Code Enforcement - Regular Meeting

We're Okay.

Good morning, everybody. The meeting of the city of Marco Island code enforcement special magistrate hearings is called to order. My name is Robert Pred. I'm an attorney, and I'll serve as a special magistrate for the code enforcement hearings today. My task is to hear testimony and any other evidence, to make findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence, and then to make a determination of guilty or not guilty, and if guilty, to issue an order based upon the evidence. The city attorney today is Jose Arango. Did I get that right?

You did.

Yes. And he is going to be handling the prep the presentations of the city's cases. He will announce each case excuse me. Then I'll take testimony and evidence from the city's representatives first and then from the respondent or the respondents or their representatives. All testimony today must be taken under oath.

I will administer the oath now. So if you all anybody, if you raise your right hand, anybody who thinks they may want to say anything in any of the hearings today, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give in any case today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. Okay.

I heard some interference there. I think oh, yes. Okay. Everybody has taken me out of who's in the room. Thank you. We'll proceed with the agenda today. I see that we have some cases that have been removed. I think it's standard for you to take the cases where people are here first. I don't know if you've checked on that. I think you did check on that, Mr. Richard. So I'll leave that up to you to tell me which case we're going to go first take first. Did you want to do the removals first? Sure.

We can start with that.

Yes. Okay. So first item on the agenda to be removed is letter b. That's case number 20Four-two726, property address 551 South Collier Boulevard.

Okay. That's been removed. C I'm sorry. D?

D is the next one. That's, case number 25Dash0101, property address 821 Scott Drive.

That's removed. F?

F is, case number 25Dash0230, property address 598 Spinnaker Drive.

Removed? I is the next one?

Yes.

Yes. Okay.

Case number 25Dash0299, 761, Kendall Drive. That's being removed by the city.

That's removed. Okay.

And the last I'm sorry. The second to last one is LetterN. That's case number 25Dash0318, property address 474 Yellowbird Street.

That's removed.

And the final case is letter Q on the agenda. That's case number 25Dash0182, property address 29 North Barfield Drive.

Okay. That's removed also. Okay. Go ahead and proceed with cases.

Okay. So the first one, where the property owner is present here today is letter k on the agenda. That's case number 25Dash0306, property Address 321 Hawaii Circle.

And that's James and Karen Hatcher. Are they here? They're here today. Okay. Thank you.

Inspector, please state your name for the record and discuss the nature of the violation.

Who's who's presenting for the city?

This letter k. This is 321HawaiiCircle. Yeah.

I apologize, magistrate.

Good morning. Good morning. How are you? Okay.

Mister magistrate, John Negro, code enforcement officer with the city of Marco Island. Address of the violation is 321 Hawaii Circle within the city of Marco Island. 02/15/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation multiple code enforcement violations of high grass and weeds, litter and debris and encroachment, which are violations of the Marco Island Municipal Code. Okay. The following pictures are an accurate and fair depiction of what I saw that day.

K. We have here encroachment of the low hanging branches over the sidewalk. Excessive weed growth in the right of way. Same here with the excessive weed growth along with the encroachment of the weeds into the sidewalk area. More on the weed growth.

Okay. Here shows the weed growth and some of the debris

of discarded flower pots that were in the right away.

It's a close-up of that. Some more that shows the encroachment.

Is that a pathway or is that a sidewalk?

Sidewalk. And the same here. K. Subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating warrants is 18Dash3610, 18Dash369, and 42Dash36E with a compliance date of 02/22/2025. File inspections were conducted on February 23, March 4, March 7 and March 14, which revealed that the location was still in violation.

And these are the photos taken from the March 14. So a of excessive weed growth, some debris of cinder blocks there, More on the excessive weed growth. A lot of dead branches and debris that are still in there. Still have encroachment issues here of the sidewalk,

somewhat here,

and as well in this picture showing somewhat of an encroachment issue. Those encroachment over to into the roadway and some more weeds and dead foliage. Following documents are associated with the case. This is the notice of violation.

K. Okay.

Posted notice of violation. Affidavit of violation. The affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing,

and posted notice of hearing,

and the certified mailbox. K. There is no five year history on this property or for the owner at this time, and that is all I have.

Okay. Thank you. I'd like to hear from

I'm sorry. Mister Mazurai, have one more thing. We do have a defense packet from the from the homeowner. I can put that in.

You said there is one?

There is one. Yes.

And they are here. They're

also here. So Well, let's let them hear. Let me hear from them.

Gotcha.

Alright.

Did you wanna leave that out?

Then I will put it out for you. This way, he can explain it.

If you if you can leave that out in case they wanna refer to it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I'll be glad to hear from the respondent at this time. And

When we when we got the notice

of violation

Would you give me your name for the record, please?

James Hatcher.

Okay. Thank you. We

removed the overhanging branches to a height of seven and a half feet as recommended by the officer. We cleared most of the sidewalk before 02:22.

Could you get a little closer to the mic there? Sorry.

We removed most of the the encroachments to the sidewalk before 02:22. I'll note that we have eight gopher tortoise burrows in the right of way along Dogwood Drive. We have five more gopher tortoise burrows between Dogwood Drive and the house. We have additional gopher tortoise burrows on the property, on adjacent properties, on on both sides of the house. I don't recognize the dune sunflowers and partridge peas as weeds.

They're forage plants for the gopher tortoises as well as nectar plants for butterflies and other animals. The other animals or the other vegetation that's in the right of way is also listed as forage plants for the gopher tortoises, and I don't see them as weeds either. I removed what I consider to be weeds of Suriname cherry seedlings, sable palm seedlings, were next to the road, carrot wood, and variegated pineapples. I do still have some vegetation that overhangs the sidewalk, but it's nothing that would interfere with anybody using the sidewalk. And I don't consider it to be an issue.

You

also apparently typed up and and sent something in. We call that a defense packet. Yes. And that's on the screen if yeah. On the screen. And everything you put in there is a part of your testimony today?

Yes, sir.

Okay. I'll need to I wanna read that carefully also. Okay. So as to the as to the debris encroaching the sidewalk, you have a little bit more to do. Is that right?

