I guess. Go ahead. Indicate, for the record what you what you just said.

I put the letters in an envelope by a drop stick and sent

it to me, Neil.

Okay. So it was sent regular mail? Correct. Okay. Also,

there is no prior history.

K. Thank you.

That's all I have.

There's nobody here to respond to the case. You didn't receive anything from anybody. Is that correct?

I did not.

Alright. Based upon the I I'm I'm going to admit the exhibits into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence presented today. I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as described did exist on the dates and times and at the location indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that, the conditions are a violation or do constitute a violation of the codes of the city of Marco Island, so therefore, the finding is guilty.

What's the recommendation? City requests a $150 fine. $50 costs sixty days to obtain the permit and remove the dock or $100 per day fine.

The law requires me to consider the gravity of the violation, any attempts, if any, to correct the violation in any previous violations. Two out of three are pretty important, here because, this could be an attractive nuisance. And I know somebody would say, well, the kids would be the kids would be trespassing onto the property, and they shouldn't do that. And, again, that has been that has been litigated, also, the the law of attractive nuisance. So I I don't think that that could constitute a good defense anyway.

So, I think it's pretty serious. The recommendation is a $150 fine, and I agree with that. And sixty days to obtain a permit And remove the dock. And remove. Yeah. Normally, I wouldn't maybe I wouldn't do it that way normally. But, again, this is this could be something serious, whether it's these kids or somebody else. So I'll go along with the recommendation.

And if they don't do that within sixty days, then a $100 per day fine?

$100 per day fine for each day thereafter of noncompliance.

I just point out that this is the original notice of violation. And I put on it, you have sixty days to apply for and and obtain a permit to repair the

dock. Okay.

Okay. No. You want to use it.

Got it. Thank you. That's that is relevant, but but thanks for pointing that out. Okay. Do we have that? Does the clerk have that okay? Alright. Let's go on to the next case.

Letter h as in hotel has been closed as compliant. That's removed from the docket. So we're on letter I as in India. Case 252163561SouthCollierBoulevard.

Mister Miller, how are you?

Doing good, mister magistrate. My name, Gary Miller. I'm a code enforcement officer with the city of Mark Lyon Police Department. The address of the violation is is 561 South Collier Boulevard, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Mark Lyon. On 11/04/2025, I deserved a code enforcement violation of design regulations slash solid waste disposal, which is a violation of Mark Lyon codes thirty-six 24 Romeo one and thirty-ten 12 Bravo.

I took pictures of violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed on that day. You can see a it's a trash dumpster enclosure with the gate where you can see through to the trash dumpster, the Mark Wilde regulations say that the gate has to be vision obstructing or the dumpster inside of the container or the enclosure cannot be seen from neighboring properties from ground level. I I issued a notice of violation for violating 3624 Romeo 130 dash 1012 bravo and gave you a compliance date of 01/03/2026. And here's a photo of the notice of violation.

Okay. Do they need to get a permit to install that?

Not for just replacing the gates. No. Okay. Here is a picture of the notice of violation posting. Follow-up inspections were conducted on 01/04/2026 01/14/2026 which revealed that location is still in violation and here's a picture from the January 14 date.

Here is the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. And the certified mail document and five year history revealed no prior violations. And that is all I have.

Okay. I don't see anybody here to defend the case. Do you have anything? Have you had anything from anybody on that?

I have not received any contact.

Alright. The exhibits will be admitted into evidence. Based upon the testimony and evidence provided here today, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as described did exist on the dates and times and at the location indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Markel Island. Therefore, the finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation?

Yes. City recommends a $150 fine. $50 costs, sixty days to comply. Compliance being the addition of a front gate or something obstructing the view of that, or $100 per day fine.

I think that's fair, just, and reasonable, and clearly within the confines of the, state law, considerations, and therefore, will be the order.

Next up is Leonard

Oh, wait a minute. She had a, she has a question. Sorry. I I was I was reading your yeah. Okay. $50.50

and

what's the last part? That was $1.50. Go ahead.

A $150 fine, $50 costs, sixty days to comply, or $100 per day fine.

K.

Next case.

Next case is LetterJAsInJuliet, case 252193For 821 Elm. Is that court, Jim?

One second. Court. Thank you. Elm Court.

Because there could be two Elms. There could be two Colliers. Could be no. He doesn't answer. My

name is James Muldoon, code enforcement officer Marco Island PD. The address of the violation is 821 Elm Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island on 11/1725. I observed a code enforcement violation of public nuisance for torn lanai screen in Blackpool, which is a violation of Marco Island code 18 dash 36 subsection four. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed.

