Code Enforcement - Regular Meeting

Sounds like it. Looks like it. Good morning, everybody. My name is Robert Britt. I'm an attorney.

I'll be serving as the special magistrate for code enforcement for the city of Marco Island today. Thank you all for being here. And just a couple of things to tell you. The first of all, the meeting comes to order. My task here today is to hear testimony and any other evidence, documentary evidence you want to send or submit, and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence that I hear today, and to make a determination of guilty or not guilty, and if there's a determination of guilty to issue an order that may or may not consist of a penalty.

The city attorney here today is mister Nutella, and he's going to be presenting the order of the hearings and announce announcing each case. I'll then take the testimony and evidence from the city's representatives and then take any testimony and evidence from the alleged violator or their representative. So we do have to take all the testimony today under oath. It becomes it's under oath and is part of the record. So if you think that you may want to say anything today concerning any case to me, please raise your right hand, and I'll administer the oath.

Keep please keep your hands raised.

Okay. I'd and we what we do is we swear in everybody for all of the cases today. So if you have more than one case, you'd be considered sworn for that too. 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?

Yes, sir. I do.

Okay. I think everybody in the room, with the exception of, the attorney has taken the oath. Okay. So what I do is I issue findings of fact, and conclusions of law after I've heard the testimony and looked at any and all of the evidence that has been presented. With that, are we ready to go ahead and proceed with the first case?

We are ready.

Thank you.

Good morning. Joe Nutella on behalf of the city of Marco Island starting with letter h as in hotel on your docket, 1078CottonwoodCourt.

This is, city of Marco Island versus AquaLeak detection in David And Young. Do we have anybody here on that case? Yes, sir. Okay. We'll make sure that you have the opportunity to present your side of the case too. Okay? Yes, sir. Go ahead and start, miss Good morning,

mister magistrate. How are you?

Okay.

K. John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Markow Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 1078 City Of Markow Island. On 01/03/2025, I observed the code enforcement violation of illicit discharge, which is a violation of the Markow Island municipal code. I was called there on a citizen complaint regarding the illicit discharge.

Discharge. Following pictures of the violation or an accurate count of what was observed, may I add that these photos were taken by Councilman Gray, who is a resident, and he provided an affidavit showing that he took the photos. He is here today as well. Okay. The photos show the elicit discharge into the canal. This was from the pool area. I should say the pool. Alright? A direct discharge into the canal. Basically, the same photo, a little bit different.

K. Responding, I did speak to the employee Ryan from AquaLeak Protection, and I advised him of the violation. He said he did not know that it was a violation of the municipal code. He advised that the water was not treated as well so it was chlorinated water that was going in. Subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 18 dash two twelve.

No compliance date as it's irreparable. This is also the sworn statement of councilman Gray of the pictures that he provided. And it is notarized. K. These are the this is the paperwork that was associated to the case.

Notice of violation. Posted notice of violation at the home. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing.

Posted notice hearing and certified mail documents. Okay. And just to note, there is no history for the contractor, Aquileak, within the city of Markow Island. That's all I have, sir.

Okay. Now you say there was an affidavit from the council member? This is a I can't see the top of it. Is it oh, I see a sworn statement. Okay. And is the council member here?

Yes. He is, sir.

So far, it's hearsay, even though it's fancy hearsay, an affidavit. And if if I may, I'd like to have the council member testify.

Good morning, your honor. Steven Good morning.

I'm I'm not a your honor. I'm just Well just magistrate that but thank you. Yes. The there's an affidavit and some photographs. The affidavit is yours. Is that correct?

That is correct.

And you witnessed the, discharge, the alleged discharge. Is that correct?

It's correct. I have the photos on my phone with me. Okay.

The photographs, there are two photographs that were submitted. Were those taken by you?

Yes. They were.

And did they fairly and accurate portray this the situation on the date you took the photographs?

Yes. I don't know why they wouldn't be fair or accurate. It was a photograph taken. Yes.

Well, in law, it's called authentication. When you have photographs, somebody who took the photographs is supposed to authenticate them by by testifying that they are a fair and accurate representation of what they actually saw.

They are a fair and accurate representation of what I saw.

Okay. Thank you. I didn't mean to be taking over asking the questions, but I wanted to make sure that we we had that since you're here. Yeah. Mister Nutella, did you have anything else you wanted?

Nothing further for the commission. Okay. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Thank you, sir.

Unexcused? Yes. Thank you.

The alleged violator does have the right to cross examine, so if if you would stick around here for a few minutes. Mister Nager, are you finished? Mister Natello?

We're we're done. The the respondent is present, and I could see he would like to go up there and

Okay.

Speak his mind. Yes, sir.

Yes, sir. Come on in.

Thank you.

Thank you for

having me.

This this has been cited as what's called irreparable harm, and therefore, the penalties are a whole lot more. They're up to $5,000 per incident. So you you might want to tell your side of the story. And if you need to cross examine anybody, you have the right to do that.

No. I'm gonna actually my name is Rob Angelo, owner of AquaLeak Detection. I've been in business for twenty one years. This is my first hearing of any kind, so forgive me for the not understanding the whole process leading up to this.

That's why I was explaining.

No, no, no. And thank you for that. I will start off by saying you might not get saw. What you saw in the picture is an accurate portraying of water being discharged into the canal. Okay? But sometimes pictures don't tell the entire story. So the only thing I wanna and I I didn't know how to submit. I'm gonna what I just saw here before. So if this is incorrect, just please let me know. I have a few pictures here.

Also, the intent of how this all came about is the neighboring property has burrowing owls on it. Here is a picture of the side yard scene, and I don't I I can't tell where your house is. I'm assuming it's across the canal in this direction. From our very first appointment, which is about fourteen days prior to this repair being done, we were made aware of the owls on this property, and we would normally discharge across the land to the storm water that's act as a filter. Okay?

We got tunnel vision on these owls. We and that's and this is where this all started. So what we did, and according to what the chart, I think, was the code enforcement said about the untreated water, that is not accurate also. We started the dechlorination process 13 prior to doing this repair. There was also roughly 4,000 gallons of fresh water filtered through the pool to help with the dechlorination process to get us to the point of where we could dump the water.

And so that's where the water came. That was less than potable from a potable water source to the pool with no additional chemicals added until there was a complete cycle of the entire pool water being refilled and cleansed of the chemicals before we put in there. But again, non malice side was we were trying to cure one problem, but apparently making it look like we were causing a bigger problem, which wasn't the intention nor would it ever be our intention to do that. We are pretty up to standard with the county's and the city's ordinances, whether it's a hay bale, a sock, a filter. Again, my apologies in the sense of if there's anything that was done here, it was due to trying not to cause a a bird that's federally protected or at least by the FWC.

And, again, can we get television? Sure. But we did everything within what we thought was the right thing to do to make a clean water dump, not just taking pool water and dumping chlorinated water into a canal. That wasn't the case. You can see here that even trying to run the water, there's only about a four foot gap on the back of the property between the edge of the pool and the fence here to have an accurate filtration to the water. So then that was limited. Most municipalities, it's 12 to 15 feet they would like to see of the filtration before it goes over. And we were told and not me directly, so it's hearsay. I was told that we were just said, hey. Just make sure the water hits the grass before it goes in the canal.

I I wasn't there for that, so that was just something that could be hearsay. The other thing is the amount of water. This was not a complete dump of six this is roughly a 6,000 gallon pool. The reason I show this picture with the arrow, that is pointing to this fitting right here. Which is to get the water, and that's the fitting you can see the repairs done to it, was a three inch water dump.

