Code Enforcement - Regular Meeting

So from the respondents, or the respondents' representatives. Under Florida law, all testimony and code enforcement hearings must be taken under oath. So I'm going to administer the oath. So anybody who may wish to say anything at any hearing today, please raise your right hand. If there's any chance that you may say anything at any one of the hearings, your hearing, or any of the other hearings, please raise your right hand, and I'll administer the oath.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give in any case today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. You. I think we're ready to call the docket for today. Mister Nutella?

Morning. Starting off with letter A as in alpha on your docket, case 252173.

This is Seaview Seaview Court?

Yes. Unit

1001. Is anybody here on that case? Okay. Thank you.

Mister John Negro, code enforcement officer with the Markle Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 260 Seaview Court, which is within the city of Markle Island. On 11/07/2025, officer Brady Sullivan observed the code enforcement violation of property maintenance, which is a violation of the Marco Island municipal code. I'm presenting the case for officer Sullivan as he is no longer with, the city of Marco Island.

K. Proceed.

Alright. Photos will be shown later by the building official as he is more apt to explain the violation than I am. I'm just presenting the paperwork for you. K. Officer Sullivan officer Sullivan, excuse me, subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance six dash one one one and one zero one point four Subsection 4 with a compliance date of 01/07/2026.

A follow-up inspection was conducted, today and prior, which revealed that the location was still in violation, as the permit for the, repairs that were completed is still pending. Permit has not been approved at this point. It's still the application is still pending. Okay. This is a copy of the, notice violation issued by officer Sullivan.

Okay. Thank you.

The posted notice. The affidavit of violation.

Alright. Thank you.

After David of posting. The formal notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, and the certified documents certified mail documents. Alright. At this point, I'm gonna turn it over to the building department to explain this violation more clearly than I can.

City city calls chief building official for the city of Marco Island, mister Don Davis.

Good morning.

Morning, sir.

Don Davis, chief building official for the city. This this is the a property maintenance issue, and, it looks as if the, Seaview had high has hired a engineering firm to look into it, and they found some issues. They are in the process of getting a permit on both of the buildings, and, it has been approved by the building already. The fire review is still under is still pending.

Mister Davis, could you please explain what the issue is, the actual issue in the building?

Okay. So what what had happened? One of the I think one of

the owners had found that it some of the the windows and doors

let's see if I can put this showed some showed some the stucco had been deteriorating and that they they didn't feel like the windows and doors or sliders had been attached properly. So this is the pictures that the engineering firm came up with.

And then

you can see on this picture that the screws are obviously not attached very well.

That's photo number four on the document, is that correct?

Yes, sir. Photo number four.

It says window sill fasteners exposed after stucco removal.

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you.

So it looks like the screws missed the wood.

Well, actually, it's all concrete. And so there's stucco between the concrete the concrete and the window frame. So the stucco has been removed.

Mhmm. But the in picture number four, I'm I'm looking at three, what appear to be screws sticking up. Right. In front of what would be a wood frame?

No. They're it's all concrete. Concrete building complete. I don't think there's any wood.

So what's what's inappropriate about the screws in total number four?

Well, what what the what the the case is about that the they didn't maintain the stucco. Gotcha. And then things are and then that that allows the screws to be

Exposed.

Exposed to the elements, and then they are gonna deteriorate very quickly. Thank you.

Is it limited to, the one unit, or are there other units? It's and by by that, I mean, have they been cited for any units other than the ones we're looking at here?

That would be just unit. Just the one unit.

So we're we're dealing with one unit, not, the whole building. Okay. Okay. Anything else?

That is all. They have like I said, they have a they have a permit that they have applied for.

Do you know what the status of that is? You said pending, but

Fire. They need to resubmit for the fire portion.

Okay. Anything else?

That is all.

Mister Nacre, anything else?

Yes. Mister Prith, they have submitted a defense packet. It is quite lengthy. I don't know if you want me to put it on the screen or just give it to you personally to review.

Well, we do have someone here who is probably ready to testify. So let's allow her to do that. And then if she wants to also submit her defense package, that's up to her. Okay.