Is that the torn screen, that shadow on the left?

It's actually hard to see because there is no screen here.

Oh, okay.

If you look right here, you see the edges of a screen.

Right. That's what I was referring to.

A little better in this picture. You can see it over here. Porn. And again, there is the torn screen. Ed, you have the torn screen.

Thank you.

And at this time, the front door, the sliding glass door was actually left open. There's nobody in the house. I issued a notice of violation for violating 18 dash 36 subsection four, And I gave a compliance date of 12/02/2025. Posting. Follow-up inspections were conducted on twelvethreetwenty five, twelvetwenty sixtwenty five, onetwelvetwenty six, and onetwenty eighttwenty six, which revealed the location was still in violation.

This is the note of notice of code violation letter, certified mail doc, affidavit of violation, notice of hearing, affidavit of posting, and the posting of the hearing at the site, and there is no previous history.

I don't see anybody here, to defend. Did you receive anything from the No.

I did not.

From the owner?

I did not, sir.

From the alleged violator? Okay. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude as a matter of law that the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. I wanna make sure I understand. I saw that the pool was also kind of a mess, but that's

water in the pool, and it is a dark color.

Okay. But you didn't cite him for that. Right? This is

Well, it was part of the public nuisance. It's for torn lanai screen and What was that? Dark pool. It was on the NOC.

Was that specified, the the pool?

Yes, sir. So there's two

Maybe I missed your testimony on that. But

There's two aspects to the public nuisance. One is the the no screen enclosure. Right. Keeping it exposed for people to wander into it. And and number two is the condition of the water. Should somebody fall in, nobody's gonna see them at the bottom of that water.

Okay. I I didn't catch the part. Says the black pool. Is that what you're talking about?

Yes, sir. Okay. But yes. The black water in the pool, and I just stated black pool.

Our safety issue. Okay. So the conclusion is that the alleged violator is guilty of the violation. Do we have a recommendation from the city?

$150 fine, $50 costs, thirty days to comply, or $100 per day fine commenced.

The only thing I'm concerned about is if it's a if that screen is a safety issue, I wonder if we if that much time should be given for compliance, under the Pool Safety Act. You know, we any anything that allows somebody to get into a pool area pretty easily, is, considered kind of serious.

Where are the owners, mister Muldoon? Are they are they living in that house? Or are they

There does not appear to be any vacancy in the house. There's no people that I could see. So no In all the times I went there, there was nobody there.

Okay. Alright. What do we have as far as an address for the registered owners of the property?

Clinton Township, Michigan.

Yeah. It's an LLC out of Michigan.

We we can we can certainly do a shorter time frame, but when you're dealing with people out Yeah. Out of the area.

Yeah. You know, if it were the top of the pool screen, I wouldn't worry so much. The side, maybe, well, I'll go along with, the recommendation. I was I was just a little concerned that it could be a, you know, a hazard more than just

a Let's let's split the difference. Let's do fifteen days to comply. Yeah.

Alright. Let's do that. That should be enough time for them to get the information. Yeah. If

we can, madam clerk, if we can get this out, the mailing of of this order, whoever, whichever one of you is listening, if we can get this mailed out, FedEx, so we can track it track it well and and make sure it arrives there in an expedited matter, that would be very helpful.

Okay. So other than the number of days from thirty to 15, I agree with all of the other recommendations. Do you have that? Good. Okay. Thank you. All right. Next case.

Letter K as in kilo was removed from the docket. So it brings us up to letter L as in Lima, case twenty five, two thousand two hundred twelve, eleven ninety one, Four something. What's what's 4 Winds? Avenue. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, mister magistrate. Good morning. My name is Patrick Young, and I'm assigned to the code enforcement department of Marklein Police Department. On 11/19/2025, while on routine patrol, I observed a broken and damaged sidewalk in violation of city ordinance 42 Dash 36 Subsection B Bravo at 11914 Windsor Avenue, which is within the confines of the city of Marco Island. On that day, this is what I saw.

Mister Jankin, hold on one second because we don't seem to have any audio visual working.

It was white before until I put the pictures up. Yep.

Oh, here we

go. Hold on. Sorry. He didn't have he didn't have anything on

the display. We're good. Yeah.

Yeah. It's it's because there was nothing on the projector itself to show.

Here are photos of the violation I saw on that particular day. So I wrote a notice of violation, and I give them a compliance date of sixty days to apply and obtain a permit. Just a posting of that notice of violation. A notice of the code. Affidavit of violation.