Well, if you want me to trim limbs of small shrubs or herbaceous ground covers

Mhmm. I

can do that. Some of the gopher tortoise burrows, though, are within two feet of the sidewalk.

Okay.

And and, well, I can trim the stuff on the sidewalk.

Okay.

Okay. Anything else you wanna tell me?

Well, just that the other thing is is he is he is claiming that the there is a lot of dead foliage on the we have had been experiencing a drought and a lot of the limbs or the branches for the dune sunflowers are not green. They're brown. They have brown leaves on them. They're not dead.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. I do have some questions for the code enforcement officer. Have you checked with, I think you have someone in the city that, is in charge of, environmental, issues such as, burrowing owls and and gopher tortoises and so on. Is that right?

Correct.

Yeah. Have you checked with them as to whether or not these a lot of the cover that you've cited, whether or not that is habitat for gopher tortoises. I have not. This is the first time I've had one of the a case where there's a serious question as to whether or not the removal of this would be deleterious to gopher tortoises, and they have so many. And I was gonna ask one of those.

I think one of your photographs shows a hole, which is probably a gopher tortoise hole. And it I'm I'm not sure that every single property on Marco Island must have sod and beautiful Bermuda grass or whatever if it's a in in a wildlife area. So have you checked with them? Have they come out and taken a look at it?

They have not come out to this property, but other other lots that we do deal with, people leave landscapers, homeowners, whatever they might be, they're required to trim it with string trimmer. Alright? As opposed to cutting it with a lawn mower or a ride on mower to facilitate not harming the burrows. I believe string trimming could be done here. Maybe some foliage could be left around the burrows.

But as I noted on the photos, the whole right away stretching from one end of the property to the other is well overgrown. There's not there's not gopher tortoise boroughs on the whole fall of the right away every foot or so. There is ample coverage there that needs to be cut or I should say foliage there and vegetation that can be cut without disturbing the owl the gopher burrows.

Let me tell you what I want to do, and counselor, you can weigh in on this. I'd like to continue this until, the April 29 meeting and ask that the, city have whomever it is that checks for these things to look at this and see what, if anything, needs to be done or if it needs to be done differently. I would really hate to be to be too hasty and and order somebody to clear something out that could be very harmful to gopher tortoises.

I understand.

Where I live, we have, like, all of, like, two gopher tortoises, and they're always parking. Sometimes it's it's the the homeowners association. They're parking trucks, utility trucks, they're driving over it, they're doing things, and you wonder whether or not that's going to be harmful to the gopher tortoises. So I I would really hope that we could take a look at this and and have somebody come out. Miss, miss and missus Hatcher, some of the things are kinda clear to me.

I'm just tell I'm and I'm not I'm not deciding the case now or anything, but some of the things that have been alleged here clear to me that they do need to be taken care of, some of the if you haven't finished the overhanging branches and so on. And I give you credit that you've done some things. I I think that that's that's been clear. But if if it's okay with you and okay with the city, I would like to see if, we could have somebody come out there, and and take a look at it. And somebody from the environmental, services department with yeah. Yes, sir. Go ahead.

The city's okay. The the city is agreeable to that.

Okay.

But I wanted to focus on the issue that the gopher burrowing grounds is is of utmost importance to the city. And we've already we just contacted the team with respect to making that analysis and and evaluating where those boroughs are. But I believe based on the respondent's testimony earlier, the city and the respondent are aligned. He's already said I he's willing to clear the path, the walking path where there are no borough boroughs, located. And that's really all that the city is looking for.

We're not looking to disturb any potential boroughs, and we will certainly have someone to go out there and look at it. But just to the extent that the walkway is encumbered, the city would be is that would correct the violation by by having that cleared out. I I we're okay if you wish to defer it, and have, someone from the city come back with, with their findings on, on the, the boroughs. Or if you want to if you wish to rule and and proceed accordingly based on just clearing the path.

Yeah. But I think I'd like to have this continued until then because it very well may be something that is with with a lot of cooperation from both sides, maybe can be handled. Not that it's relevant to this case, I guess, but just Sunday, there is, there's something that's on called America on television with Tom Hanks. And Marco Island was featured in this this production that they're doing. It's and they were talking about the burrowing owls, but it's a very similar situation with the gopher tortoises.

They live in the ground. And people and peep people who live here and and the government of I think, are aligned in that they want to protect them to the extent possible. So, so thank you. If, is that okay, mister Hatch? Is that okay with you continue this until April the April 29 meeting?

Yeah. I I would like to say one thing, though. The boroughs are not the only things that's important to the tortoises. They're dependent upon the vegetation.

Yes. Yeah. That yes. I get that. Yes, sir. And that's that's one of the things that I was you know, it's not just the walking path. It's what to eat and where to eat it. Fortunately for us, they do like Bermuda grass, I guess. I always see them eating that too.

They'll eat it, but it's not listed by the state as a forage plant.

It's not their favorite. Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you very much. The matter will be continued until the April, do I have that right? April 29 meeting? Thank you. And thank you, for coming and, helping clarify the situation.

Thanks, man.

Okay. Thank you. Next case.

Next case on the agenda for which the property owners are present, is letter r. That's case Number 25 Dash 0195, Property Address 260 Seaview Court.

Okay. And, this is, versus Jeffrey Mu Muether, is

it? Yes.

And you are here. Right? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Good morning, mister magistrate. Good morning. My name is James Muldoon, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. The scenario here, sir, is that, these there are two high rise condo buildings with an underground parking garage in between. And the office of the condo buildings called us and I was dispatched to this location.

There were three violations that they were complaining about. I wrote citations for three cars that were parked in a handicapped parking space. This is just one of the three. On 02/04/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of parking in a handicapped space, which is a violation of Marco Island code fifty dash thirty eight. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed.

You can clearly see that there there is a sign here, handicapped parking sign, which states a $250 fine.

Can you go back and do you have a close-up of that sign?

I do not, sir. Maybe they can

Or can

you zero in on it.

Okay. Go ahead. Thank you.

This is a this is a picture of the license plate. It's not a handicapped license plate. This is a picture of the vehicle from the front. There are no handicapped decals present or a handicapped placard hanging from the mirror. I issued a citation for violating 50 dash 38. This is the citation.