Thank you. I'm Jessica McCoy with Thornton Masedi. I'm here on behalf of the engineer of record for Alright. Project.

Snuggle up to that microphone a little bit.

Sorry. Let me jump down a little bit. I can clarify a little bit further photo four. So the windows were replaced when they were installed with those screws because they're newer windows. They're a little bit bigger than the original windows. And so where they're supposed to sit on concrete, as he had mentioned, these screws are past that concrete location. And so instead of going into concrete, they went into stucco, which is why the stucco was removed. It's not a proper substrate to anchor into. We did initial calculations for the condition. It's safe right now as is.

If we get high wind loads for a tropical storm or higher, we have advised the building they need to be prepared to handle this unit and where where the window is installed because it won't be able to handle those loads, but it can handle normal operation. It's safe for occupancy. We are in permitting. We submitted. Building has approved. Fire has comments. We wanted to make sure that we had done a few more probes at the window to make sure that the repair is appropriate, and so we've incorporated that data. We have the comments for fire ready to go, and we should be issuing back to, the billing department in the next couple of weeks.

Now you say you're an engineer. Is that correct?

I'm not the

signing Florida engine registered or

I am. I'm a licensed Florida engineer. I'm not the signing engineer for this project. That would be my my higher up, Philip Quinn. Okay. But I am a licensed engineer.

But but you're okay. So you are

I am.

An expert in engineering as it relates to what you're looking at here. Is

that Yes.

That's correct.

Okay. Anything further?

In terms of getting contractors to do the repair, we did go through bidding at the same time that we submitted for permit. And so the association should be deciding on a final bidder in the next two weeks. I think I said May 11 in our in our defense document, and then they should be ready to do the work between May and June, again, that the permit is approved and everything is passed.

So you say in in June?

Yeah. We expect that this unit will be addressed in June. Yes. And between now and then, should we have any high wind events, the building is well aware to make sure that the the unit is advised properly.

Yeah. Hurricane Yeah. Season is coming, and, some people say it's going to be early this year. I don't know.

I hope not. But they are prepared. And, as much as it's not something to rely on and the building will stay vigilant, at least the building does very much, deoccupy during these months. And so we are keeping tabs on that with the units that are in the building, and I don't believe this unit, will be that much of a concern.

Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything else to

That's it. If you want the defense packet, can have it. It is lengthy, but it's just two pages of a summary and then some supporting documents. That

it's your call. If if you submit it, that'll be part of the record. Yeah. If not, your testimony will still be part of the record.

That's fine. We'll submit it. Is there anything I have to do formally to

No objections.

No objection. Yeah. The clerk, please.

Okay. Alright. Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Do we have any further testimony?

Nothing further from the city.

Okay. Do you have a closing statement on this one? It sounds to me like they're pretty close to getting this done and they've Yeah. Is there any indication that there's been slowness or lack of work on this, mister Nagra?

Nothing. Nothing further, sir. Okay.

I'm I'm right now, I'm inclined to give them to continue this and to give them time to get this corrected. I think I think they've indicated that that there's a violation. However, they're so close it seems to me like they're so close to getting it handled that maybe a continuance would be in order. I don't like to do continuances if somebody is lagging. It gives them a chance to lag, but I haven't seen that in this case.

Mister Negra, any any knowledge of them lagging or or or not being responsive?

Not to my knowledge. Okay.

Sorry. That's alright. Because this was not your case originally. That's fine. That's fine.

I'll continue this until the June meeting. What is the date of the June meeting? June June 30? Is that okay with with the city? With

That's fine. Ma'am, Mister magistrate, if I could real quick. At the June hearing, would you be requiring testimony from anybody or we just gonna revisit based on the

Well, the rest I think the record has been made. Obviously, at any hearing, somebody has the right to come in and say whatever they wanna say.

But Understood. But I'm just I'm just trying to assess my need for, the building official to appear in June. I don't think that's necessary as he said what he's gotta say.

Well, what he's already said is would be on the record, so he wouldn't have to come back and repeat it.