Affidavit of the posting. Notice of hearing. The posted notice of hearing. And a certified mail. I diff I did a follow-up inspection on January 19, which was over the sixty days.

No work had been done yet, and I also checked EnerGov. No permit was applied for at that time. I did check this morning, and they did apply for for a permit as of yesterday. But we brought this because it's still quite a safety issue as that is a heavy traffic area. That's all I have.

Other than that, have you heard anything from the property owner?

I have not, but I did speak to them when I issued the notice of violation. They realized it was important to get done, but then again, sixty days later, I haven't seen any vehicles at the at the property and they still hadn't applied for a permit.

Okay. Thank you. Are you here on this matter, ma'am?

No.

And okay. Just wanna make sure. I don't see anybody, here, to defend this particular alleged violation. I will admit the exhibits into evidence. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described did and do exist at the location and and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude that as a matter of law, the conditions alleged to constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. Therefore, the finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation?

Yes. A $150 fine, $50 costs, thirty days to obtain the permit, sixty days to repair, or $100 per day.

Let me ask you something on this particular one. He said that let let me see the the notice of violation, the original notice of violation. I think he just said sixty days to obtain a permit, and then the permit covers it after that.

Thirty thirty days to obtain the permit. They've applied for the permit. Now thirty days to obtain the permit, sixty days to repair.

Well, it's it's the repair part that I was getting at.

Yes. On the

Yep.

Yes. The the notice of violation gave them sixty days to obtain and in the life of the permit.

Well, then it said the life of the permit to complete the work. That was the that was the question I have.

I mean, it's,

are we, okay. Well, just, I don't know what the permits say as to how long they have to do the work. But your your recommendation is for thirty days to apply for the permit. No.

No. They've applied for the permit. Oh, they I'm sorry. Thirty days to obtain the permit, sixty days to repair.

Okay. Alright. I'll go along with that. Thank you.

And a $100 per day fine if they do not meet those benchmarks?

That's certainly within the confines of the state law, and I think it's fair, just, and reasonable under the circumstances. So that'll be the order.

So letter m as in Mike and n as in November have been, removed from the docket. Ma'am, what case are you here on? Okay. What case?

AA.

Okay. We'll call 250682, for 10 Marco Lake Drive.

Okay. Ma'am, you're here for this one. Are you Diane Chestnut? Okay. Thank you.

Magistrate Keith Richter, code enforcement, Marco Weiland. This is a certification of fines. Let's show the original magistrate order from 07/29/2025.

It's a one time fine of $100?

Yes. 50 costs.

And $50 cost?

Yes. And it that the owner should obtain the permit before 09/29/2025. Notice of hearing. Affidavit of posting. Certified mail.

And the the permit as per the building department is ready. It's been ready for months and it still hasn't been picked up and paid for that it's so the permit is not active. And the total amount of fines per diem to be certified is $12,300. That's all I have.

Ma'am, I'll be glad to hear from you. They're asking for certification in the amount of $12,300. Would you wanna come up and tell me your side?

I'm not happy to be here again today, but I'm here because

Give me your name for the record.

Diane Chestnut.

Ma'am, I don't think you've been sworn in yet.

Oh, okay.

Okay. Yes. Do you swear that the testimony you give be giving in this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Okay. Now now put down your give me your name for the record. I know it. But Diane Chestnut. Okay. Thank you.

And I am the property owner. I hired a licensed contractor per the recommendations of the building department as I could not do this by myself. The emails that have flown, I am happy to pay for the two permits. And, actually, it's three permits that I am required to get for this little minor issue, which I have attempted in every way to do as my contractor has. I was presented when the permit the first permit finally became available to the contractor, I went to the bill.

He told me that the fee was $1,286.01. And he said I'd have to go to the building department and get a copy of it, so I did. This is what I got from the building department. It shows work without a permit after the fact permit fee of $250 on each permit. Now I had previously, immediately following the last hearing I had with you, paid a $150 fine.

That was paid check number 2116. Upon receipt of the invoice from the city. Now in looking at this bill, I went back to review what you had stated and your ruling in the hearing. And the city had requested a $250 fine, permit fee, whatever you wanna call it, and you had overruled and said you were not going with the city's recommendation. You were going with a $100 fine.

But they charged me $250 on each permit.

Ma'am, I those those are different things. So the permit charges are the permit charges. The fine for the violation is what the magistrate order. That was the the 100 or 150, whatever whatever his order was.

