Code Enforcement - Regular Meeting

Are we on the record? Looks like we're ready to go.

You got the thumbs up. Let's go ahead. It's running. Okay. Mister Pritt, we're ready. We're on. We're live. We're live.

We're ready to go? Yeah.

We're we're live. Go ahead.

She's having a there's a problem over there. Yeah. There's no

But we're live. We

have to be recorded also.

Yeah. No. He's

Madam clerk, are we okay to go? Yeah. The law says it has to be recorded.

According according to

the great odds behind the curtain, it's recorded.

Maybe he needs to talk to her.

Madam clerk, there's a difference. Madam clerk? Madam clerk? Ray? Laura? There's a difference between the hearings being recorded and you're not being able to enter something. It's recording.

May we proceed?

Yes, we can.

Okay. I'll call the meeting of February 24, 02/00/2026 to order. The City Of Marco Island code enforcement magistrate hearings, for today. We will be hearing from the staff, the code enforcement staff, and from the alleged violators. My name is Robert Pratt.

I'm an attorney. I'll serve as a special magistrate for the code enforcement hearings today. My task is to hear the testimony and any and take any other evidence, than to make findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence that's provided today, to make a determination of guilty or not guilty, and to issue an order based upon the evidence. City attorney Joe Nutella will announce the order of hearings and announce each case. I will then take testimony and evidence from the city's representatives then from the respondent or respondents.

By law, all testimony must be taken under oath, and I will administer the oath now. So anybody who thinks you may wish to say anything at any hearing today, please raise your right hand. Okay. 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 knew. I knew. So

Okay. Everyone in the room, I think, has taken the oath. Alright. With that, I think we're ready to proceed with the agenda for today.

Thank you, mister magistrate. Joe Nutella on behalf of the city of Marco Island starting with letter t as in Tango on your docket, case 260176.

Good morning, mister Magistrate. Good morning. My name is Patrick Youngkin. I'm assigned to the code enforcement department of Mark Lawn Police Department. On 01/26/2026, while on routine patrol, I observed a vehicle parked on a vacant lot and within 33 feet of an alibro, which is a violation of both 30 Dash 86 parking on an unapproved surface and 18144 Subsection 6 parking within a Owlboro in a protection zone of 33 feet.

I took photos of the violation. You can see the Owlboro there. I wanted to make sure it was within the 33 feet, so I laid a tape measure down. If you get closer you could see that it's within 13 feet of the aloe burrow which is a protected species. I then wrote a citation.

Here's a picture of the citation. I posted the citation on a vehicle windshield. Here's a copy of the notice of hearing. It was sent certified mail. That is all I have, sir. I just know that we did get a letter from the gentleman asking to contest this. So

Is anybody here on this matter? Oh, okay, sir. Can you hear everything that's being said?

Yeah.

Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Are are you finished? I am, sir. I just wanna make

sure you're running your show. I apologize.

He's you're standing between him and me, and I wasn't sure if that was if he was the one who was on the case. So Okay.

Patrick Patrick, before you go. Sir,

you can you can sit right over here if you'd like.

Yeah. Yeah. Sorry.

The the defense letter up on the screen, please?

It wasn't as much of a defense letter, just, advising when the court dated, stating he wanted to defend it.

Alright. No.

There's no That's fine. Okay.

Thank you.

Anything further?

Nothing further.

Nothing further. Sir, you're up.

I've never done this before, so I don't even know what I'm supposed to say.

But Well, say your name first.

How's it?

My name is Robert w Trento. I live in Naples. Okay. On this day, just as background, I was on a Marco Island fishing trip, and the captain of the boat we were on said park in the either of the vacant lots on the street, which I did. And I've been doing that for two decades on different Marco Island fishing trips that we do.

Never been summoned before. I wanted to push back because of two things. I'd like to plead for reciprocity and some leniency here and some sympathy, which is which is another story. But first, I see that I've got two violations. One for parking on a unauthorized surface and then the other thing with the burrowing owl. There were two two vacant lots on that street. One of the guys I fished was parked on one. I parked on the other. He didn't get a ticket because I I checked. He he didn't get one.