Very rough numbers here, but accurate to the numbers. But there's roughly 6,000 gallons in this pool. At 48 inches deep, it's a 125 gallons per inch. We roughly released or got roughly 375 on the high side of gallons from this pool. It was not a complete dump. But the other one that I wanted to put here is out of the Marco Island code of ordinances. I really stink at, like, referencing numbers that I've never had to do it before, so I apologize. But it's right here.

You're refer to the dechlorination exemption?

In in the GA and it just says authorized. Again, I I'm just again, authorized can mean I mean it's authorized that somebody else had to authorize it. It could mean that I had to go and get authorization. I didn't do that. Again, I'm saying I dumped the water, I'm putting this here in about the dechlorinated swimming discharge. Yes. That's an exemption. How that's interpreted? That's for you guys to tell me, I guess, but I'm not going to ramble on here. I just wanted to hopefully make sense of some of those things, but and there you go.

Sir, if I could just ask you a question. Right here. Hello. Hi. Right here. Was there any testing of the water after it went through the process? You described earlier that the water was dechlorinated, that there was fresh water pumped in to the point that it was but did you test the water to to gauge the amount of chlorine that remained in the water that was eventually dumped into the the canal?

I did not test the water. I was not there. My we carry test strips on every one of our trucks. I did not. I was not on on-site of it.

Do you know if your employee tested it?

I cannot. It is part of our process to do that because we're going across people's lawns a lot. We've killed some bushes in the past and things

like that.

So we do make it is part of our process to do that. I did I did not test that, though, but it is part of our process.

Okay. But but what I'm getting at is if if your employer or somebody tested it and has some kind of something to show us what the results of the test of the water as far as chlorine content

any of those results. We just we do it for health reasons. We do it in the water every day. So our guys swab the water every single day before they even get in it to make sure there's nothing chew off because they're underwater every day. So it's but to answer your question directly, no, did

not. And

just and so to go back to that, and neither did the code enforcement test the water to make sure that it was dechlorinated.

Okay. Do you have anything else?

I don't think so. I hope

I Those photographs, Rob, were they taken by you? No, sir.

We'll stipulate to them. That's fine.

You'll stipulate. Okay. Good. If he stipulates that the photo photographs can be considered by me, then you don't have to authenticate the photographs. So we're okay with that.

The the only one I did was just the borrowing owls. That's something that I grabbed not only I grabbed online, and my technician took a picture of it.

Thank you. Anything else, sir? I don't think so. Do you object to the admission into evidence of the documents that the city has presented? Oh, absolutely not. Okay. They'll be admitted without objection. Does the city agree to the admission of the documents that the alleged violator has presented today?

Yes, sir. I stipulated to them.

Okay. So they'll be admitted into evidence. Thank you. Did you have any other questions of of anybody?

No, sir. I

Okay. Anything further from the city? This is kind this is kinda called closing argument. It's we're done just

fine. Just I I just presented something within logic. And so, yeah, I don't whatever you guys do from here is I appreciate it.

And and Anything else, sir? Okay. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as testified to and shown by the city did exist on the date, time, and at the place indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that, this is a violation of, the section of the code. Sir, I think you have a a very good argument concerning the, potential exemption, but we don't have any any proof of that.

And and and and it's not that I don't believe your testimony, but I think that they but a greater way of the evidence have shown that there's a that there's a violation. And for that reason, my finding is guilty. What I'd like to do now is ask for a recommendation as to a penalty. And, sir, this is called the penalty phase.

Absolutely. Yeah. No worries.

We don't get to the penalty phase if if if the finding is not guilty. But

Sure.

Makes sense.

If the finding is guilty. So I'd like a recommendation from the city under the circumstances, and then you'll also be able to talk to me about the penalty.

Oh, absolutely.

So the city requests number one, a finding of irreparable harm. Number two, as far as the fine goes, it is our procedure in the city when there's irreparable harm to the waterways or the environment that we request the maximum $5,000 fine and $50 costs.

So you're recommending the maximum fine. Is that right?

Yes, sir.

Sir, they're recommending the fine be $5,000. Our costs are about are $50. That's cost of prosecution, which is almost nothing in today's parlance, but but the fine is fairly stiff fine. Would you like to speak to that?

I mean, if if there's no say, I mean, in twenty one years of business having zero track record or any violations at all, I feel like it's very extreme. But and just again, to rebuttal it, if if if it's all on my test kit and then it's being enforced, I mean, where where is the test saying that's not? I mean, isn't it presumed innocent?

Well, presumed

it's presumed guilty.

But for an exemption to apply, the burden would be on you to show that the exemption applies. The city

Well, here, mean, I even even I mean, again, and it's too late maybe for for more information. Within so the way that the I even brought the book that I partially this is the floor this is the manual on pool chemicals. Within within two days of a pool being not chlorine, it's 75 dissipation.

Sir, I need to have you on the mic a

little a little closer.

Chlorine levels dissipate within two days of being at optimal running levels. It was a thirteen day period that there was no chemicals added to this pool, and I can show via chemistry that it's dissipated. It's gone. I said, I'm good with I I walked up and knowingly said, hey. Yeah. We did it, but but he you don't have a test either saying there was chlorine in it.

Sir sir, is that some evidence that you would like the magistrate to consider in his finding?

I mean, I I would again and you asked me already, so I'm again, I'm I'm a very logical, abiding person. You said it was submitted now or nothing else, and I just thought of it because I'm new to it. So I just as I'm sitting here, I'm just trying to but I I I do. I mean, it's it's just the the pool comes. The sunlight kills chlorine within days. That's why your pool service comes weekly. Whoever takes care of your pool because it's dying off literally by the minute you add it. Over a thirteen day period, there was nothing left in the pool. There's no chlorine in there.

Do do we Okay.

With that

You know, I'm good with a penalty. I just I think it's I just think it's really extreme for

the So the city has the city has a mitigation program for for code violations.

K.

Okay. You have reasons to believe that your fine that's been assessed should be less than what it was assessed for. Correct?

I I believe so.

Okay. So then so then mister Richter will speak to you after the hearing and explain to you what the the mitigation process is. All these things that you're raising right now should be provided. Okay. And an offer made on your part as far as what you feel a fair find should be, and then the city will take into consideration. And then and then we will talk to you about that further.

Alright. Perfect.

Yeah. That's good to hear. Okay. If if I can have the floor back again now. Based upon the discussions that we've had concerning the penalty, I'm going to not impose the full penalty.

Appreciate that. I I I do give some credence to what has been said about the perhaps the chlorine has has you know, gets burned off, and it's not as much of a of a discharge as if if something were just done immediately. So penalty is going to be $3,500. That's right. The cost of prosecution is still $50. Thank you. So that'll be my finding. Thank you for coming in. It's it sounds like you're a pretty good business person, and it's no reflection on you or anything like that. Totally understand.

But but it was important that you came in. Otherwise, it probably almost certainly would have been the full $5,000 fine. And No one ever wants

to sign up for

a he says, I don't have any part in any mitigation until

Don't sweat it. I I'm I'm

Well, no. Wait a minute. Let me finish. Yeah. Until until a mitigation request comes before me, I do have some on the agenda, but you can talk to them afterwards about it. Don't even sweat it. It's all good.

Okay. No. I appreciate that.

Okay. Thank you for talking.

Spending the money, but I appreciate I appreciate the thought in it. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir. Have a

great day.

Next up is letter e as in echo. Case 242939844 Bald Eagle Drive.

Okay. And that's 844 Bald Eagle Doctor LLC and 844GoldPrimeDBAElectricLightSpirits illicit discharge. Is there anybody here on that case? Okay, sir.

K. Madam Shea Pridd.

Go ahead and proceed.