Could we put that back, mister Rickard? Yeah. Let's put that back up so I can see it. I've been looking at it. K.

When I applied for the permit, the city of Marco Island issued an invoice that included a charge titled work without permit $276 on both permits. This charge is imposed solely because a violation allegedly occurred and does not represent the normal plan review or administrative cost. Although this is labeled as a permit charge, it functions as a fine or a penalty, which the court expressly waived to a $100. The city has rooted this change through the building department rather than code enforcement, but the effect is the same. A penalty is being imposed despite the court's ruling.

I respectfully request that the court clarify this order and waive the additional fines that were not allowed based on your hearing. I am happy to pay what I owe. I do not feel I owe this. I wrote a letter to Dory Jones in the city of Marco building department back on December 9 requesting copying out of the transcript of your our hearing what you stated and asking for them to review it. I also questioned additional fees that were on that invoice, and she referred me at that time to different departments to discuss it.

I went to the fire department and met with the fire marshal. He immediately changed the fees as excessive and unapplicable. The fee that was originally charged was $10.30, $155, and $7.75, and $206, all to the fire department. Those he sent a letter to an email, I should say, to Dory requesting that she immediately make a correction to those, Changing the fire fee from a 155 to a $45 minimum review to reduce the fire the fire plan review fee to $2.10 and remove the fire inspection fee and the fire compliance inspection tech fee. This repaving scope does not impact the fire department's access and does not create a risk of covering hydrant valves or other fire protection features.

To which, Dory then sent an email out to the head of the acting head of the building department and others requesting that they review this and not let anything go through the cracks. I also would like to point out that back on July 28, I sent a letter to the city of Marco Island regarding this case requesting the history of the code enforcement problems for the calendar year and also asking code and the building department the name of the complainant that triggered the code enforcement action against my property. Please respond to this question today. Now that was back on July 28. No response.

No response from Dory. No response to my request for this. And I don't feel that what was charged and I have tried. I offered in speaking with Dory in the building department. I offered to pay the excessive charge.

If I had the opportunity to appear before you again and seek clarification on this, If your ruling was that I owed that money, they would have been paid already. But I couldn't get my money back, I was told. If you ruled that it was an overcharge, If I paid it, I was SOL. Something does not seem right or fair at all, and it seems like the conflict between the building department and code enforcement, all I'm trying to do. And now I need a third permit, I've been told, because it needs to be sealed and striped, and that's a third permit, which I intend to get and do.

But until I can get the first two, I can't do can't apply for the third. I feel this is real overreach and not right. And I feel that I have struggled and struggled to try to do what the city wants. My contractor, who has been here for years doing work on the island as a general contractor, has struggled. The time that has taken, I am facing some issues right now that I will not be able to continue to pursue this.

I will have to turn it over to an attorney and have it handled civilly. That's not in the best interest of anyone, Marco Island, the city, fixing the small issue, or myself. But I don't know what else to do. I don't think I am being treated fairly.

K. Anything else? Is that it?

Believe so.

Response from the city?

Mister magistrate, just just to remind the proceedings that, your fine is your fine. The fine that you ordered is the code enforcement fine. Whatever the building department charges is not within your purview of authority, nor is it reflective of or connected to in any direct way with the fines that you order and that you ordered in this case. Issues that are that are problems that are have with whatever fines and fees that are assessed by the billing department are not addressed. They're not being it's not proper to address them through you because you, again, have no authority over the issue.

And I'll just leave it at that.

K. Ma'am, unfortunately, I don't have any jurisdiction to make things right between yourselves yourself and the various people in the city, such as the building department and so on. You may have a civil action against them. I don't know. But all we're here today to do is to look to see if the per diem fines have been of $100 per day, have been have been paid, have been satisfied, and whether or not the work has been done that was ordered.

And to me, it appears that it has not been done. So according to according to the calculation, you're not challenging the calculation of $100 per day,

are you?

No. But I do challenge the the charging of it. Yeah.

Understand that. But

Do you have the right this was the other thing that was stated to me that you don't have I come to these hearings, and I listen to the ruling. And I assume that that's fact. And if these why wouldn't that be stated in writing to me that I'm told you don't have the right to change anything? Well, if you don't have the right to change it, why was I brought here to begin with? I don't I'm confused with fine penalty code building.