Second of all, when I pulled up there, I saw no signage at all about a burrowing owl. There was a little bit of as the officer showed, there was a little bit of white tape, but that's pretty normal on any construction site or empty lot. That's not something new to me. I had absolutely no idea, which I understand isn't a defense, of this burrowing owl protection area. It seems to me that Marco Island has an obligation, as I have an obligation, to understanding the law, which I didn't I know that's not a defense.

But some kind of signage, even small or whatever, should have been placed there. And I think the fine of $100 is excessive. So I plead for leniency.

Okay. Anything further?

Well, yeah. Since I am being charged with violating a environmental act, I brought this picture along with me. We went We

could put the picture could you help him put the picture up so that we can see it? Okay.

As a member of the Marco Island Fishing Club, we all obey the FWC rules to the tee. We'll never take a fish that's not legal or is undersized or anything like that. We respect these laws because we respect the environment. That day we went fishing. Not only did I get a $100 fine, we were fishing in a small channel in the in the backwaters of Marco Island.

And that stingray jumped about 20 feet out of the water which is poisonous jumped into our boat and we spent the rest of the day trying to figure out how we could get that ray off without it dying in the boat. We called the coast guard, nobody responded. We called FWC, nobody responded. So we had a very interesting day, and it's sort of ironic to me that I'm being charged with some kind of an ecological violation when our intent was to try and save this thing on top of it all. So it was a terrible day in general, and that's why I pushed back and asked for leniency.

Certainly, I deserve some kind of warning, but I think that the $100 and two violations is excessive.

Okay. Anything else, sir?

Not that I can think of. Is there anything else I should be mentioning? No. I mean, I just tried to go fishing. That's all.

Okay. Normally, when you talk about exhibits and show exhibits, we put those into the record. So we'll put that into the record as exhibit exhibit a. You're not going to object to it being in the record, are you?

Whatever. No. It's fine.

Okay. So without objection, the exhibits on both sides will be put into the record. Anything else, sir?

Just to

get what

the city is requesting.

I'm sorry?

Just to get into the city's requesting. I got no questions for the gentleman. No.

Okay. Alright. Have a seat there. You can, stay close by, though. Thank you. Does the, village have or the city have anything further?

No. Nothing further.

Based upon the evidence, induced here at the hearing today, it appears that the that that the conditions, as set out by the city, did exist on the dates and times and at the location indicated. So I find this a matter of fact that that that existed. And I conclude that as a matter of law that constitutes a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island. So therefore, the finding is guilty. What is the recommendation for a a fine, if any?

So consistent with the the code officer's consideration for the gentleman at the time, the city is not seeking the $250 fine for the for the Owlboro proximity violation. We're just seeking a $100 for the parking fine itself.

So the the from the city's point of view, there could have been a $250 fine plus a $100 fine, but you're only asking for the $100 fine.

That's correct.

Sir, do you have any comments on that? No. Okay. That'll be my order. I think that's fair, just, and reasonable. And within the the statutes of one sixty three zero nine of Florida statutes. So the $100 fine. What about cost of prosecution?

$50 cost of prosecution. Yes. $50 cost for prosecution.

Plus $50 cost of prosecution. That's the cost they had going out and doing the inspections and so on. So it'd be a total of $100 fine and $50 cost of prosecution.

Where do I pay that?

He wants to know, where he pays it.

That that looks they'll tell you exactly where to go if you go on over there. Okay. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Next up is letter UAsInUniform, case 260098.

This is, Theresa Vitter, rev revocable trust. Is that correct? Sir, are you here on that one? Yes, Okay. Thank you.

Good morning, mister magistrate. My name is James Waldoun, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 730 Austin Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On 01/13/2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of parking a boat trailer on a vacant lot in a residential area, which is a violation of Marco Island code 30 dash one zero zero seven subsection d. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed.

I issued a citation for violating 30 dash 1,007 subsection d. And this is the notice appearing letter with certified docs for mailing. And sir, that's all I have for that. I do have a letter that was in the package from the gentleman referring to a visit he made on January 14. He's requesting a hearing, and he referred to a letter that he gave at that time.

I don't have any record of that letter. But the gentleman is here to speak for himself.

This seems to be signed by, Theresa Bitter.

Theresa? Yeah.

Yes. Okay.