I'm John Egger, court enforcement officer with the Markow Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 844 Bald Eagle Drive within the city of Markow Island. On 12/23/2024, I I observed the court enforce a violation of illicit discharge in relation to a citizen complaint, which is a violation of the Markham Island Municipal Code. Following pictures of the violation are an accurate account of what I observed. 844 Bald Eagle, sir, is a restaurant.

And at the rear of the restaurant, there was apparently some cleaning done of restaurant material. The oils, the grease, and the debris were left in the roadway to drain into the storm water system. The photo here shows the oils. Can point out a little better, I'm sorry. That were in the water that was there, the grease and whatnot.

As you can see here, I'm pointing out oil is basically floating on top of the water. This was the debris from the cleaning of the restaurant materials. Again, the oils and the debris. Wider view with the mushroom at the end.

Mr. Dager, if I could real quick, and those that picture, the picture you're about to put on, what is specifically we're looking at here? Is this is this the curb that This

is the curb. This is the edge of the property. This is between the property and the roadway. Roadway is here, property is here. This is the drainage canal, if you want to put it. That

leads to where? I'm sorry, sir. That leads to where?

Would lead eventually to a storm water sewer. Same thing here showing the oils that are on top of the water. This is a wider view of how much water was left at the scene there. Okay. Again, showing the oils that are on there.

And a longer view, which shows how the drainage canal or drainage area, I should say, would run eventually to a sewer, that it would drain all the way down the street.

Is that the sewer in the is sewer grate in the background past that white car that I'm looking at or is it more towards you?

No. No. You can't see it in this picture. It's further down the street. Further down the roadway. Further down

where we're looking or further down

It would be opposite. An opposite view from this picture the other way.

So it'd be towards where you're taking the picture? Correct.

Okay.

Correct.

Okay. Alright. Following oh, I'm sorry. Issued a notice of violation for the ordinance 18 dash 212 as there's no compliance date as it's irreparable. Okay. The following paperwork was administered to the case. The notice of violation.

Okay. Thank you again.

Posted notice of violation, affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting, The notice of hearing. K. There's two notice of hearings that went out. One to the address itself, 844 Bald Eagle, which is the restaurant, and 844 Golf And Prime, which is the DBA for Electric Light and Spirits, the parent of the company. Posted notice of hearing, certified mail documents, and let it be noted that there's no history for the restaurant prior violations of this type.

That's all I have, sir.

For either one of them? Either one either for either entity?

Yes. Miss miss Schneider, before you you leave the podium, I have some questions when you're done, sir. Go ahead.

I I think you said it, but, because you usually do, but let me make sure I I ask. Those photographs were taken by you. Is that correct?

That is correct, sir.

Yes. And do they fairly and accurately portray the condition of the premises on the dates you took the pictures?

Yes. They do. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. Mister Nagrid, did you see any of that debris, that water, the oil go into the storm water drain?

No. I did not because it's a length not shouldn't say a length, but down the street. Like I said, the view that would be opposite of what I showed.

Okay. Did but but when you

run Eventually, it will run down there.

Yes. But did you see whether it had run down there yet? No. No. You didn't see it or no it did not when you

I did not see

it. Okay.

Do you know if if it's been cleaned up yet?

Yes. It has been.

Okay. Do you know roughly when it was cleaned up?

Basically, a day or two later.

Okay. Do you happen to remember whether or not there were any storms or or rain events that

happened in between?

Okay. I don't recall.

Alright. Nothing further. Okay.

Alright. Thank you. Yes, sir. It's your turn.

Hi. It's Mike.

Okay.

My name is Charles Morris. I represent the ownership group. Been in the restaurant business sixty years, both in regulatory and private enterprise. I got a master's degree in public health. I worked directly under Tony Newton, is in the very scurrilous and ignorant commentary by the gentleman who brought this thing forward.

Is Chef Newton is meticulous about guarding the environment. He cares about being a good citizen, corporate citizen. We in no way denied that there was a particular there. We've changed our we immediately changed. We were actually spraying the hoods things, which is a chemical that's environmentally sound. But it's also it violates the the the code enforcement officer very concise in saying, there can't be anything in there but water. Now the one one problem, if I can, with that picture

Yes,

is we have the the the curve is it's got a aperture, which the water just recirculates the way I fixed it. And, of course, it rained heavy yesterday, so it looks like a big puddle of water again. And that water is taking in, you know, oil off the road and whatever. But, again, I don't deny the fact that we we did previous to this allegation, we were cleaning our hood system in a way that's not the code compliance. That was immediately fixed.

And the owners, I don't know if you know them, they own also the sandbar. And we have a contractor that's renovating that. So, we're going to build a again under the recommendation of the code enforcement people. We're going to build an outdoor drain that's hooked into the thing. Matter the matter will never occur again. We're we're sorry for being poor citizens. But I I I do take a little umbrage of the the I talked about the the actual ordinance itself. When I cleaned up, we were using a particular 20 parts per million chlorine. You can drink that. So that's not really harming the environment.

But I can't speak not well enough versed in science to what our hood cleaner guy, he's a private contractor, was using. So we brought all those activities inside so that we don't do any more harm

or anything.

And like I said, we'll eventually build the outside totally would be on go through code enforcement and whatnot. So it'd be built perfectly designed. Anyway, we were wrong, but we are like I said, I've worked with Chef Newton in three different restaurants. We've changed things to protect the turtles. He was a former chef at the snook.

We took lots of measures to make sure that water was well protected. We have owls burrowing in our lobby, and we left them alone so that they come to no harm. I get to clean that up every day. Anyway, were wrong, we've done it right. And the code compliance guys were very generous in you know, their helping us to resolve the issue.

Okay. Thank you. Anything further? Anything further on behalf of the city?

Nothing further from the city.

Okay. Well, thank you for coming in. And it's always very helpful when you come in and if there was a mistake or something, admitting it, is is is good. It's very helpful. I at least I think so.

Based upon the testimony and evidence, presented here today and and the admission that we have here today, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as alleged by the city did occur on the date and time and at the place indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the codes of the city of Marco Island. And I'm I'm going to withhold the finding is guilty, but, I'm going to, I I do wanna have a discussion as to whether or not this became an illicit discharge. I think that, the city attorney was asking questions, that got to the point, as to whether or not, it went into a sewer system, or was apt to go into a sewer system in this particular case. And so I would like to consider that when I consider the penalty.

Okay? And you'll have a chance to have input in that also. Mister Intello, recommendation for a penalty?

Recommendations are a $500 fine, not the $5,000 because we cannot support any assertions that there was any runoff into the storm water system, and it was remediated within a couple days.

So that's the recommendation. Instead of a $5,000 maximum fine, that's a $500 fine.

That's very generous. Appreciate it.

Do you you wanna argue about that one? No, sir. Or or just putting any input in that? Okay. So I will the fine imposed will be a $500 fine. Yeah.

Dollars cost.

And 50, yeah, $50 cost. The cost of prosecution, that's the cost of them having to come out and do the inspections and come back and take pictures and things like that. And that's very minimal, as far as, this city is concerned. So so that'll be the order. A $500 fine, one time fine has been cleared up. It it was taken care of right away. Right?

Oh, yes, sir. Absolutely.

And the city does not object to that? I mean, the city agrees it was taken care of.

Well, the city witness testified that it was.

Yeah. I I I thought that, that's what he said. Okay. So $500 fine, one time fine, and $50 cost of prosecution. That's my order. Thank you.

Next up is letter a as in alpha, case 242430 for 740 Rockport Court.

Okay. Mister magistrate, John Negro, code enforcement officer with the Markowilen Police Department. Address of the violation is 740 Rockport Court within the city of Markowilen on October 16.

And that's versus Christine Segastro. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Is Christine here or anybody on oh, okay. And you have somebody here on your behalf your behalf also. Okay. Thank you.