Well, I think you're confused perhaps, and I can't tell you why you're confused, but you're doing everything except what you need to do to get the matter resolved. And what you knew need to do to get the matter resolved, was in the order, has been in the order, the original order. You it's you you did not appeal the original orders. You cannot challenge that. Mhmm. So, it's just a calculation as to whether or not, if it hasn't been accomplished, the number of days up until today that it has not been accomplished, and the amount is 12,300.

So

You might want to consider getting it resolved with with the I apparently, it's an after the fact permit or series of permits that you need to get. Once that's done, then you can always ask mister Richter or somebody in the code enforcement, department, to see if, some of the fines can be reduced. But we cannot be cannot do that today.

Does code enforcement have the legal authority to have that $12,000 fine removed?

They have the authority. If you if you once you have come into complete compliance Mhmm. Once you've come into compliance

Mhmm.

You can request that that the fines be reduced. There is a provision in the statute for asking for that. That doesn't mean you'll get it

Right.

But at least, you can ask. But it's kinda hard to ask for it when you're not in compliance.

But code does have that authority?

They they have authority to consider that. And what they do is they bring it back here to make the to make a determination. Okay. I'm not saying they will or they won't, but but I don't know how I can emphasize enough, get this behind you and then ask for, if you want to, then ask for, reduction. Is is that fairly stated, sir?

Yeah. And there is no discussion of mitigation until you are in compliance. So you have to gain compliance first before there's any such discussion.

Okay.

Yeah.

So what was this $250

That is not within my jurisdiction, ma'am.

Right.

Okay. So

That that is not what you were referring to in the last hearing. You were referring to a different fine or a different fee.

The fine the fine for noncompliance with the original, code enforcement notice of violation.

Okay. So I should be paying $250 for each one of these permits.

No. You're mixing that up again.

Okay.

The the the the fees for the permits are not the fines. Fines and fees are two different things. The fine is a $100 per day for noncompliance, and that's running every day. Tomorrow, it'll be another $100. So, get the issues concerning the after the fact permits taken care of.

Okay. Is there anything that you can do in terms of helping me No. Get the information from the building department?

No. I'm done when I issue my rulings. I'm Okay. I'm done

with that.

I do object to the $1,212,000 fine. I will I will be paying this in full for both permits today, and then I will be back for mitigation of the fine.

Please be sure once once you've done that, be sure and it's usually, mister Richter, I think, is the person to talk to. Be sure to talk to him and see, what you can do about reduction. And then that then he'll come back to me sometime in the future if, and and you and you'll have a notification of it. You'll be able to be here too.

Okay? Think mister Richter can attest to the fact that both I have has been in constant communication with my contractor. So we are trying to cooperate and get this resolved. And I think you would concur with that.

That that would be a good thing for you to do.

But that's what we've done. That's all we've done.

Okay. So my ruling today will be that the amount of $12,300 that that is that is certified as as what is owed at this time.

But I have objected to it. Right?

Oh, you're allowed to object to it. Yes. You have. Alright. I'll note the objection.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

You have thirty days to appeal it to the circuit court.

Thirty days. Okay. Thank you. From today's date?

Yes. Well, yes. I'll probably be signing the order today. So thirty days from the date that the order is signed.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you.

Next up is letter OAsInOscar, case 252262For 928Park something. Park. What's Park? Is it a court, an avenue?

It is an avenue.

Thank you.

Mister Miller?

Yep. Good morning again, mister magistrate. My name is Gary Miller. I'm code enforcement officer with the city of Markle Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 928 Park Avenue, which is within the municipal boundaries of the City Of Markle Island. On 11/25/2025, I observed code enforced violation of prohibited noxious plans, which is a violation of Marco Island code eighteen thirty six subsection three. I took picture of the violation on that time that is an accurate reflection of what I observed.

What kind of plant is that, mister Miller?

It is a Brazilian pepper.

Shinus turbot pulleys.

Yeah. My Latin's not so well. I issued a notice of violation for violating eighteen thirty six three and gave a compliance date of 12/16/2025. And here's a photo of the notice of violation.

Okay.

A picture of the notice of violation posting. Follow-up inspections were conducted on 12/17/2025 and 01/08/2026, which revealed that the location is still in violation. And here are pictures taken by code enforcement officer Sullivan on January 8.

Those three papers that were posted, are those are any of those from prior violations or are those just all for the current one?

No. Only I wrote three violations that day. Okay. Only one of those is for this. The other two are are compliant and are not on the docket. Okay. Let's see. Here is the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing.

And the certified mail document. And five year history revealed no prior violations. That's all I have.

I don't see anybody here to defend against the case. Did you receive anything from anybody on this one?