I'm sorry.

Anything further?

That's all I have.

Sir, it's your turn. And thank you for coming in. It's always helpful when somebody comes in and tells their side of the issue.

Well, good morning. Thank you. George Vita, on behalf of my wife, Theresa Vita. She wishes she could be here today, but work gets in the way. And and I wanna start by saying complimenting our our fine code enforcement staff that we have here on Marco Island. We have been residents for eight years now and have observed them in action on numerous occasions, fortunately not with on our property, but until now. The letter that we submitted to code enforcement on January 14

I don't have that.

Okay. I I do have that letter right here.

Okay. Thank you.

That I I would like to be written into the record or recorded.

Sir, would you mind leaving a copy of that with us?

I I'd be happy

to. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. The the letter in summary is obviously very straightforward. Simply states the fact that this was a temporary matter, not an ongoing. The trailer was left there with the dinghy.

The dinghy is 12 feet long by six feet wide, less than twenty four hours. The property, as you saw, is adjacent to our neighbors, Janet and Andre Segadi, and our their neighbors who we know very well also, Scott and Junja Debischoff. We had the permission of both of those folks. The people who own the vacant properties are not residents of Marco Island. They, as we've been told, are developers in Miami.

So just the same, we would have sought their permission to temporarily leave our trailer there. Now the question is why was the dinghy and the trailer even there to begin with? Well, very simply, we had our garage epoxy coated. And anybody knows anything about epoxy, you have to have everything off the floor for at least twenty four hours. Well, we did move out.

We put the trailer on the vacant lot. And as I mentioned, less than twenty four hours later, retrieved it and put it in the driveway while the epoxy cured. I have, if it is of interest or benefit, a copy of the invoice showing the work that was done. I also have, if of any interest or benefit, hope to meet, I have pictures of the before and after epoxy treatment just to confirm that the work was done to validate our, reason for moving the trailer to an area.

Sir, we

we can we'll stipulate to the fact that the garage was epoxied. We we have no reason to question the gentleman about the garage and and what what he did. That's fine.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. So as a result, we had to put the trailer somewhere. We felt that since we live on Kendall Drive, which is a very busy road on Marco Island, rather than leaving it in the driveway or on the in the median in front of the house for twenty four hours, in this case, less than twenty four hours, it would be not only more prudent and safer to move it off-site, which off-site is literally on the other side of the canal from our home, the Cigotti's and the Bischoff's on Austin Court.

It's also helpful to note that Austin Court is perhaps one of the lowest used streets on Marco Island. Okay? That and that's because it's a cul de sac, which is an offshoot of another cul de sac, which is called Richard's Court. So we're we're thinking we're probably safe moving the trailer and the dinghy out of harm's way off-site for less than twenty four hours. The gentleman, issued us a citation.

We understand why the citation was issued. I have done research on our code enforcement. And I believe, your magistrate, that we are due consideration under the revised ordinance 19 dash one five, which includes the revisions to ordinance 30 dash one zero zero seven, which is what we are cited for violation of. And I believe we are and we are requesting abatement of of the fine of $100 because it says under paragraph d, boat and boat trailer parking. Section a I'm sorry.

Section b says specifically on a temporary basis not to exceed twenty four hours for the purpose of loading, unloading, and cleaning. And that is what I would like the like your consideration for in judging favorably for abatement of this this fine.

Thank you. Do you have a an extra copy that I can have? Or may may I see the exhibit there?

Yeah. Just just I'm pulling it up right now.

Oh, you pulled it up? Okay. Thank you.

I'm getting the spinning donut. Bear with me, please.

Well, he's looking for it. Could you help him just put it on the, visualizer? The piece of paper there that has the code the code section.

Yeah. This one.

Push it up here because what I have been referred

b at the bottom.

You are talking about this citation. Yeah. One Okay. Mister Magistrate, I actually have a printout of the code, is right here.

It says the same thing on b a and b.

Saying it's one a and b.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And, mister Beta, it's so it's a excuse me. D one b that you're sighting. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. Anything further? No. Any any closing argument or anything further from let's see.