Right. On 10/16/2024, observed the court of force violation of a dilapidated dock, which is a violation of the Margo Island Municipal Code. This is in response to a citizen complaint. Following pictures are an accurate account of what I observed on that day. As you can see, the dock lift is falling into the water held up by ropes. Closer picture showing that.

Is that the boat lift?

Boat lift. Yes. Yes. That's another view of it. And there's another section of the dock that is completely underwater at this point.

Alright. That is either fallen in or broken apart, whatever it might have been. I subsequently issued a notice of violation for ordinance 54 dash one twelve h, the compliance date of 12/16/2024. Follow-up inspections were conducted on December 18, January 10, February 13, which revealed that the location was still in violation. As of February 22, no permit was applied for on the for the work on the property, alright, as, the compliance state requested a sixty day compliance period to apply and obtain permits for the repairs.

These are photos to show that the violation still existed on the February 13. The dock is still in the same condition. Actually, the lift is still in the same condition. The dock and another closer picture of the dock and the lift. Okay. Social paperwork was administered to the case. This is the notice of violation.

Is there a way of, magnifying that a little bit? Isn't there a a magnification knob there? I'd I'd like to read the bottom part. Thank you.

I

guess I could put some glasses on.

I hear you.

Mr. Stenger, if you could just kind of push it to what would be the There.

Thank you. Alright. Thank

you. This is the posted notice of violation. K. There were so there was another there were two other violations. Subsequently, another vile notice of violation was posted. The one violation has been taken care of, and the other one is pending at this point on a different case.

So we are only dealing with one violation? Yes, Okay.

Thank you.

It's affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. And these are the certified mail documents, each showing that it was delivered to an individual at the address with a time and date stamp on there. That's all I have, mister magistrate, and there's no history on this property for the same offense.

Alright. And I think you testified that the photographs were taken by you. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

They fairly showed the condition of the premises on the date you took them? Yes. K. Thank you. Okay. Sir or ma'am or both.

I'll start. I'm Bill Morris. I'm an attorney here at Marco Island. Miss Agaster

knew that, but go ahead.

Mister Agaster has asked me to help her today. The this is really in the nature of a show cause hearing. The notice that was provided to miss Agastre in October said that she had sixty days within which to come forward and show that she'd applied for a permit to try to fix this problem. Unfortunately, she never got that notice. She didn't get any of these notices in connection with the case. As her affidavit, which we filed with the the magistrate's office, confirms that she'd yet no notice until she found a notice of today's hearing in the bushes in her yard. And she brought that to my office the very next day. She had been out of town. And when she came back January 24, she found the notice of the hearing. This hearing was originally scheduled in January.

We asked for a continuance until today's hearing date so that she could meet with me. After meeting with me and understanding what the situation was, she immediately contacted Collier, Seawall, and DOC and entered a contract with them to repair the dock and the lift. That's been submitted as an attachment to her affidavit, so it's in evidence for you to review. The date that they're going to do the work or start doing the work is March 18. As you can probably appreciate, the dock people have plenty of work on their plate.

I'm actually surprised she was able to get them out there in that short period of time. But she has contracted to make the repairs to the dock within. She contracted on January 30. She got the notice out of her bushes on January 24. So insofar as notice and due process is concerned, she certainly has acted expeditiously to solve this problem. I cannot tell you why she didn't get the notice. I recognize there are pictures of them being taped on the door of her garage. However, she did find the one notice of the hearing in the bushes. And as you're probably aware, there have been some things happening on Marco tearing up of public bathrooms, things of that nature. No telling what happened to those notices originally.

But I can tell you, as she swears, that she's never saw them. And soon as she did, she took care of this. So since this hearing today is in the nature of a show cause, and she was given sixty days within which just to come forward and say that she's been working on getting this resolved, she's well within the sixty days of finding the notice on January 24. She's got scheduled a start date for Collier Seawall. And I think they're a pretty reputable company here on the island. I have every reason to believe they're actually going to follow through on doing this on March 18. And this should be completed shortly after that. So it would be my request today that she not be found guilty of violating any of these notices. That she has acted in good faith. That she has complied with doing what needed to be done, which was the notice to show cause of why she shouldn't be penalized.

The reason is, she never got the notice, and she's now under contract with Collier Sewall. So we'd ask that at most, this be continued until after March 18 to show that she can submit to staff that she's had the work completed, and therefore this case be dismissed. If you would like Uh-huh. Her to stand up and swear that everything I said is true, I'd be happy to do that.

Before we do, the request is for a continuance. Let's let's let's talk about that. Mister Nutella?

So so as in regards to, counsel's statements about notice, we've set the record that the notice was achieved consistent with the statute by delivery via certified mail. This isn't a hearing for show cause. This is a hearing for a finding of a violation. And the fact remains as evident by the photographs and the testimony of Mr. Negra that the dock was dilapidated. Therefore it was a violation. So we asked that a violation be entered and and I hear and it's great. She acted quickly and we appreciate that. And she's got a contract. What I did not hear is any testimony as far as a permit.

That's what I was about to ask for. Has a permit been applied for?

That's in the hands of Collier Sewall. I did not check today to see if the permit application has been made by Collier. But in response to counsel, I will point out that the record submitted as evidence of proof of delivery of a certified mail notice is hearsay. There's no evidence that anybody actually delivered that and handed it to a person at that residence. Mr. Gaster was not there. And if anyone else is here who's ever had certified mail claim to be delivered, I can tell you from personal testimony, I have had documents that purportedly were delivered to me by certified mail that were not in fact delivered to me. So that is not evidence, your honor. That is heresy. We object to that being in the record.

The only thing we then have would be the posted notice. And the only testimony as to whether or not that was actually received is what Ms. Segastri would testify. She didn't know anything until she found the notice in the bushes.

And like the magistrate knows that hearsay in court enforcement hearings is admissible to be considered on the to be given the weight that the magistrate determines to be persuasive. So it's our assertion again by the documentation that's accepted on a on every case that's presented before the magistrate is to prove for the certified mailings. Regardless, what the city is looking for is and I've received confirmation that according to the city's records, to date, there is no application for a permit. So when your honor is ready for me to provide my recommended sentence, I'll be happy to oblige.

Well, I haven't found anybody guilty yet. The notices are governed by one sixty two point twelve of the Florida statutes. I'm not sure if either the attorneys have pulled that up, but I pulled it up while you were testifying. And it's it's a little bit it it's different from what it is for court. And that's in the wisdom of the legislature.

They have changed that a few times over the years. And certified mail is allowed and at the option of the local government return receipt requested to the address that's listed in the tax collector's office for tax notices, etcetera. The local government may also provide an additional notice to any other drafts. That's that's not the and it still may be notified by posting. It looked to me like there was a posting on the garage.

I couldn't read it, but I I think that was a testimony that that it was posted, there was an affidavit of posting. So it it seems to me that service and my computer stopped working. Well, before I say that, so the the there's a provision for for posting, and that's what's used quite often. What what's often done is they send out certified mail, but because so many people are so many different places. And as attorney, you know what what the problems are with certified mail.

But the statute says at the end, number three, evidence that an attempt has been made to hand deliver or mail notice as provided in subsection one, which includes certified mail, together with proof of publication or posting, in this case, have posting, shall be sufficient to show that the notice requirements of this part have been met without regard to whether or not the alleged violator actually received such notice. So you may have a due process issue, but that's beyond what the statute says. I think you'd have to be challenging the statute in order to get over that one. I am in I'm I'm just a little bit intrigued, and I I asked once. Let me ask again.

If I continued this till next month, I think I'm hearing counsel say that, there's a really good chance that this might go away on its own. But I hear the city saying that they'd like to have a finding. Is that something that's not resolvable here? Are both sides firm in their positions now that I've had my say?