No. I have not. Okay.

I believe that you have testified in other cases, but those were other cases that you do have experience in identifying noxious plants within the city of Marco Island. Is that correct?

It is correct. I have I have undergone training in observing prohibited noxious plants.

So you know you know a Brazilian pepper when you see it. Is that correct?

Oh, I I think by those pictures, it's pretty easy. But, yes, I do. Based

upon the testimony and evidence presented today, I'll I'll admit the exhibits into the record. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing today, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described did exist and do exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude as a matter of law that the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. Recommendation?

The city asks for a $150 fine. $50 costs thirty days to remove or a $100 per day fine. A permit for removal is required, but it is not an involved permitting application process. Something they can do online.

This

one I'm I'm kind of torn on because it is a paved parking lot of whether the city would actually consider that a developed lot or not. Permits are only required on undeveloped lots. So I would think a permit in this case is not required. My is I think is if we went and talked to the building department, that's what they would say.

Either way, think the recommendation is fair, just and reasonable and within the confines of the state statute. Thank you. Okay. Mister Miller, mean, do you have a problem with that?

No. I don't have a problem with that. I'm just I'm here for the next one. That's Got the next view. Okay. But I'm good with this one.

Okay. Yeah.

I just wanted to understand that I don't think they would I would I believe they would tell them that a permit is not required for this one.

Okay. That might be something. If if they're listening or they wanna hear about it, they that'll give them some comfort perhaps. Okay. Next case.

Next case is PAs in Paul, case 252284 for 949 North Collier Something. Is it Boulevard?

It is Boulevard. Yes.

Collier Boulevard.

Alright, mister magistrate. Once again, name is Gary Miller.

Yes,

Code enforcement officer with the City of Mark Lyon Police Department. The address violation is 949 North Collier Boulevard, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On 12/01/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of design regulations, solid waste disposal, which is a violation of Marco Island code 30 dash six twenty four Romeo one thirty dash ten twelve bravo. Here are pictures that I took on that date, is an accurate reflection of what I observed. Again, it is a dumpster with the doors are actually missing off that enclosure.

Another picture of a dumpster that they're actually not using the trash enclosure that is next to it. Issued an notice of violation for violating 30Dash624 Romeo 130Dash1012Bravo. And I gave it a compliance date of 12/31/2025. And here's a photo of the notice violation.

Okay.

Here's a photo of the notice of violation posting. Follow-up inspections were conducted on 01/01/2026. 01/14/2026 revealed that the location is still in violation, and here are pictures that I took on the January 14 date. Here is the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting, notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, certified mail document, and a five year history revealed no prior violations. That is all I have.

I don't see anybody here to defend the case. Have you heard anything from the alleged violator?

I have received a couple emails from the the violator asking about the magistrate date and asking about the code, but that is all I have heard. And I actually expected that person to be here today because they knew about the hearing.

I'll admit the exhibits into evidence, and my findings will be as follows. As a matter of fact, based upon the testimony and evidence presented here today at the hearing, it appears that the conditions as testified to did and do exist at the location indicated and on the dates and times indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. Therefore, my finding is guilty. What is the recommendation?

Recommendation is a $150 fine. $50 costs sixty days to bring into compliance or $100 per day. Is there a permit involved in that, mister Miller?

No. Just because it's it's really repairing the enclosures that are on-site that no. They don't need a permit for that.

So I'm gonna revise it then to make it thirty days to bring it into compliance or $100 per day.

I think that the recommendations are fair, just, and reasonable and are consistent with the requirements of state law for the considerations and therefore that will be my order, thirty days.

Thank you. Next up is letter Q is in Quebec, case 252292 for 1710Canary.

I'm sorry. What court? Which one are we on?

I'm sorry. Q As in Quebec.

Oh, Q. Okay. Yes. Oh, alright. Got it.

Alright, mister magistrate. Once again, name's Gary Miller, code enforcement officer with the city of Mark Lyon Police Department. Address to the violation is 1710 Canary Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Markle Island. On 12/01/2025, I observed a code and file violation of litter and debris, right of way obstruction, and sidewalk driveway encroachments, which violation Marco code eighteen thirty six nine, eighteen thirty six five, and forty two thirty six echo. I took pictures of the violation, which is accurate reflection of what I observed on that date.

Here you can see there's rebar in the right of way. It's really what that pictures for. Here you can see the sidewalk encroachments and the driveway apron.

Where's the sidewalk? It's right here. Oh, okay.