Give me a minute. I wanna take a look at it. Sure. Can I get can I see the the bottom of that, what it says? I understand that if I failed it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

This is the posting of the citation on the front windshield. This is the applicable code for handicapped parking, does allow citations to be written for private property also.

Okay.

Notice of hearing, certified mail, posting of hearing, affidavit of posting, and there's no previous record of this issue with

Okay. Thank you.

These people.

That's all I have,

sir.

Thank you.

Okay. I'll hear from the respondent, mister Muther. Good

morning.

Good morning.

Hi. My wife's Kathleen.

Kathleen?

Yes.

And how do you pronounce your last name?

Musa.

Oh, so I was pretty close

then. K. Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you for hearing us, and thank you to officer Muldoon. He is correct that the my handicap site thing placard was not properly displayed. I had a problem that day. My I have a picture of it, but I don't know if will that show in it?

No. Let me make it bigger. My visor broke, and and the whole thing fell down. And the the hand it was there. It was on the seat or

thereabouts. I mean, I didn't I wasn't I didn't see it fall. But I'm speaking because it's it is my car. I'm the driver, but it's in my husband's name. So see if that's any better. Is that any better? Can you see that that my visor broke?

Yes. You had it on your visor?

Yeah. Yes. I I put it on the end of the visor. That's the this thing that it usually stays on the visor, but I pulled it down. And I was legitimately parked. And sometime during the night or something, it it broke. I don't know how, but I was surprised when I saw the citation on my car because I I was legally there. So

what That's my own list.

Yeah. That's that's all I have to say is if you do choose not to excuse us, I I hope that you mitigate that cost a little bit because $300 is a lot of money for

us. Okay. That's it. Yeah.

Do you wanna say anything?

Anything further? No. I don't.

That was it's a valid it's

a valid handicap permit that was

put in. Could we have a photograph taken of the handicap sticker, and then we'll put that into the record? Susan, is that something that can be done?

I have one here.

You have a photo? Oh, okay. Put let's put that into the record then.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Officer Muldoon, could you step forward again? And let me see the code section one more time. It was 58, I think it was. I thought it was, one of the last ones that you had shown toward the last toward the top maybe. Thank you.

Okay. Leave that up. There's a reference to, the state statute in there. We don't have that, in front of us. Counselor, do you have any comments on that? It's it's apparent that she, had has a handicap sticker, and, she indicated that, she did not have it showing that day. And I was looking for where what it says about having that showing, showing when in fact somebody is a handicap.

Based on the wording of the ordinance and the evidence that's been presented, the city is okay removing the case or withdrawing the case.

Okay. So the city has indicated that they're going to remove the case. You came in. Thank goodness you did. And and maybe it's just a cautionary warning to, remember that. It is easy to forget or for it to drop off. We have a handicap sticker for my wife, which I never use unless she is with me. But, sometimes, stuff does happen, and, the city has been gracious in saying that they'll withdraw the case on this. So congratulations.

Thank you, Gary.

Yeah. Thank you, Citi. I I think that's a a very good move in your part. And there was nothing wrong with the citation being issued. I I I wanna I wanna wanna indicate that the city did not do anything wrong by issuing the citation. They saw what they saw and did what they needed to do. So Sir, so

I I know I didn't take exception to

that because it

drives me crazy when

people Okay. Well, that's why it's a good idea always to come in and tell us, your side of the story. Thank you.

Thank you, Brian.

Okay. Next case. Well, we do have somebody that came in. Sir, which case are you here for?

He's here for letter c, I believe. That is case 50229. That's is your proper address 958 Spruce Court? No. No,

sir. Okay. 1390 Kaxambas.

E. Okay. 1390 Kaxambas? Yes. Okay. So then the next case would be letter e on the agenda. That's case number 25Dash0229, property address 1390 Kaxambas Court.

Okay. And that's John and Cecilia Hudspeth and Tom Christian Construction Inc. Silk fence violation. Is that is that right, sir? Yes. You came in after I swore in the witnesses, I believe. You have not been sworn, have you?

No, sir.

Could you please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you give today swear or affirm that the testimony you give today would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yeah. Thank you. We've sworn in everybody else, but that was just before you came in. Thank you. Mister Nagrin?

Yes, sir. K. Mister magistrate John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Markow Police Department. Address of the violation is 1390 Kaxanvis Court within the city of Markow Island. 02/07/2025, observed a code enforcement violation of stormwater pollution prevention for construction, which is a violation of the municipal code.

I responded there in response to a citizen complaint following pictures of what I observed on that day. The complaint was for an inordinate amount of debris and sediment in the roadway. As you can see, sediment here, a large amount here, and everything that was getting tracked into the roadway from the construction site. K. I subsequently issued a notice of violation from violating ordinance eighteen two thirteen subsection c, subsection 17 with the compliance date of 02/14/2025.

Follow-up inspections were conducted on February 15, March 4, and March 7, which revealed that the location was still in violation with additional photos taken on these dates. These are photos from March 4 showing the sediment still being tracked into the roadway. Pretty well dried into the roadway, and these are from the seventh. All but less, but still there. Okay.

The following documents are associated with the case. Notice of violation.

K. Thank you.

Okay. Post the notice violation, affidavit of violation, Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Post the notice hearing, and the certified mail documents. The ordinance that I cited, okay, states that the where construction vehicles access routes.

I'm sorry. Where construction vehicle access routes intersected paved and public roads provision shall be made to minimize the transport of sediment by tracking on to paved surfaces Where sediment is transported into public road surface with curbs and gutters, the road shall be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each workday. Sediment shall be removed from the roads by shoveling or sweeping the transport, and transported to a sediment controlled disposal area. Street washing shall be allowed only if the sediment is removed. That is the subsection that ultimately this falls under.

Yeah. Let me read that up. Now this was not a road sir excuse me. This was not a road surface with curbs and gutters, was it?

No. Okay.

Alright. Okay. Thank

you. All I have, sir. And there is oh, I'm sorry. There are two prior violations for the contractor, Tom Christian Construction, within the last five years.

You said there have been two?

There are two, but we did not send out any violation for a repeat offender. Excuse me. I'm tie my words this morning.

Thank you. Okay. Yes, sir. Your turn.