Well, the city's as far as the city goes, the city is is more than happy to give the the necessary time needed and is more than willing to be flexible as far as consideration of any potential delays in the application of of and the obtaining of a permit. What we were going to recommend is starting with sixty days to obtain a permit. And and and a full ninety days to to repair the dock again. Recognizing and and staying in the record that that, you know, we're willing to be flexible, you know, upon showing good cause of of the need to be flexible.

So

But what I'm hearing you say is you want a finding of a finding of guilt. Yes. Counselor, do you have did you wanna have your client testify to anything further?

If you've accepted what I've summated it from the affidavit, then I don't think we need any further testimony.

Okay. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented here today of record, the my finding of fact is that that the conditions as described by the code enforcement officer, did exist on the dates and times and at the location indicated. My conclusion excuse me. Conclusion of law is that, that does constitute a violation of the city ordinances, and, so the finding is guilty. Now let's talk about the remedy, the the penalty or the remedy.

I think I heard the city attorney say that, his recommendation would be that, your client be given sixty days to apply for a permit and ninety days to complete the work. Otherwise, a fine would be imposed. You didn't say how much your recommendation would We

weren't at that point yet. So yes, so we'll recommend $100 fine, dollars 50 cost, sixty days to obtain the permit, ninety days to repair the permit. Failure to complete both benchmarks would commence at $100 per day fine.

May I ask that that be without good cause? Because the actual getting the work done take a look at my client. I don't think she's physically capable of going out and repairing her

doctor's Nobody's suggesting that she would. And again, sir, the city is very willing to be as flexible as we need to be on those time frames. It's just this is a start. And that's fine.

So as long as as long as the inability the failure to comply is not due to her inaction.

Well, right.

And it would be up to her to show that that that's sorry about that. It would be up to her to show that that it's an issue. Now you got a contractor that's that you signed a contract with. Great. They should be the ones to be communicating with the city as far as

their status

and their applications and all that stuff.

From and I don't represent the contractor, but from every experience, I think they're one that I can count on getting this done. So I think we'll be good

on that.

But I wanted to make it clear that there may be something beyond her control. We call that force majeure sometimes. I think it's here it's called Manana. The contractor didn't come out today.

Well, there are you know, things do come up afterwards. You know, sometimes I haven't seen it here very much, but sometimes you have some some issue will come up where there's a permitting issue and that it just cannot be resolved even by the local government, within the period of time. I've never yet, I've I've been working with the, in in a special magistrate, here for a couple of years now, and they wind up having fifty, sixty, 70 cases each month. And, I've I've not yet heard anybody say that they couldn't get something out in time. So, if if I knew that they couldn't or if there was testimony that they couldn't, I wouldn't take that into

And I will consideration. I will compliment city staff over the years when we have these issues and there's a contractor problem, they've been more than cooperative in extending a deadline when we can show that, you know, it's beyond the control of the homeowners.

So agree

with Just communicate with us. That's all we need.

Okay. So do you have a question?

Just one clarification. In totality, ninety days?

So sixty days to obtain the permit is benchmark A. Benchmark B is ninety days, And this is all from the date of the execution of this order. Okay? Ninety days from the date of the execution to complete the repair. Ma'am, again, if any issues meeting those two deadlines, let the city know and let the city know why and what the holdups are. Thank you.

Okay. That'll be my order then. I agree with that. The orders are normally signed by this afternoon, so the tomorrow is day one.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you, ma'am. Next

up is letter D as in dog. Case 2428191640BarbarossaCourt.

I'm I'm sorry. Which, which one was that? What?

D, sir. D.

Thank you. David Smith and Karen Dombro and Marco Rock Inc. You're here? Okay. Thank you.

Mister Nedrick, go ahead.

Magistrate, John Nedrick, court of force and officer with the Markowin Police Department. Attributed a violation is 1640 Barbarossa Court within the city of Marker Island. On 12/07/2024, I observed the code enforcement violation of work without a permit, which is a violation of Marker Island Municipal Code. Following pictures are a violation. Excuse me. The following pictures of the violation are an accurate account of what I observed. You have here at this address sod is being installed on the property and the right of way. This shows a picture of the right of way, which is all torn up. This shows a more concise view of the property and the right of way. So if you noted, permit is needed for any work in the right of way from the city of Markow Island.

That's, by ordinance. Shows further work.

And you're showing several photos of Of the

1640 Barbaros Court. Okay. K. These are all Sod is not a permit is not required to put sod on your front lawn. Once you enter the right of way, you're you could be affecting the drainage, and that's why the city requires a permit.

And, miss Jaeger, if you could just clarify for the record, please, what what in this photograph demonstrates the right of way and why it's the right of way?

The right of way is from the sidewalk out to the street, the area encompassing the area between the outer edge of the sidewalk to the roadway. Okay?

Roadway. Where I came from, we called that the Devil Strip. Mhmm. And as far as I know, that's the only city in the world that used that used that term. Okay. Never

or maybe, but here it shows again outer edge of the roadway to the outer edge of the sidewalk. That area in between is the right of way or swale, if you wanna come sit in that that way. Is just

one And the rationale for that, other than not obstructing a waterway, is to make sure that whatever's put in is something that would

That is allowable.

That would go along with the drainage or not.

Correct. That is allowable. And if you change the elevation of the right of way, it could affect the drainage for the whole street.

Oh, that that's right. You could you could take it out. Swell could has the swell been lessened there?

The eye, I really can't tell if

it's lessened or That's not part of your presentation Yes.

Okay. Okay. Follow excuse me. I issued a notice violation for filing ordinance one zero five point one and six dash one one one with a compliance date of 02/07/2025. K. Follow ups because follow-up inspection was conducted on 02/2225, which revealed that a permit has been applied for for the location and is ready, but has not been picked up by the contractor as of yet. So the permit is ready, has been applied for and is ready for the for the property, has not been picked up by the contractor and enacted.

Permit I'm sorry. Has been applied.

Correct. Correct. And it has been granted. Just has not been picked up and and put into action by the contractor.

And and and what do they have to do? Just pick it up and

Pick it up, pay the fee, and then it'll be and then it'll be current for the contractor. Very good. K. The following paperwork was administered to the case. This is the notice of violation.

Okay.

Thank you. K. With this notice violation, a stop work order was also initiated on that same date. Okay. Little blurry, but there is the notice of violation and the stop work order posted at the at the location on that date.

Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing for Marco Rock Incorporated, the contractor, and the notice of hearing for the homeowner, David Smith and Karen Dombro. Posted notice of hearing and the certified mail documents, contractor, as well as the homeowner. Alright.

There's no history for the contractor, Marco Rock Incorporated. There is one prior offense for the homeowner for the same violation from 03/20/2021 work without a permit. And that is all I have, sir. Thank

you. And the photographs, that you took are a fair and accurate portrayal of the condition of the premises on the dates that you took them?

That is correct, sir.

Okay. And you took you took the photographs?

Yes.

I saw your name on some of them. I didn't

Yes. Sorry. I took all the photographs.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. And who do we have for the respondent? I see three of you there. I don't know. And all three of you have been sworn, if I remember correctly.

Yes.

Okay, sir. Go ahead.

Dave Smith.

If you could get a little closer to the mic. Yeah.

Dave Smith, the the owner

of the property.

Alright.

And everything he showed is is correct. We were putting in new sod from the hurricane, killed the lawn, so I had to re sod everything. But the pictures what the pictures show is me just taking up the grass. I'm not changing any landscape. I'm not digging any holes. I'm not doing anything. All we did was kill the grass. And at that point, we're just tearing up the lawn to to get ready to to sod. But on a second note, I'd like to say that Marco Rock didn't have anything to do with this. The gentleman that was doing the work was my grass cutter guy.