There's so much dirt on it. It's almost impossible to see. Here's a picture of the sidewalk looking from the other direction. Now pictures of the yard for litter and debris. I issued a notice violation for violating eighteen thirty six nine eighteen thirty six five forty two thirty six echo, and I gave a compliance date of 12/08/2025. And here's a photo of the notice violation.

Is there a notation on this notice that there's a repeat issue?

On this note, but I have the mailed notice of violation that I'll show.

Okay.

Here is the notice violation posting. Here is the copy of the mailed notice of violation to the homeowner.

Oh, go back. Hang on.

It is not

It does not.

Annotated as a repeat violation on this.

For for which one? Which charge?

Homeowner. For any of them. Okay. Here is the mailed notice of violation for the contractor. It is noted or is annotated as a repeat violation.

And and which of the charges was a repeat violation?

All three. Okay.

Okay. Alright.

Follow-up inspections were conducted on 12/31/2025 and 01/14/2026, which revealed that the location is still in violation of all three violations. Here's a picture again of the sidewalk. Actually, I

Can you turn that so

Yeah. There we go.

You can see the sidewalk encroachments and some litter and debris. More pictures of the yard you can still see litter and debris. It's been cleaned up a little, but still not completely cleaned up. Here's the picture of the rebar that's in the public right of way that is still there. Another picture of the sidewalk.

Here is the affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting, notice adhering to the homeowner, Notice of hearing to the contractor. Posted notice of hearing. Certified mail document to the homeowner. Certified mail document to the contractor.

For the homeowner, there was one prior violation for right of way violations and encroachment. For the contractor, there was two prior violations for litter debris, one prior violation for right of way obstruction and two prior violations for sidewalk encroachments. I do have printed out copies of all of the rulings from the magistrate. That's all I have.

This goes back less than five years. I can tell by it being my signature on it.

Yes. They are all less than five years.

Okay. I don't see anybody here to defend the case. Have you heard anything from them?

I have heard nothing from the homeowner or the contractor.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described did, and do exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude that as a matter of law, the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty as to both parties. What is the recommendation of the, city?

The city is looking for, $600 in fines in the aggregate in total for all three charges together.

So each each one is a separate charge?

Correct. So we say $200 per or just $600 in total. Dollars 50 costs contractor only and fourteen days to come into compliance. They're not in compliance, correct? Not none of the three?

The last time I was in the at the property, no. All three violations remained.

Okay.

So, yeah, let's do fourteen days to come into compliance or $100 per day fine.

Now this is against the contractor only.

Contractor only, correct.

Alright. And that's certainly within the confines of a non repeat violation and a repeat or repeat violation. So I I can agree with that. So, that will be my order. I I go along with that. Little concerned about the fourteen days. Is that enough time to get everything out? And, I can get that to them. I was thinking more like, you know, twenty days or something like that.

Yeah. I was let make it let's make twenty one days.

Twenty one days? Okay. Twenty one days to, correct the violation. This looks like something that could be corrected without it's it's not like you have to do paving or or anything like that.

Getting permits to

Clean the place up. I I couldn't believe that the that they didn't pick up the rods. I mean, come on.

Exactly.

Yeah. Okay. So she has a question. Let's I I think we confused her a little bit, and it's my fault. Go ahead.

This is

only contractors? Con Correct. Contractor only. Right.

Letter r as in Romeo has been removed from the docket, so that brings us to SAsInSierra. Case 252357For581TigerTailSomething. Quarter.

Thank you.

Well, r was not removed. It was heard already. Yeah. Technically.

Yes. Thank you.

Okay.

S. Once again, good morning, mister magistrate. My name is Patrick Young, and I'm assigned to the code enforcement department of Marklein Police Department. On 12/16/2025, while on routine patrol, I observed litter and debris on-site in violation of city ordinance eighteen-thirty six subsection nine. This was at 581 Tagotel Court, which is within the confines of the city of Markle Island.

K. This is the violation that I saw. After observing that, I wrote a notice of violation with a compliance date of 12/2325, giving them a week to clean that up. As you could see, I noted there was also no dumpster on the site. There's a posting of the notice of violation.

The notice of the code of violation sent to both the builder and the homeowner. Affidavit of violation, again, sent to both the builder and homeowner. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing to both homeowner and builder. Posting of the notice of hearing.

And a certified male, which also went both builder and homeowner. On 12/24/2025, there's a follow-up investigation done by code enforcement officer Anthony Ferraro. He put these photos on. Being he said a follow-up wasn't done since 12/24, I went there this morning and these are the photos from this morning. Looking at their five year history, they don't have any other of these that have done have been done that came to the magistrate that came in front of you.