And then June is fine.

Yeah. Is that okay with the with respondent? You're shaking your head up and down, meaning yes? Okay. So I'm going to continue this. Normally, I don't continue because there's always a concern about it getting done. Somebody said, oh, good. Now we got sixty more days or thirty more days or something. And but it looks to me like you've made every effort to get this, handled. And, so so without objection, I'm going to continue it to the June 30, hearing.

Make sure that this is done before then is completed and that the city knows that it's completed and that whatever sign off they have to do that you've gotten that before, the, June 30 hearing. Okay? Okay. Thank you.

Next up is letter DAs in David, case 252310.

This is, Duchess Resort Management. Is somebody here on behalf of Duchess Resort Management? Yes, sir? If you'd like, you could move up a little closer here. I presume you're going to testify. Is that correct? Maybe?

Probably.

Yes. Okay. You don't have to, but Mister Necker. Alright.

Alright. John Necker, code enforcement officer with the Markle Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 220 South Collier Boulevard, which is within the city of Marco Island. On 12/04/2025, officer Brady Sullivan observed the code enforcement violation of violating conditions of an issued permit, which is a violation of the Marco Island code. Once again, I'll be presenting the case on his behalf as he is no longer with the city.

Alright. Following photos are violation are following photos of the violation are a record account of what was observed at that time. We have vegetation behind the sea grapes that were behind the building, which were cut too low and basically decapitated, for lack of better terms, mister Magistrate. Although that picture

What types of plants are those?

Are Sea grapes, correct.

Sea grape? Yeah. And

that shows a clear picture of the sea grapes there. Is a better picture of the height of which they were cut down to. Yes, sir.

To your knowledge, are those types of plants protected?

Absolutely. I was getting to that, sir. Alright. They are protected and can only cut to a certain height. Amber Stonick, our environmentalist, is gonna be here. She's gonna explain that a little further. Alright.

Okay.

Officer Sullivan subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 30 dash nine thirty five with the compliance with no compliance date as it was deemed irreparable. Okay. This is the f this is the copy of the notice of violation.

Okay. Thank you.

Posted notice of violation. After date of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. This is the posted notice of hearing and the certified mail documents.

I also have a copy here of the permit that was issued to remove or I should say to trim the vegetation that was there. A permit was obtained by the landscaping company or I'm sorry, by the the duchess by the association, and it shows the conditions for trimming.

Mike, could you zoom in on that please?

Looks like at the top it says General Doone Plant Trimming Conditions. And then there is a whole page full Yes. Of

What I going to do at this point is I am going to call up Amber Stonick, our environmentalist, who issues these permits. She could explain this a little further as to why this is irreparable and conditions that were violated from the permit.

Calls an environmental planner Amber Stonick.

I'm sure we kind of got

Good morning.

Good morning.

So Say your name for the record.

I am Amber Stoenig. I'm a planner too. I'm served as the environmental planner for the city. I'm the one that conditioned this permit and evaluated and did the site visits for it. When I actually was doing an inspection on the neighboring property, I observed what appeared to be excessive cutting in violation of my permit conditions. Sea grapes are protected with additional restrictions in the coastal area. They're subject to additional permitting requirements from the state DEP. If you do, my specific conditions were put in place because if you do any cutting in excess of that, you are required to get additional permitting from the State of Florida.

And what happened?

Well, it's excessive cutting. I also contacted the DEP because it is in their jurisdiction now if it is excessive cutting.

Clarify what you DEP is?

Okay, Department of Environmental Protection. They are the ones that deal with specifically coastal construction control line area permitting, which is along the shoreline. If you do trimming beyond what my conditions were, which is a specific amount of trimmings of sea grapes, they do not count that as exempt to their permitting any longer and require a specific permit to be issued through their department with the state.

Through their department? Yes. Brings up a jurisdictional question that I have. Is this something that the city of Marco Island has jurisdiction over?

We have codes that specifically address the trimming of this, correct?

We have codes requiring permits to be issued for trimming. I cannot approve permits that are in excess of what the state allows, which is why I had specific conditions in place.