But can I recall mister Muldoon, please, just for a a quick question, which will really

Sure? Yes. Sir, you might be an attorney. So so you know it's rebuttal. But if you don't, it's we call this rebuttal. He has the right to do it. And and I'll let you speak again if you need to rebut anything he says. Okay?

Not not so much rebuttal. Just a clarification. Mister Muldoon, How many times did you see this trailer parked in that location?

Just I was on routine patrol, and it was just the one time that I saw it.

Just the one time. Okay. So it's not like it's something you saw on one day, then you saw it two days later and it's

No, it's not. Okay.

Alright. That's that's the only question I had. Okay.

Anything further from either party?

Nothing further. Okay.

Sir, did you wanna say anything else? No.

Okay. Thank you for your time, though.

Okay. Well, thank you for coming in. It's always helpful to clarify things. If you could leave that up there for a second, I would appreciate it. Sorry. Either one. Yeah.

One one is one is mine and one is

Okay. You can take yours in the highlighted one there. That'll be good. 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 on the dates and times testified to.

I conclude that as a matter of law, the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island, the finding is guilty. Sir, the reason is is that b says thank you for bringing it up. It's a very good point. But b says on a temporary basis, not to exceed twenty four hours, but that is modified by for the purpose of loading, unloading, and cleaning. And I did not hear anything that indicated that this is for that particular purpose. So for that reason, the finding is guilty. Now what is the recommendation of the city?

Finding a fact and $50 court costs.

Well, I found and concluded that it's a violation. So just $50 cost?

Just $50 cost for

Cost for prosecution? Correct. Okay. Sir, essentially, it's no fine, but it's $50 cost of prosecution because they had to go out and and do the things that they needed to do. I think that that's fair, just, and reasonable and quite a bit in your favor. So I think the city is fairly understanding on that. So I think that that'll be my order. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for coming in.

All right. We can just proceed plowing through the agenda. Letter A as in alpha has been removed from the docket. Letters B through E. So b, c, d, and e have been removed from the docket.

Letters h, I, and j have been removed from the docket. Letters l, m, and n have been removed from the docket, and letter r has been removed from the docket. So we're gonna go back. Oh, and and s as in Sierra has been removed from the docket as well. So we're gonna go back to the letter F as in Frank on your docket, case 252317.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning.

My name is JD Shelton. I'm a code enforcement officer with Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 190 North Collier Boulevard, M As In Mike, 1, which is within the municipal boundary. This is city of Marco Island.

Okay. And I see this is a Synergistic Building Concepts LLC, work without a permit, and I do not see anybody here to represent them. So go ahead and proceed.

On 12/08/2025, I observe a code, code enforcement violation of work without a permit, which is a violation of Marco Island code one zero five point one six dash one one one, Florida building code. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed. I issued a notice of violation for violating work without a permit. I gave a compliance date of 02/12/2026.

Sir? Officer Sheldon, could you go back to the previous picture real quick? Could you just point specifically to what's the work that's done that this is depicting that's in violation?

Yes, sir. The the base kitchen cat the the base kitchen cabinets is what the the workman replaced.

Okay.

Okay. As well, which included the removal of an old sink and putting in a new sink.

I see. Thank you very much.

Here's the stop work order where I posted the NOV and the stop work order on the front door. Follow-up inspection was done on 02/2326. It's a computer check which showed that there had been no permit issued and nor had one been applied for. That's the NOV letter. Here's the two certified males.

Affidavit of the violation. Notice of hearing. And affidavit of posting. And there is no history at this m one of doing this. Okay.

Anything further? No, sir. The exhibits will be admitted into evidence based upon the are you having further, mister Nutella?

That'd great.

Based upon the evidence presented here today at the 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, the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinances, excuse me, of the city of Marco Island, the finding is guilty. Do you have a recommendation?

Yes, sir. $250 fine. $50 costs sixty days to obtain the permit and correct the violation or $100 per day Fine.

Okay. And you haven't heard back you haven't heard from them at all?

I haven't, sir. No, sir.

And this is the owner of the property. Right? So it sounds like maybe the maybe I'm speculating, but it sounds like the maybe the owner of the property is, I think, from Michigan, and and they're doing the work down here. Or can you tell what

was The man that did the works from Michigan. That's where he lives the majority of the time.

Okay.

Sixty days is Yeah.