My name is Kyle. I'm with owner of Tom Christian Construction.

What's your name?

Kyle Mitchison, owner of Tom Christian Construction.

Okay.

He is in fact correct when he states that the road was dirty. There's a ton of construction going on on Kak Sambas, two, three real big houses, remodels. The initial pictures, I did clean up from those. The street was stained. I do have pictures showing that it's since been pressure washed.

Okay. And when were those pictures taken?

Two weeks ago. Okay. And then the there's a series of pictures on there of tire marks coming off the site, and that is in fact that's dirt going into the street. We were pouring a concrete deck that day in the back, and it was raining, and the street was a mess. I did street sweep it at the end of the day. We have a gas powered street sweeper. However, the asphalt was stained, and the staining did not come off the asphalt until a couple weeks ago when we, pressure washed it.

Okay. So you're not you're not contesting the violation. You're but you're indicating

that you

took care of it right away?

Yeah. Just explaining myself that we we were in the wrong, tried to mitigate as quickly as we could and Okay. But the day he was out there, you can see even see in one of the pictures, there is where the concrete truck's backing in to shoot a pool deck. But that's my first time up here. That's all I got.

Okay. Anything else?

No,

sir. Okay. Thank you. If I could ask the code enforcement officer a question again. Maybe you said this and I missed it, but has the violation been cleared up?

Not the last time I was out there. No. On March 7, has not been. March 7. Let

me ask the respondent. Can you figure out what day that was? Was that after March 7?

Screenshotted the picture on the tenth

because that's when I noticed the violation.

Come up to the microphone. It's very important, I think, to get that on the record. March 10.

Yeah. I screenshotted it from my phone March 10.

Can you put that back on the screen there, mister Nacre? I can you can you see it also pretty

well? Yes. I

would like to have that screenshot entered into the record. Can you send that photo to the city?

Yeah. Yeah. Do you want me to send

it to the Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you. Bye. Anything else from from the city?

Not at this point. But if you did send it the seventh the tenth or I should say if you did clear it on the tenth, that was afterwards when I was out on the seventh. Alright? The original compliance date though was February 14. February 14.

K. K.

It was the original compliance date.

Alright. See in those pictures, though. I mean, that's all the dirt's gone. The the pavement's all stained, and which is wrong, which is wrong. But I did streak sweep it. I didn't pressure wash it at that point. No.

Okay. I think what I heard you say on the record was that you did street sweep it, but you did not power wash it until after some on the tenth. Is that

correct? Or alright. The tenth it was raining. It was the day before.

I'm get on the mic.

The tenth was raining. I believe it was the day before when we

think it was the ninth.

The eighth or the ninth or something. Whatever that Friday was.

Okay. Thank you. Mhmm.

That was what we have, your honor.

Okay.

So oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Well, go ahead. You wanna make a closing statement on that?

Very brief. As you stated earlier, it doesn't look you know, he's not the respondent is not really contesting the violation. He's knowledge he's acknowledging it and, I guess, any as well as, how he corrected, the violation. I would I would ask the inspector that based on the photos, presented by the respondent whether or not the violation has been corrected. As of his photos, yes. And, so at this point, the city would be looking to affirm the citation, the one time fine?

Okay. Before you talk about any fines Okay. I I don't talk about remedies until I decide whether or not there's a guilt. Understood. Then we go to the the penalty phase if if the finding is guilty.

So I'm ready to go ahead and make my determination on the case itself. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented, in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I think that was admitted by, the respondent. My conclusion of law is that the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty.

So now let's talk about, any penalties. It looks like it has been cleared up not within but not within the time specified by the code enforcement officers. So I'm looking for a recommendation from the city, And then I'll I'll allow the respondent to respond also.

The citation carried with it an initial penalty of a $100. Based on compliance, Citi wouldn't be offering any time for curing or daily fines. So it's simply affirming the citation the initial with the initial penalty of a $100 and cost, if the magistrate chooses to impose it, would be $50.

So the recommendation, sir, of the city is a onetime fine of $100, a cost there what we call costs, and that's a cost of prosecution of $50. It'd be a total of a $150. That's the recommendation. You have the right to save whatever you wanna say on it. If so, come on up to the mic. And if not, that's what

my order will be. That's why I'm getting wrong.

Okay. Well, agree with the recommendation of the city. So it'd be a onetime fine. Thank goodness you cleared it up. Too bad it wasn't right away, but, anyhow, you get a onetime fine of $100 and $50 cost of prosecution. Okay. Was that that was against the property owner too, was it not? Wait a minute. Which one is this?

This is e on the agenda. E.

Yeah. It was against John and Cecilia Hudspeth also. Are you proceeding against them or just against the, contractor?

This this this was just against the contractor.

Okay. So, it will not be against, John and Cecilia Hudson. Okay. Thank you very much.

Who do I I've never done this before.

Did did you wanna say anything? Oh, yeah. He wants to know who he pays.

Sir, you'll

you'll get an

invoice from the city. Okay. It was Tom Christian. Alright.

Okay. Sounds

good. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, next case.

Okay. We'll start with the abstention cases. That's letter a on the agenda, case number 24Dash2672. Property address 1206 Martinique Court.

Good morning, mister Sullivan. How are you?

Good morning, mister Madstreet.

I'm fine.

For the record, I do not see anybody in the room to contest the case. So go ahead and, proceed.

Yes, sir. My name is William Sullivan, code enforcement officer with Mark Wilde Police Department. The address of violation is 1206 Martinique Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of city of Mark Wilde. On 11/14/2024, I observed a code enforcement violation of damaged sidewalk, which is a violation of Marco Island code forty two dash three six b. I took pictures of violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed.

That's very orange and easy to see.

I issued a notice of violation for violating 42 36 damaged sidewalk. I gave a compliance date of 02/14/2025 to obtain a permit. Here's a photo of the notice of violation.

Okay. Thank you.

And a photo of the, notice being posted, sir.

It said sixty days. Was that sixty days to comply or must apply for permit within thirty days? And

Yes, sir. Yes, mister Mastry. Thirty days to apply for the permit and obtain it within sixty.