I hired him and his family, his brother, his his his father, and his two sons to help me lay the sod. He is a full time employee of Marco Rock. But at that time when this was being done, he didn't have anything to do. Marco Rock didn't have anything to do with this. So when when code enforcement came up, he just blurted out, I work for Rock

Marco Rock.

It was a knee jerk reaction. You know you know what I'm saying?

Understood. Okay. And we'll let him testify to that if if you

It's not and and not it it's not necessary. We will stipulate to the fact that the contractor had nothing to do with this.

Yeah. I just didn't want his name being

Thank you.

Drawn through anything.

Okay. Well, thank you. That's very helpful. Alright. Okay. Any anybody else need to testify? I noticed the gentleman's behind you there. Did you? I'm Andrew. You don't have to testify.

Rocks. I just wanted to be here just in case you needed me.

Oh, okay. So You're with Marco Rock?

Yes. I'm Andrew.

And I think the city just indicated they're not going to proceed against Marco Rock. So Okay.

Thank you.

Good job. You didn't have to say anything. K. Anything else, sir? No, sir. Okay. And did you have anybody else that was going to testify? Okay. Alright. With that, anything else from the city?

Any cross examination? Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today, I find as a matter of fact that, the conditions as testified to by the city code enforcement officer did exist on the dates and times indicated. So, my con my conclusion of law is that it is a violation, and therefore, the finding is guilty. I do want to talk about have a recommendation as to the penalty.

So the city recommends a $100 fine, $50 costs. They have thirty days to pick up their permit, pay for it, and make sure that that gets signed up. It's they're waiting for you.

As of now, we've determined we're just gonna leave that alone.

Leave what alone?

Leave the the swale alone.

Did did you not put the the the We stopped.

We stopped everything in one piece. So it's growing back naturally. We not gonna re sod

the swale. I re sodded my yard, but

I am not gonna re sod the swale.

Okay. Did you take the sod out of the swale?

Never put it in. There was a stop work order right then, and we just stopped.

Oh, okay. I thought the photograph showed that the sod was in the swale.

No, that's us taking the old lawn out. Those photographs are all dead grass.

Is it a violation to leave it on? I believe

it Yeah. No. I'm a little bit confused.

So so if I can, you know, and we we accept what you're saying is true unless there's testimony to to contradict. Have you seen, mister Negra, have you seen any any sod installed in that in the right of way? Please go ahead.

I don't know if not, but the SOD was to clarify, which you might be confused with, the SOD was removed from the SOD.

Okay. Okay. That's I think that's where we were getting

That was the whole that was the whole impetus of the There

was SOD that should have been there Correct. They took it out and now they're not going to put new side in. Mister Perez, is is that your testimony too? Yes, Okay. Now we got it.

I could just clarify mister Negra, the code violation is as much for the removal of the side without a permit as it is installing or not installing, or or is that not correct?

To be honest with you, I cannot give a correct answer to that. I think our right away inspector Herb Burkhart might give a more concise answer if you do have to replace what was put there or not. I know the elevations are definitely changed at this point since dirt and sod was taking out of the right of way. What would happen with inspection by the right of way inspector, he would come to the come to the property with the transit, give the proper elevations that the of the of the limit on the height The height limit on what they can go up to. Alright?

Or if they have to dig out to make it lower to facilitate the installation of the sod. Like I said, the whole purpose of the swale is to move and store water. Alright? So if those height elevations are changed where it doesn't allow the runoff of the water, it's gonna impact other properties. Like I said, the her the right of way inspector would be the one to give them the limits of where they can go up to and where they can go down to. Alright? That's out of our scope in co enforcement. Okay.

Okay. City city is requesting a finding effect. And $50 cost on this. I just sir, please understand that there may be it may be and I don't have time to research it right now, but it may be a violation of the city's code to not have the swale the the the the right of way re sotted. It may be. I don't know. Okay.

I'm going to treat that as as something that is not within the scope of this violation. No.

No. I was

just But I I think that's good advice, sir. I think what I'm hearing them say is that if you take it out, then that may affect the swale may not be right when you take it out. So there may be another permit that would have to be you may have to deal with the city on something. When you said that you just took it out, you're not going to get a permit, then everybody's ears kinda perked up a second. So so but I'm going to stick to what was done, and that was there was a violation, and and it has that portion that violation has been removed.

Okay? So so mister Natello, for the violation, that's been it's been removed. So whether or not he needs something in the future is another matter.

And I I was just notified by text message, and this is outside the scope of the hearing, obviously, because they're not here to testify. But, yes, you do need to put this odd back under the city code. So the permits there waiting for you. We'll we'll deal with it later. I'm not I'm not I'm not finding a fine for you right now. Alright? But it's a violation. And so

I just I just have to say that that somebody already did come out and do

the, you know, scope. What you call it? Okay.

With that survey. I apply for permit,

they come out and they shoot the elevations so they can set elevation to what we have to apply by once I obtain the permit. I will get the spec sheet saying exactly the elevation of what needs to be done.

Yes. So just get the I'm sorry. Go ahead.

But the permit fee generally is $200 for a right of way. This one is all the way up to $800 because there's the violation notice on it. So I don't know if you're aware of the extra cost to that too. That's why he told me just hold off until this meeting. I'm not And see which way we have to proceed. Alright. So so I

don't I don't think it's a disputed issue right now. So my recommendation doesn't change. My request doesn't change. So there is still a violation. In other words, there was no permit done before they started this work that they did on the right of way.

Yeah. I think I found that.

Right. So so in the spirit of what they've done to try to remedy the situation, their adherence to the stop work order and and showing up today and showing taking this seriously, we appreciate that. The city is still not asking for a fine for this for this violation. However, it is still unresolved in the sense that it's not in compliance because the city code says, I've just confirmed, that if it was pulled up, it's gotta be put back which still contemplates the permit.

Okay.

Whoever's got their phone on not vibrate, please fix that. Thank you. And so the permits there, it needs

to be

done with the resolution of this of this case, this violation that you've been cited for that may or may not affect the cost of the permit at this point now that this is resolved.

Okay.

So okay? Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So the recommendation is?

Recommendation is finding a fact.

That's been done. Right. Conclusion of law, guilt.

Right. And then we're looking for thirty days to pick up and pay for the permit and have it closed out or $100 per day fine.

Sir, do you understand that? Yes. Yes, sir. Alright. That'll be my order. I think that's fair, just, and reasonable under the circumstances. So do whatever you can to get that resolved, because it could get worse.

Understood. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you both. Thank thank you all three.

No. No. No. Just just finding a fact. $50 cost.

Yeah. There is there is $50 cost involved because we had a

Thirty days to to pick up, Susan. Thirty days to pick up and close out the permit or a $100 pay fine.

Gotcha. Thank you. Okay.

One one thing. Can are you gonna justify the payment for the the essential fee? Am I gonna For the permit?

I don't I Am I gonna justify

Or is it gonna come back down to the regular

two bedroom? I I don't know. That's up for that's up for the the permitting department. That's why I suggested now that this is resolved, the cost for picking up the permit may change. Let them know this has been resolved. Show them a copy of the order, how it's been resolved.

Okay.

And and and what they do from with it from there. I

don't know. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Next

up is letter IAsIn India. Case 250054 for 224 Dan River Court.

And that's, Hugh and Pamela Hunt and Paradise Pool finishes. Are they here? K. Thank you.

K. Mister magistrate John Negro, code in front of code enforcement officer with Markkuilen Police Department. The address of the violation is 224 Dan River Court in the city of Markkuilen. 01/10/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of a list of discharge, which is a violation of the Markku Island Municipal Code. This is in response to a citizen complaint.