Sixty days is plenty of time. Should be plenty of time to get a fairly simple permit based upon at least based upon the work that we've heard testimony on. So think that the recommendation of the city is fair, just, and reasonable and within the confines of the findings in one sixty two point o nine Florida statutes. So that will be my order.

Next up

letter, GAsInGolf, case 25

Hang on just one second. I wanna make sure. Did you get that? Yes. The okay. Okay. The the order will be consistent with the recommendation of the city. Okay. Thank you.

Am I dismissed?

You're dismissed. You're free to go.

Letter GAsInGolf, case 2523372041SheffieldAvenue.

Good morning, mister magistrate. My name is Ron Hofstedter. I'm a code officer with the city of Marquillan Police Department. The address of the violation is 2041 Sheffield Avenue, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Markkuilen. On 12/12/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of prohibitive noxious plants, which is a violation of Marco Island code eighteen thirty six three.

I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed. And here are a few pictures. It's our Brazilian pepper. I issued a notice of violation for violating eighteen thirty six three, and I gave a compliance date of 02/1326 to obtain a permit. It was sixty days from the date of the violation.

Here's the copy of the NOV, notice of violation. Photo of the notice of violation posting. Follow-up inspection was done on 02/14/2026, which revealed the location was still in violation with additional photos I took. Also, wanna mention there was no permit applied for as of today as well. Affidavit of violation.

Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing, certified mailbox, and there were no previous violations related to this for that property. And that's all I have for you, sir.

Can I see that first photograph? Judging from the day, you can see why they sometime call sometimes call it Christmas holiday or Mhmm. Florida holiday.

Especially this time of year.

This time of year. It's it's not that it isn't beautiful. It's just that it's a noxious plant. Do you have training in identifying shyness and and other noxious plants?

Limited training, but the Brazilian pepper really stands out for us. But I have had training. We went around looking at different species.

Okay. Alright. I'll admit the exhibits into evidence. There's nobody here to defend the case. I have is did you receive a defense packet from anybody?

I received nothing, sir.

Okay. Thank you.

Based upon the evidence presented, of record, excuse me, at this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as described, did exist on the dates, times, and at the vocation indicated. 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. What is the recommendation for a penalty?

$150 fine, dollars 50 costs, thirty days to obtain the permit and correct the violation or $100 per day.

Is the thirty days enough time you think to get somebody out and correct it? Anybody know anything about that?

I understand that this is a much easier permit to obtain than it is to obtain a building permit, which is why in the building permit cases we get 60. I mean

So, okay. That's I just want to make sure that we're being reasonable on in that whatever I come up with is is reasonable under the circumstances. So they can come in and get a permit fairly quickly.

And we we can give 60. I I I No.

I'm okay I'm okay with that. I just wanna make sure if if this is I think you indicated this is a permit that's fairly easy to get because

I believe it's simply just an online application. Right?

I'm not sure, but I know that it's fairly easy to get and for vacant property. And then they would need to have somebody remove it or do it themselves.

Yeah. And it this being a a company, you would think that they would at least have the have or be able to easily get the expertise necessary to do it as opposed to to if it was just somebody who maybe was, you know, old and decrepit or ill or whatever it may be. So it seems to me that that's fair, just reasonable under the circumstances. So the order will be consistent with the recommendation made. Thank you.

Next up is letter KAsIn kilo, case 20Six-thirty5, 211 Landmark Street.

This is Robert Rich and Casablanca Homes Inc. Stormwater Pollution.

Correct, sir.

Go ahead.

Alright. John Egger, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island code enforcement department. Address of the violation is 211 Landmark Street, which is within the city of Marco Island. 01/07/2026, I observed a code a code enforcement violation of stormwater pollution prevention, basically a silt fence, which is a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code. The following pictures are an accurate depiction of what I took that day.

This is on a new build construction site. There's no fence in the back of the property. Again, the back of the property. Nothing on the side. Nothing around the storm drain preventing any water entering it.

This is also the other side of the property. And in the back, they had had a still fence up on a small portion of the property with a portion of it being down. Okay. Subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance eighteen two one three and eighteen two one three subsections b and 10 with compliance date of 01/13/2026. K.