No, I understood. But the fact is that our codes govern the trimming of the sea grapes in this case, correct?

Vegetation trimming and removal, yes.

Okay. But also the Department of Environmental Protection, the state also has jurisdiction over the sea grapes in what sense?

In sense of if it's beyond the coastal construction control line, they have additional restrictions and they have their own permitting requirements for any activities that take place. If you build a a walkway through there, if you trim anything, you remove anything, they require additional permitting.

Okay. But what they've been cited for is strictly our code and the trimming of this. Now what is our code say as far as what's allowable and what's not allowable with the trimming of these things?

We don't have specific recommendations, it's based on environmental review and I do my conditioning off of what's allowed through the state without additional permitting.

So what about this here indicated to you that they were trimmed too short and therefore in violation?

Well, specifically you are not allowed to trim in excess of a third of the height of sea grapes or a third of the leaf area. And if you see from those pictures, almost all the leaves are removed from the majority of the plants on that property.

So is that evidence that they were trimmed in violation of?

Of my permitting conditions and the DEP also found in their site visit the same.

That there was a violation of

That it was excessive trimming.

Okay. Thank you.

Could you go to one of the bring up one of the photographs, if you would please, Mr. Nagra. And you you can choose whichever one you want to best show. And what my question is, I see some green leaves, and I see some, looks like dead leaves.

Can you can you put the microphone close to you so the record can

be Yeah. So

Go on. Yeah.

I had I had sent pictures of what it looked like before, some of these.

Yes. But in the question I'm getting to is, you had indicated that it was excessive and you could tell by most of the leaves being, taken off. And I see that there are looks like brown leaves and some green leaves. Is that what you're referring to?

That is what I'm referring to. You cannot remove more than a third of the the leaf area either.

So it's not the height necessarily because you couldn't see the height because it was already trimmed.

Yes.

But you did it by inspecting the leaf area. Is that correct?

Just by visually expecting that, it's clear that they violated that part of the condition.

Thank you. I understand that. Thank you. And the other photograph that you just brought up, mister Nagariff, is not what I was asking about.

That's prior to trimming.

Oh, prior. Okay. This is

the Doom area before the trimming was done.

Okay. I see that. Thank you. The the green in the, toward the, beach there is the

sandy area.

Sea grape. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Do you have any additional questions for me?

I have nothing further.

Okay.

But but stand around. Stand by because Okay.

Somebody from the property Yeah. He has the right to cross examine or to bring his own case. So yeah. So stick around. Yes, sir. It's your turn.

Hi. My name is Brian Langford. I'm the owner of the landscape company. One thing that I'm not I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. Duchess Resort Management is the respondent. Yeah. What company is your company?

Langford Lawn Service. Okay. We did the actual cutting. I got a call last minute that Arnie was supposed to be here from Dutchess. Couldn't make it. So I'm here. The one thing that I'm not seeing is the pictures of them now. They've completely it's beautiful. They've filled in great. And there is a large percentage of this that is not sea grape, that it's an invasive pond apple that was cut also.

And the only thing I would say is some of the brown leaves you're seeing are actually sunburned from when the sea grapes did get cut. They're not dead. They just from the sun actually burning them because they were new leaves. But if you know, we did visual checks weekly. And, there was nothing died. There was nothing irreversible in my opinion. And it it we actually just happened to meet on-site last week, and it's it's coming back beautiful. So I would just like to take that into consideration moving forward.

So you're not you're not denying or taking the position that you didn't overcut?

It's I think it's an an opinion. There is there's nothing scientifically proven that a seagrite can only be cut to six feet, from the ground. That's what it does clearly state. And, yes, they were cut less than six feet. It was just an honorable stake on my crew. But, you know, as far as the irreversible damage, there was there was from what I can see, I've been do I've been in the business for twenty five years. We've cut sea grape before. Yeah. I mean, you can cut them to the ground, and they'll come back. But, you know, I think the the to answer the question, yes, they were cut below the six feet.