Okay. Oh, obtain. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

That's the posting. Follow-up inspections were conducted on 03/04/2025. And NOV letter was issued including notice of hearing notification sent certified mail. Affidavit of violation. The notice of hearing was posted on the site.

And the affidavit of posting. Five year history of the property. Has not been before the magistrate this property. And lastly, mister magistrate, I do have a letter from the Corona Law Firm on behalf of the owners. The letter was received yesterday late in the day.

It appears they have a contractor hired, and they have a permit. They are requesting thirty days, an extension of thirty days for the contractor to complete the work. That's all I have, mister Mastrate.

Okay. Thank you. Without, obviously, without objections since nobody's here, the documents will be admitted into evidence. Counselor, anything that you need to add?

Nothing further.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described, did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude 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. Let's talk about the penalty now. There is a request from the law firm to give thirty days, actually, for the completion of the work, which I don't know.

I mean well, they they they apparently know that they're they need to obtain a permit and do the work. So I'm open for suggestions, recommendations from the city.

City would recommend sixty days.

Okay. Are we, imposing any fine at this time?

Yes. City would, would be seeking a the the initial penalty of a $250, be affirmed. Sixty days to come into compliance, cost of the administrative cost in the amount of $50, and, failure to correct the violation within the time due would result in a $100 daily fine.

I can agree with all of that except I have a question. They said that they'd finish it within thirty, and I'm thinking about my long experience with local government tells me that they might be they might be hurting themselves, and they might be coming back in and beg for another thirty days anyhow. So I'm going to go along with your recommendation. I hope they appreciate that you've recommended an extra thirty for them to get it done because it I I don't know how long it takes to get a permit. It's usually, it doesn't take too long in Marco Island, but everybody's busy.

This is busy time, so we'll go with the sixty days. Susan, did you get all of that? Got it. Okay. Thank you. It's all ordered. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next case on the agenda is letter c. That's 20 case number 24Dash2924. Property address

I'm sorry. One more thing.

Oh, sir.

You send something back to them, would you please copy the law firm? Copy the attorney on it. When we do the order, you normally you send that back to, you know, to the respondent. But since they're represented by counsel, if you would please send a copy also to this attorney at Corona Law Firm. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead.

The next case on the agenda is letter c. That's case number 24Dash2924, property Address 958 Spruce Court.

Okay. This is, versus Pro Rich Designs and Rencat Marco Rentals Trust.

Correct.

Re re probably revocable trust, guess. But go ahead.

Okay. Mister magistrate, John Negro, court of force and officer with the Markow Police Department. Address that the violation is 958 Spruce Ave within the city of Markow Island. I'll be presenting this case for Officer Hofstadter, who's not here. Okay.

On 12/20/2024, Officer Hofstadter served the code enforcement violation of work without a permit, which is a violation of the Markkuilen Municipal Code, following pictures of the violation of an accurate account of what was observed. There was a synthetic turf installed at the location, which requires a permit from the city of Markow Island. This is what yet

Does Markow Island prohibit turf? Astro turf?

They will allow it on your property with a permit, not in the right of way.

Okay. Thank you.

This is work that was yet to be done. So as you can see here, it had already been put down in the rear yard with no permit. Officer Hofstadter Hofstadter issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 30 dash four thirty five d three with a compliance date of 02/18/2025. Okay. As of today, I checked through EnerGov, found no permit has been issued for the location for the installation of the synthetic turf.

It's on hold for insufficient documents. They have applied but have not obtained the permit as of this date. Okay. Following paperwork was administered to the case. It's the notice violation.

K.

Stop work order issued by officer Hofstetter.

Okay.

Posted notice of violation and stop work order. Affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting, notice of hearing against the owners of the property as well as the contractor. Okay. Notice of hearing posted notice of hearing, I should say, and a certified mail for the homeowners as well as the contractor. And there was no five year history for this property or the contractor.

That is all I have at this time.

Okay. Do you know if it's been removed?

I don't believe it has been.

Alright. Anything further? Nothing further. Based upon the testimony and other evidence provided, today, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as described, today constitute a I'm sorry. I did exist on the dates, time, and place, indicated, and I conclude as a matter of law that that constitutes a violation of the ordinances of the city of Markel Island. The finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation for a penalty?

City would recommend payment of the initial penalty of $250 cost of for the administrative cost in the amount of $50, sixty days to correct the violation and, failure to do so would result in a $100 daily fine.

Okay. I think that's fair, just, and reasonable and consistent with the findings in chapter one sixty two point o nine. So that will be my order. Yes. Are we going against the property owner as well?

It doesn't appear to be against the property owner. I believe it's limited to the corporation. Well,

there's a the owner is an LLC, it looks like. Okay. Okay. I

believe both okay. Rencat, Marco and Pro Rich Designs were notified. What about joint and severally? The city would like to proceed joint and severally against, both responsible parties.

Against both parties. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. What happens is we usually when I remember or when I'm reminded, I usually ask because sometimes the the city, once they've heard the case, they decide to only proceed against usually against the contractor and maybe not against the owner. But it could be either way depending upon what the circumstances are. So so the order will be adjoined several severally against the both parties. Okay? Thank you.

Thank you, mister Magistrate. The

next case on the agenda is letter G. That's case number 25Dash0232. Property address 573 Spinnaker Drive.

Okay. This is against Federhoff, O'Neil Home Builders Inc, DBA, Kexambas, Aluminum and Screen, and Jerome and Cynthia Lombardini Lombardini. Silt fence violation.

Correct.

Mister Negra?

Okay. Mister Magistrate, John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Markow Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 573 Spinnaker within the city of Markow Island. 02/08/2025, I observed the code enforcement violation of a downed silt fence, which is a violation of the Markow Island Municipal Code. Following pictures of the violation were an accurate account of what I observed that day.

There's no sill fence in the back of the property. You should have a sill fence here on the water's edge. Okay. I issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 18 dash two one three with the compliance date of 02/15/2025. Follow-up inspections were conducted on February 16, March 4, and March 7, which revealed that the location was still in violation with additional photos taken on this date.

So fence is still missing from the back of the property.

Is that an ongoing construction site? That is that what it Correct. Looks

It's a

new build.

Okay. Thank you. Okay.