The following paperwork was administered to the case. This is the NOV. K. Alright. The posted NOV, affidavit of violation, the affidavit of posting, the notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing and the subsequent certified mail documents.

Okay. Follow-up inspections were conducted on January 14, February 5 and February 12, which revealed that the location was still in violation. These are the photos from February 12. Showing no fence had been erected as of this time. Okay. As far as a five year history on the property and the contractor, there were two more two prior silk fence violations for the contractor Casablanca Holmes. And that is all I have at this time, sir.

Mister Nager, I'm sorry. Before you you go, I and my fault for not noticing whether it was or not. Could you put up again, please, the notice of violation that was mailed? I wanna check and make sure if it was cited as a repeat violation.

That's the initial. Could you slide it up just a little bit, please? Okay. And that's the second the following page, second page of it. Okay.

That's all, sir. I'll admit the ex excuse me. I'll admit the exhibits into evidence. Based upon the testimony and other evidence set forth today at this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as described did exist on the dates and time and at the location indicated. I find that I I conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island, and therefore, the finding is guilty.

And by the way, for the record, I don't see anybody here to defend. Do we have a recommendation from the city?

Yes. Since it was not noticed as a repeat violation, we're gonna have to go with $2.50 fines, $50 cost, ten days to bring into compliance, or $100 per day.

I think that the recommendation is fair, just, reasonable and is certainly within the confines of one sixty two point o nine Florida statutes. And my order will be consistent with the recommendation of the city. Thank you. Oh, I'm I'm sorry. Is this just against the contractor or against the owner?

Contractor only.

Yes. Contractor only, not the owner. Thank you.

Next up is letter o as in Oscar, case 2601071748 Granada Drive.

Yes, sir. John Necker, court enforcement officer with the city of Markow Island. Okay. The address of the violation is 1748 Granada Drive, which is within the city of Markow Island. 01/13/2026, I observed the code of code of four two code enforcement violations, excuse me, of high grass and weeds and a silt fence violation.

The following photos are accurate depiction of what I took that day. This is side of the property, as you can see the high grass, and there's no fence up along the left side of the property. This is also a new build site. Okay. This is the back of the property, this photo, as well as here. And following photos are of the right side of the property.

You

can see here in these following photos that a fence was up at one time. That they let it fall and never re erected it again. And this is the right side of the property. I subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinances eighteen thirty six ten and eighteen two thirteen for the silt fence prior for the weeds and grass. For the compliance The

silt fence is one, and what's the other one?

Okay. Eighteen thirty six ten, which are for the high weeds and grass.

Oh, high weeds. Okay. Okay.

They both had a compliance date of 01/20/2026. Follow-up inspections were conducted on January 22, February '11, which revealed that the location was still in violation at that time. These are the additional photos I took from the January from the February 11 follow-up. So left side of the property, they did clear some of the weeds out and haphazardly put a fence up, which did not remain erected. That is the right side of the property, as well the right side.

This is the back of the property showing no sill fence and the grass high again.

Is that an elevation? Is that a hill or something?

It's a the back of the property rises,

yes. One of the mounds?

Yeah. So the back as well, showing the high grass and no fence. Back of the property as well, showing no fence and high grass. Okay. Five year history of the property revealed for the contractor that they had five prior silt fence violations.

Oh, wait. I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm sorry. Let me back up a bit. The paperwork administered to the case is the NOV.

Could I see the yeah. You knew I was gonna ask, didn't you? Okay. Posted NOV.

Affidavit of violation. Affiliate posting. Notice of hearing. Okay, this is the mailed notice of hearing. Okay, second page of it.

And then the third page showing the repeat violation provision was checked off. Posted notice of hearing and the certified mail documents. As Okay. Far as the five year history, for the builder, Fetterhoff O'Neill Home Builders, they've had five prior self fence violations and two prior high grass and weed violations. And against the owner, there are three high grass and weed violations as well as one silt fence violation.

Okay? And at this point, that's all I have, sir.

Okay. Anything further? That's all?

That's all I have, sir.

I'll admit the exhibit's into evidence. Have we heard from the respondents?

No.

Either the owner or the builder?