Following pictures of of the violation are an accurate account of what I observed on that day. That we have here, we have workers that were working on the pool. They were pumping the wastewater that had collected into the pool with all the debris out into the canal. These following pictures show the debris that was still floating in the canal, the waste from the pool, cloudiness along with the other debris that was in there. And if you can see here on the edge, that was the cloud per se of the debris that was in the canal at the time I was there.

Okay. I subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 18 dash two twelve. There's no compliance date as it is irreparable. The following paperwork is administered to the case.

This is the unit note. Shows irreparable at the top. I see that. Yes.

It's the notice of violation there.

Wait a minute. If I can look at the remarks. Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

It's posted. Notice of violation at the address. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. The posted notice of hearing and the certified mail documents. There is no history for the contractor or owner of the property at this time. That is all I have, sir.

Okay. Anything else?

That is all I

have, sir. Alright.

And who do we have?

If I if I can ma'am, I'm sorry. Real quick, mister Negro. The photographs that you depicted on the screen, were they taken by you? Yes. They were. Are they fair and accurate representations of what you observed that day?

Yes. They

were. Okay. Thank you. Good. I'm sorry, man. Go ahead.

And by the way, he did say that.

I didn't I didn't hear it.

I I missed him on the last one, and you missed him on this one. Sometimes with authentication, it's to to attorneys, it's it's so much rote and within our expectations that we're not sure we heard it. So that's every now and then I say, okay. Okay. Go ahead and tell me

I'm Capri Stoller. I'm part owner of

What's your name? I'm sorry.

Capri Stoller.

Okay.

I'm part owner of Paradise Pool Finances with my husband, Matt Stoller, who also owns Calusa Pool Company. Mhmm. And we we take draining the pools very seriously. We always follow the protocol. What you're looking at in those pictures is rainwater, not I wouldn't consider it wastewater. And the cloud like, the cloudiness is dirt and sand from the job site because the whole job site is dirt all around because, obviously, there's no landscaping. It's a new construction. So I just wanted to make sure you guys knew that we've never had any violation. And as you could see in the picture am I able to move

this Yes. Please do. Yes.

So that it's all new construction. These are capped off pipes. So what is in there is rainwater and any dirt and dust that can blow into the pool. And then I can show you the I have a picture of the bottom of it. And this is the bottom of a sump I don't know if you can see it on my phone. It's

got

a grate on there in the screen, and it filters anything other than sand and dirt, and it clogged very easily.

Okay. Can you send that photo to the city?

Yeah. Generic e word. M IPDMIPD. Okay. I just sent it.

Sorry about that. I didn't realize the having everything in the Friday prior because it we've never got a notice before.

Okay. You did send the notice? Yeah. Did. The photo? Okay. They need to have that in the public record.

Okay.

So but I I think I understand what you were showing once you it's a it's a drain. Right?

Yeah. It's a it's a essentially, it's a plastic screen on the bottom of So there's feet, and it can sit in water. It's submersible. And then that doesn't allow for, like, anything big to go through it. It's just a small screen.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. We got it. Okay. Okay.

Anything else? No. Right. Does the city have anything? Any further questions? No. If I understand this correctly, it did the hose did take it into the canal. Is that correct?

In the canal.

Yeah. I'm sorry. I need to get you on the

It was in the canal. Yes.

Okay.

So, essentially, what would have already went into the canal, rainwater, dirt. I know it's not something that we do. We always follow the protocol and drain it to the front of the yard. And whenever we have, you know, pools that are chlorinated, we always decoronate it. We Pools has been in business for twenty two years, so we've never had any any issues with knowing that the protocol. And we care about the waterways. I donate to Save the Manatees, captains for clean water. I've planted mangroves with the mangrove the Mang is the name of the company in poor ocean and picked up debris. Like, we care about the waterways. We're boaters. We live here. So

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Mr. Nagra, I have a question. It looks like most of it was just water and dirt. But what is that green stuff? Was that part of the discharge?

Yeah, there was another photographs photograph where there was even more green. Yeah. That

I can't exactly tell you what it is. I see that it was pumped into the canal. It's discolored in a different color of the water that's in the canal. The water in the canal is the green water here. This is all discolored here. I can't tell you exactly what it is as far as chemical composition.

Ma'am, do you have any idea what we're looking at there? We'll get you on the microphone there.

On the microphone? Yes. Well, where it looks darker is where the shade of the seawall is. So of course, the water is going to look darker there.

Referring to.

Yeah. But the there's a there's green something.

Oh, like the like the it looks like I think you're talking about the that's just like the water going into merging the dirty water going into the canal is what it looks Exactly. This is like a floating mangrove thing, mangrove seed.

Thank you.

The magistrate may I point out here. You can see the debris that is in the bottom of the pool at this point. Whatever is in there, garbage, sediment, rock, whatever concrete that obviously was pulled from the bottom of the pool out into the discharge hose and into the canal. And so whatever was there, whatever debris was in the in the pool went into the canal on the pumping out.

Okay. Thank you. Ma'am, we'll let Maybe you can get back on the mic.

Whatever could fit through the screen. There's no that concrete that concrete cure is the day it was curing the day it was pumped, you know, and the pool shell was made. So whatever's sitting in there is, like like I said, like dust, dirt. If there's any debris in there, it wouldn't get sucked up through the sump pump because there's the grate on the bottom of it. And the grate on the bottom will get clogged if there's too much sand or dirt as well. It's very sensitive.

Okay. Thank you. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today at the hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as testified to by the, city, did exist on the date, time, and at the location indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that, this does constitute a violation of the city's ordinance. It appears that, this would be under the category of irreparable.

And maybe we'll talk about that when we talk talk about a but the finding is guilty, by the way. But I do wanna talk about that in relationship to the recommendation for a fine because the fine the maximum fine is $5,000. And so I'd like to have a recommendation from the city on this. And and by the way, thank you for coming and explaining what actually happened.

So the the given the presentation, the evidence from both sets of testimony, the city request the $5,000 fine and $50 cost.

Okay. So your recommendation is the maximum fine? That's right now. Ma'am, yes, you do have the right to give me your your opinion too.

I definitely don't think that is for this cause. It's not a pool. It's a pool shell. It doesn't have any chemicals in it. It was a very minimal amount of water. First violation. I I think that's I think that's not appropriate.

If if I can just to that and for the magistrate's consideration, code speaks to the act of the dumping into the storm water, into the ecosystem of Marco Island. It's not as much about the content of what's in there. So I get it, there was just water at the bottom of an unfinished pool. There was algae that wasn't otherwise in the storm water. There was mud that was not otherwise in the storm water.

There was sand that was not otherwise in the storm water. It was all introduced into the storm water by the pumping of that pool shell. So

Well, I'm I'm a little concerned. You know, people dump paint and chemicals in into the stormwater system, and and that's an easy one. And and and maybe even pool water, you know, chlorine or all the things that go into pool. That's one thing. Shouldn't you shouldn't pump dirt either.

Shouldn't pump anything Yeah. In in city of Marco Island is very careful about that. And they have to be because it's an island community with with nothing but canals and and bays and and so on. I'm going to because of you you coming in in clarifying the situation, I'm going to reduce the recommendation to $4,000, and $50 cost cost of prosecution. And I think that will have the appropriate effect. So that'll be my order of fifth $4,000 and $50 cost.

K.

Say anything Okay. Additional? You can always talk to them. Usually, this is what I hear from the city attorney, but it's out it's outside of the scope the scope of this, but you can always talk to them about mitigation if you, you know, can make a good case for it. But but, yeah, my order will be $4,000.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

Next up is letter f as in Frank, case 250002 for 1522 Buccaneer Court.