So that's all I have.

So you took these photos this morning?

Yes, sir.

They're a fair fair and accurate description of the condition of the premises today?

They are.

It actually looks worse. Yes.

An extra four weeks of trash. Anything

further?

No. Only that there was workers there at the time. I tried to speak to them, they pretty much just turned their back on me and didn't care.

Okay. There's nobody here to defend. Have you heard anything from them one way or the other?

No, sir.

Them turning their back on you today?

No, sir.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this here oh, by the way, I'll I'll admit the exhibits into, evidence. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described, did and do exist at the location on the dates and times testified to. I conclude that as a matter of law, the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation? Yeah.

$250 in fines, $50 cost, fourteen days to clean, or $100 per day. How

long to comply?

I wanna do fourteen on this one given their

I think that's within, the confines of the state statute, the considerations. And under the circumstances here, it looks to me like they didn't do anything and could care less about it. And so I agree I I agree with the recommendation. That'll be the order.

Thank you, mister Metru.

Okay. Good.

Do we Jim, do we need to stop? Yeah.

Do we need

break or do we we do need to stop? Okay. If we could just take a brief break.

Okay. Five minute break. It's 11:41, 11:45, a 4 break. Okay?

Okay. We are, ready to go. We're back on the record.

We're back on the record.

Back on the records. Magistrate.

I'm not showing that on here. It says in recess on my little thing here.

Okay. Yeah. We took a four minute recess, to 11:45, so we should be back on the record.

We're good.

Thank you.

Next up on your docket is case BAsInBravoBAsInBravoBB, case 250925, CAsInCharlie, 138 Bahama Avenue.

Mister Richter?

Magistrate Keith Richter, code enforcement. I have a certification of fines. This is the original order?

Okay. $100 per day until the violations are corrected. That was after sixty days?

Yes, sir. Notice of hearing, affidavit of posting.

Yep. And that's for this hearing. Right?

Yes. Okay. Certified mail. And the total amount certification is $3,700

3,000 thousand $700 you say?

Yes.

I see it there. And that's a calculation as set out in number five?

Correct.

Okay. Anything else?

That's it.

Okay. The certification order and that amount will be issued.

Next up is letter CAsInCharlie, CAsInCharlie, case 251019, c As in Charlie, 1780 Addison Court.

Magistrate Keith Richter, co

Sir?

Cohn enforcer, Morocco Island. Sub certification of fines. This is the original order.

Okay.

Notice of hearing. Notice of hearing. Certified mail. Affidavit of posting. And the certified amount is $4,500.

And that's set forth in number nine per day to date, ten twenty five to twelve days, forty five days?

Yes. Except that the total amount is 4,500 because the original fine was paid. Paid 4,500 minus 300.

Minus 4,500 minus 300?

No. It's 40 it's actually $40.48.

Oh, 48 minus 300 for 4,500?

Yes.

Okay. The certification order will be issued.

Next up is letter DAsInDeltaDAsInDeltaCase251161CAsInCharlie.

Jim, you good? Magistrate Keith Richter, code of force in Morocco Island, certification of fines, original order. Notice of hearing. Affidavit of posting. Certified mail. Total amount due is $4,500. It was 44,800 and the the fine and per diem were paid, which leaves 4,500.

Okay. And this this reflects a $100 per day times the number of days of noncompliance under the order. Is that right? Alright. In order consistent with this, we'll be entered 4,500.

Next up is letter EAsInEcho, EAsInEcho, case 251175CAsInCharlie.

Magistrate Keith Richter, code of force from Marker Wallen, say certification of fines, original order. Noticing here. Affidavit of posting. And the certified amount is $4,900.

Okay. It looks like they've received notice, and, they're not here. So, on number, item 10 there on your list, I think it is.

Yes.

No. I'm sorry. Not seven. It's per diem today. It was a $100 per day, for the dates of noncompliance. 4,900. Is that what you're

Yes, sir.

Okay. Where's the 200 come from?

That the 200 is an additional the fine and per cost were not

paid. Okay. Thank you. 4,900, that'll be the order.

Next up is a letter FAsInFrankFAsInFrank. Case 251407CAsInCharlie.

Registrar, Keith Richter, code enforcement, Markle Island. Certification of fines. This is the original order. Noticing here. Certified mail. Affidavit of posting. And the total amount is $4,850, which includes the fine and court costs.