As well as the sides of the properties. Following documents are associated with the case. Notes of violation.

Okay.

Posted notice of violation. The notice code violation noting the repeat offender. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing.

Also noting the repeat offender status. Posted notice of hearing and the certified mail documents for the builder, Federhoff O'Neill. Okay. Five five year history revealed two prior violations with the with the builder, Federhoff O'Neill, for the same violation within the last five years.

That is all I have, sir.

Now that's the only one. There are two of them. I'm I'm sorry. Two respondents, but only Federhoff is a repeat violator Correct. According to the city's calculations. Correct.

That is the contractor.

Do you have, quite often, you you have a sheet that shows when the violations were and

The

Were were these History? Yes. Were they within the last five years? And was there a determination made?

Yes. They were guilty. They were found There

were determinations. Okay. Found responsible Not not just the citation.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

That is all I have,

sir.

Alright. Anything else?

That's all I have, sir.

Okay. For the record, there is nobody here to defend the case. And I'm ready unless I hear differently from the attorney, I will go ahead and make my findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based upon the testimony and 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, and I'm open for a recommendation for a penalty. First of all, are we proceeding against both parties?

No. This would be limited to the repeat offender.

Okay. So Federoth is the one that's the repeat offender according to the city's calculations. Is that right?

Correct.

Okay. And then secondly, what is the recommendation?

City would recommend that the initial penalties for each violation be affirmed. That's $300 for 18 debt for violation of section 18 dash two thirteen and $100 for violation of section 18 dash three sixty five that those initial penalties be affirmed. Cost of today's hearings in the amount of $50 be imposed. City would agree to seven days to correct the violation. Failure to do so would result in a $500 daily fine.

So the $300 would be consistent with the $500 limitation for a repeat offender. The $100, is certainly within even a non repeat offender. So it's a total $400. And and is that a one time fine, or is that per day? Or I mean, because under if it's a repeat offender, it can be from the date that the, code enforcement officer found the violation. It does not have to start sometime now or in the future. So my question is, what is what's the recommendation based upon that information?

Because the citation already informed the violator, I believe, and I you could put post a picture of it, but because it already had the initial penalty printed on it, the city's gonna stick with that amount. One of them is above the threshold for the

Yeah.

For the initial for the first time offenders being 300, the other one is below as you stated. But, that said, inspector, I can't I I don't see it initially, but is is the initial penalty does it appear on that on the citation? The amount of the initial penalty? No.

No. Okay. Maybe I can clear something. Attorney, We're only proceeding with the, sill fence. The other, violation that was on the NOSA violation, the right of way obstruction was abated.

Oh, okay. So the sill fence is 18 dash two thirteen?

Correct. Correct.

Okay. So then I would amend my recommendation to only the $300, one time fine for violation of section 18 dash two thirteen, which is a repeat, and the rest remaining the same, including the daily fine of $500 for failure to come into compliance with seven within seven days.

Of now? Seven days from now?

From the from the date of the hearing.

From the date I mean, the date of the order. Yes. Alright. I think that's fair, just, and reasonable and certainly within the requirements of the state statute. So do we have do do we have that?

Okay. So it'd be $300 fine plus 300 for each day after seven days that I'm sorry. 500 after seven days from the date of the order, which is going to be today, if it's not corrected, a $500 per day fine plus cost of $50. And again, costs are the reasonable cost of prosecution. Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Very good. Thank you. Next case.

Next case is letter h on the agenda. That's case number 25Dash0238. Property address 1710 Canary Court.

Okay.

Morning, mister magistrate.

Mister Miller, how are you?

Doing good. Name is Gary Miller, code enforcement officer, with the city of Marco Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 1710 Canary Court, which is within within the municipal boundaries of the city Of Marco Island. On 02/10/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of stormwater pollution prevention for construction, silt fence, which is a violation of Marco Island code eighteen two one three Charlie. I took pictures of the violation, which are an accurate reflection of what I observed on that date.

See on that side, there is no silt fence. Here it has a damaged silt fence. Again, some missing silt fence. Damaged silt fence. I issued a notice violation for violating eighteen two one three Charlie and I gave a compliance date of 02/13/2025. And here is a photo of the NOV.

Okay. Thank you.

Posted NOV. Follow-up inspections were conducted on 02/14/1933 and 03/07, which revealed that the location was still in violation with additional photographs taken. Here's pictures from the 03/03 date. You can see now where they've actually put a bunch of wood trusses where there should be a salt fence and the down salt fence, missing salt fence. Here is the the mailed notice of violation for the homeowner indicating a first offense.

And here is the notice or mailed notice of violation for the contractor indicating a repeat violation. Here is the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting. Notice the hearing for the homeowner. Notice the hearing for the contractor indicating a repeat violation. Posted notice of hearing.

Certified mail doc for the homeowner. Certified mail doc for the contractor. Here is the previous magistrate ruling against the homeowner. And here are the the two

Could you push that up a little bit? This was four years ago. Okay. Thank you.

One of the previous violations for the contractor. Second previous or second notice of or I mean, magistrate ruling against the contractor and of course he just lost the case before this one. And then we did not send out a repeat violation for the homeowner. And that is all I

have. Okay. For the record, I'll I'll note once again that there's nobody here defense to the case. I will admit the exhibits into evidence. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude that as a matter of law, the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. Are you proceeding against the property owner also?

No. No. This is against the repeat offender.

Alright. That makes things a little bit easier because we've when you have two that you're proceeding against, it it becomes a little dicey as to where you're going on it. So you're just proceeding against Fetterhoff. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay. I do find that this is has validly been notified as a repeat violation. Recommendation as to penalty?

This citation carried with it an initial penalty of $500, which it's a one time fine. The city would look for that to be affirmed. City would offer seven days to correct the violation. Failure to do so would be $500 daily fine and cost in the amount of $50 incurred by the city?

I find that just and reasonable and within the confines of the state statute and local ordinances, and therefore, that will be my, order. It was and also it was $50.50 dollars in cost of prosecution. Alright. Thank you. Next case.

Next case is letter j on the agenda. That's 25Dash0241. Property address, 138 South Bahama Avenue.

Okay. Mister Miller?