Mister magistrate, John Negro, code of force and officer with the

Markow

Police Department. John, can you

take the evidence from the previous Oh,

I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Address of the violation is 1522 Buccaneer Court within the city of Markow Island. On 12/31/2024, I observed the court enforcing violation violation of illicit discharge, which is a violation of the Markow Island Municipal Code. Following pictures are an accurate depiction of what I observed on that day. There was dock work being done, new dock being installed, I should say, at the location. Okay. You see the dock is put down and then it's cut.

Well, I should say it was cut with this debris. This docking or dock planking, I should say, is a plastic composite material. It's not wood. The debris that was on the top of the dock was actually let fall into the water, which shows here. So it was pretty widespread as it reached down to the other adjacent properties.

It was quite a bit that was in the water and quite a bit that extended outward from the dock into the center of the canal. Now this is the view from the dock in question, the address in question and looking outward towards the adjacent property. So it's quite a bit of debris that was in the water stretching all the way down under the adjacent dock there. That's showing it as well. That's the adjacent dock and extended all the way out past there as I was on the neighbor's property.

This is a view from the adjacent property back towards the violation address. Okay. And now this also extended the opposite way to the end of the canal.

Alright. You

should notice a violation for violating ordinance 18 dash two twelve with no compliance state as it is irreparable.

It states irreparable at the top, and I've read the remarks here. Okay. Thank you. Mhmm.

This is the posted notice of violation, the affidavit of violation,

The affidavit of posting.

This is if I can get to my notes. Excuse me. This is also the notice of violation noting that the it's a repeat offender. It was checked off on that Upon notification, it's notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, certified mail documents, and there is no history for the owner of the property. But there are two prior offenses of list discharge for the contractor DSI.

Mister Nager, did we notice that this was a repeat violation? Yes. Okay. Do me a favor if you could just show those those notices on the thing. I wasn't looking for that when you put them on.

Yeah. Think there were a couple of them where it's checked.

Notice hearing notes that it's

Repeat violation. Okay. See. Thank you.

The code violation there, repeat notice as well.

Thank you.

Your honor, that's all I have. Mister Magistrate, I'm sorry.

Okay. Now I missed it this time if you said it.

I didn't hear it either.

I didn't

hear it.

They're accurate depicts Did

you take the photographs?

Yes, sir.

And do each of those photographs depict fairly and accurately represent the condition of the premises on the dates and times that you took it Yes. Place? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. And we do have somebody here. Yes, sir. Come on up. How you doing?

You doing? I'm Ian from DSI.

So I'm sorry. What's your name?

Ian Scully from DSI. Okay. Alright. So the

Is any is the owner here also? Oh, the owner's here? K. Were you sworn, ma'am? Did you take?

You weren't sworn in? No. Okay. Do you intend to speak this morning?

We do not. We do not.

Okay. It's up to you. Alright. Yeah. Okay. Yes, sir.

So the the the minute I found out that we obviously had the discharge there, I had the men go in there with the the the pool cages and stuff, and we cleaned every ounce till it got dark. I got pictures show the whole all the waterways, with all the plastic cleaned up, composite. And going forwards for any other construction like the first line of defense, we put the debidity blanket out and a vacuum. And if anything goes past that point, the pool net to clean up whatever I can't catch. It won't happen again, and that's pretty much it.

Do you know if the, well, first of all, the photographs did you take the photographs?

Yes.

Okay. And they do they fairly and accurately portray the, condition of the water and the premises, on the dates that you took them?

Yes.

Okay. And it's your testimony that as soon as you found out about it, you went in and and scrubbed it up?

I called the officer, and I said we will come right out there and and take care of whatever needs to be done.

Can I ask mister Scully what the date that he went out there and took care of this was?

Yeah. That that the minute happened within a half hour after this happened. And then that's those pictures were before the day was out.

Same day?

Yep.

Okay. Anything else?

That's it.

Alright. Okay. Well, based upon the testimony and evidence presented here today, I find that, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as alleged by the city, did exist on the date, time, and at the place indicated. I'm and I think I don't think you're in disagreement of that. I conclude as a matter of law that that does constitute a violation of the codes of ordinances of the city of Marco Island.

So the finding's guilty. The the the more maybe difficult part would be to try to determine what to do about it with regard to a penalty. And, I'm going to look to the city first for a recommendation, which you you can see from the other cases. That's what we always do. If there's a finding of guilty, then we I ask for a recommendation from the city and also a recommendation, or or comments from, from the violator.

So with this one, we've got this is interesting in that we've got a repeat violation as to one party, not the other, and a irreparable damage contention or violation. And I don't think that we can do both a repeat and an irreparable I do think that I do think that the that anything that goes into the canal is really difficult to repair. And and and I applaud your efforts of trying to get up as much as you can. But this plastic stuff going into the waters, I mean, you know that. I mean, this is PFAS and everything else.

This is a really, really, really big deal. It's not just it's not just a little bit of dirt going into the water. So I'm I'd like to hear what the city's position is on that, and and then also, sir, your your position.

So, mister magistrate, the city's position is determined by whether or not you're finding if that this is irreparable or not.

Well, yeah, I mean, no. He tried well, what's your contention on that? He tried to, sweep it up.

Yeah. No. I mean, it's as I I certainly recognize his efforts and and and taking mister Scully at at his as it at his word, which we have absolutely no reason to not do so, he responded quickly and they did what they could to to remedy the situation. However, I I also and and ultimately, my position would be that those particles, you can only can only do so much even even if he was mister Scully was with mister Negra right then and there, scooping it up with a boat, not with a whatever, you know, there's you you can only do so much. So I don't my my my position is is that it should be it should be found irreparable.

Well, that's my inclination too. But the it's also indicated that it's a repeat violation, but I don't think that the re you can't have you can't have both. I think we both agree with that. And a repeat violation carries an enhanced fine, but it's $500 per day of of violation. So in this case, it would actually be more or less probably than than the maximum $5,000 fine for irreparable.

Repeat repeat violation. I only got one phone call of the sawdust. I didn't No.

Not on this. So in other words, what we're saying is is that your your company

is The the other violation that we got was for for for gas that I mean, I had a employee that was filling up a machine that that fell off the machine, and I cleaned it up.

But was that but was that that gas your your violation at the time was a was a illicit discharge. It was a discharge of the gas into the

Yeah. If it's the same repeat violation, it's the same violation being and being found guilty of the same violation, of the same section of the code within the last five years. So they go back five years. But I, you know, I think, frankly and this is not necessarily good news for you, but I think that this is in the category of irreparable and irreversible.

And that's what I was gonna say. The city the city is not is not pushing the repeat issue in this case.

All right. So what's the recommendation for the amount of the fine under the circumstances?

I mean, under under the circumstances, I think the city's position has to be consistent with with the other cases where irreparable harm was in and suggest $5,000 fine. But again and $50 cost, but again full recognition of the efforts made to try to remedy it. If the city would certainly consider those efforts and everything in any efforts by Mr. Scully to mitigate the fines, but I think the fine should be $5,000, and it should just be on the contractor only, not on the property owner.

So you're not proceeding against the property owner?

Correct. Alright. You're not.

That was the next question that that I would have asked if I would remember. So they're not proceeding against you, ma'am. They're only proceeding against the contractor. The again, I'm going to reduce it to $4,000. I know that's a lot of money still, but my order will be $4,000 and $50 cost of prosecution, which is very minimal.

And if there is some case that you can make with them for for reduction of the fine, then and they're willing to do that. They can come back, and we can have that hearing again. But but it is with plastic. I know chemicals are awful. Plastic now is almost is almost worse. So Understood. So that'll be the order.