No. Based

upon the testimony and other evidence presented at 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 on both counts. What is the recommendation? I noticed that the, it appears that this, I wanna make sure this is correct. It appears that both have been notified that this is a repeat violation. Is that correct? Correct. The the owner also?

Was were we was the owner cited as well, mister Negra?

Let me see if it was. This notice of violation the only notice of violation I had was for Fetterhoff owning a home builder. Contract.

Yeah. We're just contractor only.

So we're not proceeding against the owner even though I guess the owner lucked out because it could have been a repeat against the owner based upon the testimony. But but if he wasn't cited for

Well, there was one issued to Granada seventeen forty eight REO LLC, which is listed as the owner, I believe.

Could you go back to the back in the stack to the original notices of violation? It's probably underneath everything. Those are the mills. The notice of violation. You're almost there.

Okay. This is

No. You underneath Federhoff.

Yeah. The original?

Okay. Now that that's your kind of your written notice. Yes. Okay. Alright. Now go go to your formal notices.

Yeah. That's the one formal notice.

That's a notice of hearing.

Oh, I'm sorry, sir. This code violation this notice of code violation shows the repeat for the builder. Let me see if I can dig the other one out. Alright. The my apologies, sir. The one for the owner, 1748Oreo. Okay.

The first page two of that.

That doesn't show repeat violator checked off. So just for the builders, checked off, sir.

Okay. So for the owner so the I think I'm correct in it. What I thought I saw was the owner was not charged with a repeat violation, but the builder Correct. Correct. Even though the testimony was that the owner perhaps could have been, but we have to be careful about what we do about it. So okay. The findings the finding is further that it's a repeat violation against the builder, but not against the owner. Do we have a recommendation?

Yes. We do. Regarding the silt fence violation, it's gonna be $450 fines based on the repeat violations on the contractor. And by the way, this is gonna be contractor only. And what

was the the amount?

$450.

$4.50?

$50 costs. For the remainder of the violations, $300 in the aggregate. So total $300 fines, one time $50 cost for all of these. Fourteen days to bring into compliance or $100 per day fine.

Now that's against the owner and the builder?

Contractor only.

Oh, the contractor only? Alright. Based upon the fact that this is that we're dealing with two repeat violations, I think that this is well, it is within the limits of the $500 per count limit per violation limit as opposed to two fifty. So I think that it's fair, just, and reasonable also that so my order will be consistent with the recommendation, which I bet he's going to have to say again. Right? Nothing against the owner. Nothing. Contractor only for everything. Contractor only. Thank you.

The owner got very lucky here because it could have been a repeat against the owner, I think, at least on well, yes, I think it could have been. So, all right.

Is that it?

Everybody understand that? Okay. Thank you.

My apologies on the confusion.

Next up, letter P as in Paul, case 260116581TigerTailCourt.

This is, Brian and Sandra Betton at Luxury Homes of Southwest Florida Inc.

Good morning, ambulance magistrate. My name is Patrick Young, and I'm assigned to the code enforcement department of Mark Allen Police Department. On 01/14/2026, while on routine patrol, I observed a right of way obstruction, blocking the sidewalk that is in violation of 18 Dash 36 Subsection 6 at 581 Tiger Tail Court, which is within the confines of the city of Marco Island. These are photos of the violation. After observing that violation, I wrote a notice of violation.

Miss Youngkin, are you trained to be able to detect that that's a violation of the right of way?

I am, sir. Yes. Okay. Just from walking on by. I then posted that notice of violation.

There's a copy of the notice of code violation that went to both the builder and the property owner. Okay. Affidavit of violation also both to the builder and the owner. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing.

That's builder. Property owner. Both received it certified mail. There was multiple follow-up investigations done. This was the day after the compliance date.

I have multiple photos here, but I'll fast forward to I returned there again this morning at about 8AM. That's photos from this morning where they are still are still they non compliant. That's all I have, sir. I'm sorry. Yes. They do have a five five year shows just one other prior that came to Magistrate.

And that's luxury homes?

Yes, sir. Nothing on the Nothing

on the owner?

No, And

and violation was for,

obstruction as well?

The prior?

Yes, sir. Okay. Yes.

Can you can you show me the the formal mailed notice of violation, please?