Hi, miss Medjerate. My name is Gary Miller. I'm code enforcement officer with Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 138 South Bahama Avenue, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On 02/10/2025, I was certain code important violation litter and debris, is a violation of Marco Island code eighteen thirty six nine. I took pictures of the violation, which is a accurate reflection what I observed on that date. I issued a notice violation for violating eighteen thirty six nine, and I gave a compliance date of 02/17/2025. Copy of the NOV.

Okay, thank you.

Picture of the NOV posting, follow-up inspection were conducted on 02/18 and 03/03, which feel that location is still in violation and here are pictures from the 03/03 date. They actually brought in additional litter. Here is the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting. Notice a hearing against the homeowner, notice a hearing against the contractor, posted notice a hearing, certified mail document for the homeowner, certified mail document for the contractor, and prior history revealed no previous violations for either the homeowner or the contractor. And that is all I have.

Has that been cleaned up since then?

No. It has not. My last inspection, it was still litter and debris were there. Okay.

Based on before I make the findings, I just I wanna note for the record that there's nobody here to defend the case. And based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude, as a matter of law, the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island, and therefore, the finding is guilty. Recommendation for penalty.

City would recommend that the initial penalty of a $100 be affirmed. Seven days to correct the violation, failure to do so would result in a $100 daily fine and cost in the amount of $50.

And the $100 per day for each day of noncompliance thereafter. Is that correct?

Correct.

After the seven days. Okay. And $50 cost of prosecution. I find those to be fair, just, and reasonable and within the confines of the requirements of the statute. That'll be my order. And that's against both of them. Is that correct?

Just the contractor.

Oh, only the contractor.

Yes. Okay.

Yes, sir.

Had me fooled on that one. I thought maybe it was both. Alright. You're proceeding only against the contractor. Okay. Next case.

The next case is letter l on the agenda. That's case number 25Dash0307. Property address, 1773 Granada Drive.

Robert and Joy Abrams, overgrown weeds and encroachments. And, again, I do not see anybody, here to defend the case. Mister Negra, go ahead and proceed.

K. Mister magistrate, John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Markow Island Police Department. Address the violation at 1773 Goudana Drive within the city of Markku Island. 02/15/2025, I observed the code enforcement violation of encroachment and weeds and high grass, which are violations of the Markku Island Municipal Code. Following pictures are an accurate count of what I observed on that date.

This is a vacant lot, sir. Corchman of the of the bushes into the sidewalk. High grass over 15 inches on the right hand side. These are photos right down the

Is that a for sale sign that's

Correct.

Approaching on the sidewalk too?

Correct. Okay. And the high grass again. Okay. Follow-up inspections were conducted on February 23, March, which revealed that the location was still in violation.

These are the photos from the March 7, well after the compliance period. Okay. Gris still on cut. Nine. Okay. Ultimately, the property was found in compliance on March 15. Okay. Of the Okay. Alright. Well after the

You anticipated my first question.

Okay. Well after the compliance date. Okay. The following paperwork is was administered to the case. Notice of violation.

Okay. Thank

you. Posted notice of violation. Affidavit of violation. The affidavit of posting, notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, and certified mail documents for the property owners. Okay. There is no history on this property at this time or against the owners. That is all I have, sir.

Thank you. The exhibits will be admitted into evidence. And I'm ready to make my findings of fact and conclusions conclusions of law. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude that as a matter of law, the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation for a penalty?

City would recommend that the initial penalty of $200 be affirmed and cost of today's hearing in the amount of $50.

I think that amount is fair, just, and reasonable and within the confines of the statutory requirements, and that will be my order. Okay. Next case. Thanks, sir.

Next case is letter m on the agenda. That's case number 25Dash0235 property address 1510 Galleon Avenue.

And that's De Asmarie Toledo Realty Group and Lisette Bonnet Mill and Herbert Cabrera Granada Granada.

Yes.

And I don't see anybody here to defend the case. So, mister Miller, would you go ahead and proceed?

Sure. Once again, my name is Gary Miller. I'm a code enforcement officer with the city of Markle Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 1510 Gowion Avenue, which is within the municipal boundaries of the City Of Markle Island. On 02/09/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of sidewalk encroachments with the violation of the Markle Island code forty two thirty six echo. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection or observed at that time. You can see the sand and silt on the sidewalk.

I'm sorry. What is that on the side sidewalk?

You can see the footprints

in there.

Is it dirt or something?

It's it's dirt, sand, silt. And there's also a brush that bush that was encroaching into the sidewalk zone. I issued a notice violation for violating 4236 Echo, and I gave a compliance date of 02/16/2025. And here's a picture of the notice violation.

Thank you.

NOV posting. A follow-up inspections were conducted on 02/17, 03/03 and yesterday 03/17 and on 03/17 the violation went compliant.

Was?

It was compliant Okay. On '3

Thank you.

So here is the affidavit. Well, I should say first to prove it, here's some pictures from three three. Still showing the sand and silt and the brush encroaching or the bush encroaching into the sidewalk zone. Here is the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting, notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, certified mail document, and five year history revealed no previous violations. And that is all I have.

Okay. Thank you. The documents will be admitted into evidence. And based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described, it did exist at the location and on the dates and times test testified to. I conclude that as a matter of law, the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. What is the recommendation for penalty? I note that it, it has been put into compliance as of yesterday. Is that right? Yes. That is correct. Yes. Thank you.

The city would be looking for looking to affirm the $100 one time fine and cost for today's hearing of $50.

I find that to be fair, just, and reasonable and within the confines of the statues, and that will be my order.

I would like to say that's just against the homeowner, correct? Was actually the NOV There issue

are about four different people there. I can't tell.

The NOV was originally written and I had there was two violations. One was for a real estate sign that went against the homeowner and the real estate agent. And then the this sidewalk encroachment that was only for the homeowner.

Can you tell me which ones? There's Dias Mary Toledo Realty Group. So you're not going against them. Is that correct?

That is correct. Here is the Would be Call your county property appraiser for the the record of owner of the home.

So you're going against the owner?

Yeah. Yes. This would be against Lisette Bonnet Mill and Herbert Cabrera Granado as homeowners.

Okay. So it's, just against those two parties. Madam clerk, do you have that? Good. Thank you.

Next case on the agenda is letter o. That's case number 25Dash0216. Property address 512 In Tillis Court.

And that's, Douglas and Lois Sims and Red Rhino illicit discharge. Red Rhino is a pool leak company as I recall.

Correct.

Mister Negra, go ahead and proceed.

Mister Magistrate, John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Markow Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 512 Antilles Court within the city of Marco Island. Excuse me. 02/06/2025, I observed the court enforcing violation of illicit discharge, which is a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code. Filing pictures of the violation are an accurate account of what was observed.

We have a direct pumping of untreated pool water into the canal.

Okay.

Issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 18 dash two twelve with no compliance state as the violation is irreparable. Okay. The following paperwork was administered to the case. Notice of violation, noting that the offense is irreparable.

Okay.

Posted notice of violation, Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, and certified mail documents for Red Rhino Pool Repair Corporation who we're proceeding against, not the homeowner, sir.

I'm sorry? The

These these are the certified mail documents for Red Rhino, leak repair company, as we're proceeding against them and not the homeowner.

Not the homeowner. Yeah. Okay. I thought that's what you said, but I wanted to make sure I get that

Okay.

Clear. Okay.

Five year history revealed no prior history against the contractor. Alright.

I don't see the contractor or anybody here to defend. I'll admit the exhibits into evidence. And make a finding, findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude as a matter of law that the conditions alleged constitute of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island.

The finding is guilty. And I would like to have a recommendation for a penalty, bearing in mind that this was, cited as irreparable and irreversible. So therefore it's under a different subsection of the state statute.

Yes, sir. Based on the irreparable irreversible violation, the city would request a $5,000 one time fine, for this violation being posed.

$5,000 is the maximum fine for irreparable, irreversible. And I presume $50 costs a prosecution.

In addition to the cost. So

it looked like it was pool water that was put into the canal?

Correct, sir.

Okay. I'm I'm I'm mulling this over. Sometimes it may depend upon what is being put into a canal or into a system. Okay. It's not like it's paint or naphtha or anything like that, but it's still something that's not supposed to be put in there.

Well, I I will impose the fine of $5,000 and $50 cost of prosecution. I I do have some qualms about that if it's pool water, but then again, there's nobody here to testify as to how harmful or unharmful it might be. So, that'll be my order.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

Final case on the agenda is letter p. That's case number 25Dash0204, property address 1180 Twin Oak Court.

Okay. Mister Sullivan.

Yes, mister I

looked down and I looked back up and there's somebody else standing there. I was wondering why you were still here.

Yes, sir. My name is William Sullivan, code enforcement officer with Mark Wyande Police Department. The address of violation is 1180 Twin Oak Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of city of Mark Waugham. On 02/04/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of construction temporary use permit staging, which is a violation of Mark Waugham code three zero dash seven nine three two. I took pictures of violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed.

I issued a notice of violation for violating three zero dash seven nine three two. Give a compliance date of 02/1425. You know, miss magistrate, the permit expired on January 30. I did call the respondent and asked them prior to the thirtieth. I called them and asked them, did they know it was expiring and were they gonna renew it or get the everything off the site.

They did not respond to my repeated voice mails. Here's a photo of the posting. Follow-up inspections are conducted on February 16. Mr. Radish Street, you'll note that the fence is down, but the lot has not been put back into its original condition. There's no sod. Follow-up inspection on March 4 revealed no sod.

So the city requires sod?

The lot the ordinance states that it needs to be returned to the condition original condition before the staging. And that part, mister Magistrate, is upon completion of the use and prior to expiration of the approved activity, the contractor shall restore the lot to pre use condition. This part is.

Okay. Anything else?

Just the rest of the, NOV letter, mister Menstrue. A letter was sent to also the owners and a notice of hearing. The notices were sent by certified mail to both the contractor and the owners. The affidavit of violation. The notice and photos of the notice being posted.

That was on March 11. You'll notice mister that there's no side on March 11. The affidavit of posting. The five year history for this address for the owners is there's no appearance for the magistrate. However, the contractor has multiple appearances.

Can you go back to that last one? I wanna look at it a little bit.

The property itself has not been before the magistrate, your honor. But the contractor has.

Yeah. See, this doesn't show. It just has a case open and case closed. It doesn't show how it was closed, whether or not there was a determination made by a code enforcement board or magistrate or some other agency.

We close a case once it's compliant, so that's what that's showing. And then no would be it never made it

to magistrate because it Oh, I see. Okay. So none of these went to the magistrate. For

the property, mister Magistrate, but the it's a different story with the contractor, if I may. They have multiple appearances before the magistrate for staging without a permit.

Okay. Thank you.

For a total of four four appearances for the ministry.

If I would just held my breath there for a few minutes, you would have explained it.

I apologize, miss Metairie. I probably was bringing too much information.

And Four priors in, what, the last five four, five years or what? No. No. Back to the

Back to 2021.

No. Put put the page back up there. I just couldn't read the bottom. What's the bottom say?

Four

four priors before the magistrate, your honor, for for this violation, for staging, this type of violation.

At the bottom of the page there. Push the page up a little bit. Okay. Four priors in magistrate for staging. Okay. Thank you.

That's all I have, mister Mastry.

Thank you.

There's nobody here to defend the case. The exhibits will be admitted into evidence. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find, a matter of fact, that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude as a matter of law that the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. I'm ready for a recommendation from the, city as to a penalty.

The the city would recommend, that the initial penalty of $500, be affirmed. Fourteen days to correct the violation, failure to do so would result in a daily fine of $250 and cost in the amount of $50 for today's hearing.

Is that against both parties?

No. This is only against DSI General Contractors Inc, the repeat violators.

And you did you did say $50 cost? If not Yes, sir. Dollars cost. Do you have that? I think that's fair, just, and reasonable under the circumstances and within the confines of the statutes, and, therefore, that'll be my order.

I believe that concludes the agenda.

Let me check with Susan. Did you get everything? We we concluded everything? Okay. Good. Alright. Yeah. I didn't wanna find out an hour from now that we missed something. Alright. K. Well, thank you very much. That concludes the agenda, and therefore, the