It wasn't considered repeat being as if there was only one other violation. The only other one was the one to the homeowner.

I'll admit the exhibits into evidence. I'll note for the record that we did not appear to have anybody in the room to defend the case. You have not received a defense packet from anybody. Is that correct?

No, sir. And I did speak to the builder in in the meantime, and they said you were gonna clear it up, but it's clearly still there.

Based upon the testimony and other evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described that did exist at the location and and on the dates and times testified to and apparently are still there as of today. The conclusion of law is that the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island, so the finding is guilty. Are we proceeding against the property owners also?

No. This contractor only.

Okay. We're proceeding against the contractor only. Do you have a recommendation?

Yes. $250 fine, $50 costs, ten days to correct the violation, or $100 per day.

I think that under the circumstances, the recommendation is fair and it is consistent with the findings that are outlined in one sixty two point o nine Florida statutes. So that will be my order. The recommendation of the city will be my order.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Next up is Q is in Quebec, case 20Six-one50, 571 North Barfield Drive.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah. Okay. Sudden onset dyslexia.

That's alright. We all have it. John Negra, code enforcement officer with the city of Markow Island. The address of the violation is 517 North Barfield Drive, which is within the city of Markow Island. On 01/22/2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of sidewalk encroachment, which is a violation of the Marco Wella municipal code.

Following photos of the violation are an accurate account of what I observed that day. The bushes encroaching into the sidewalk and the low hanging palm tree as well, well below the seven and a half foot minimum. Closer photo just to show how far it encroached into the sidewalk. They subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance forty two thirty six subsection e with the compliance date of 01/30/2026. This is subsequent paperwork administered to the case.

The notice of violation. Right. Posted notice of violation. The second notice of violation was just for a trash can violation, which is not being pursued here at this time.

Right.

Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, and the certified mail documents. Follow-up inspections were conducted on January 31 and February 12, which revealed that the location was still in violation at that time. It's twelfth, still showing in violation.

Okay. The address was later found to be in compliance as of February 21. Okay. And there's no history for the address at

You say it was brought into compliance?

February 21, almost a month after the original compliance date.

Okay. Thank you.

That is all I have, sir.

I know for the record that there's nobody here to defend. Have you heard from the property owner?

No. I have

not. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented here at the 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. By the way, the exhibits are admitted into evidence. I conclude as a matter of law, the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation as to a fine that has been corrected?

$150 fine and $50 cost.

A one time fine of a 150? That's correct. I think that's eminently reasonable. So that'll be my order.

Thanks, sir. Okay.

Lastly, we have certification letter VAsInVictor, 10251544CAsInCharlie.

Good morning, mister magistrate. Good morning. My name is Anthony Ferraro, code enforcement officer, city of Marco Island. And today, I'm gonna be presenting the certification of fines. The address is 1136 Lighthouse Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of City Of Marco Island.

The final per diems are from 12/19/2025 to 12/30/2025, which is eleven days at $101,100 dollars per day, equaling $1,100 plus $6,950 from previous per diems and fines for a grand total of $8,050.

Okay. Do you have a Do you have an exhibit?

Yeah. Perfect. Martin, could you zoom in on that, please? Especially towards the bottom? So

the number 17 is the calculation. Is that correct? The final per diems, you just testified, and that's $8,008.00 $5.00. Right?

That is correct.

$16,100. Now has was there a was there a certification before? This is not this is not in addition to some other certification that you have?

It's not.

Okay. Fine. I I just wanna make sure.

Yes.

And, again, on these certifications, also known as impositions, the it it's simply a a math calculation of the number of days past the date for compliance that there has been noncompliance times the amount of the fine that was previously imposed. Correct. And the amount is $8.00 5 o point $0.00. I I don't see anybody here. Have you heard anything from the

I don't have anything in that case folder. I haven't heard anything. No. No. Okay.

My order will be to impose and certify eight zero five o as the amount of fine up to this date.

And that's it.

Anything further?

No. That's all. Have

we missed anything or do we have everything for the today's agenda? I was a little surprised that the agenda wasn't as long. I guess we're going to pay for that in April. We do not have a meeting in March as I recall.

That is correct.

Okay. Well, with that, I'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting, and thank you all for being here.