Yes. They were. There was no intent other than it just it was a mistake on my crew. But the the again, they're they they have come back great.

Yeah. Code enforcement violations, unlike robbery or murder and things like that, are not really based upon intent.

It's just

what is the condition? Did did this happen? And what is the condition on it? So intent or lack of intent might be relevant to any any penalty that could be imposed. But but the fact that they didn't mean to do it is really not Yeah. Doesn't get doesn't get you off the hook.

Right. No. No. That's that's

That's the big thing. Here to

Okay. Take whatever comes our way.

Alright. Anything else that you wanna tell me?

That's it.

You don't have any photographs as to what it looks like now?

I do not. I know there was several taken last week, so they they do have pictures now. I I didn't know I was gonna be here this morning or I would have been much better prepared.

You said this the city has pictures as to how it looks now? Yes. Does the city have pictures as to how it looks now?

We didn't

send any

out, but

they are going

to Wait. I'm sorry. We need to get you on a

on a mic. Well, let me let me let me just interject so we don't Go any further with this with this since in my opinion we don't have to. They're not prepared. We're not prepared. Let's continue the case. Because because honestly, I mean, this gentleman is up here trying to take one for the team. Yeah. And and he's not the one being cited. We don't have the photographs showing the status of of the thing, which goes directly to our argument of irreparable or not. And so

And and, really, to me, that's if I can help any, that's what it's all about. It's and he's kind of admitted that they that there was a an initial violation. The question is irreparable or not irreparable. And normally with a tree, let's say it's a tree that's been there for fifty years, a big live oak or something like that, somebody cuts that down, that's irreparable. There's just no question about it.

And certain other things you cut back, you probably know this better than I do, are would be irreparable. Whether or not sea grape would be, I don't know. I think that the suggestion that you continue this until the next meeting, is a good thing. And, also suggest that maybe you talk with the, with the staff or or somebody over, that particular issue. Okay?

Yeah.

You agree with it a continuance?

Yeah. Sure.

I recommend you say yes.

Yeah. Yes. Okay.

Well, I well, I was just

They're they're offering you something, that's very helpful.

Well, we wanted to try to put this

Yeah.

To rest, but I I think the pictures that they have would kinda prove that that they they that they look very similar to the picture up

there. Let's going to yeah.

We don't have them. Yeah. The the management's problem is they're not here.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. So let's let's get this continued until the next meeting. The next meeting is May

June no.

May May

no. Twenty twenty sixth. Sixth.

May 26.

Now, mister Magistrate, we are gonna have to have a waiver of the thirty day notice requirement if we're gonna have it for the next hearing.

You waive, you waive the thirty day notice requirement?

He doesn't have the standing to waive it. I do. He's not the charged.

Yeah.

Let's make it June.

Is anybody here from Duchess?

No. He's

no. What's your recommendation?

Make it June.

Okay. June 30. I strongly urge and recommend everybody to try to get together one time and see if you can get this resolved. The issue is whether it's irreparable or not to me. Okay?

Yes. Thank you.

Good job. Tell your bosses that they you did a better job than they did when you came. I don't know if you did or didn't, but you did well. Thank you.

Next

up is letter KAsInKilo, case 2093.

I'm sorry. What letter?

KAsInKilo, 260193.

Okay.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning.

My name is JD Shelton. I'm a code enforcement officer with Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 351 Columbus Way, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On January, I observed a code enforcement violation working without a permit, which is a violation of Marco Island code one zero five point one six six through one one one. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed.

That's a truck parked in the in the driveway. It's what we found in the back of the truck. That was beside the the driveway, beside the truck, a couple of pickaxes and a sink. That's a view from the back of the truck right at the beginning of the garage. And that's another view, the same angle.

It looked like they were gutting the interior of the house. I issued a notice of violation for working without a permit. I gave a compliance date of 03/2726.

Sixty day compliance period to apply and obtain permits from the city. No further work to take place until permits are issued. Stop work or issued to. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Did I read that correctly? Okay. Oh, do we have somebody here for that matter?

Yes. Okay. Yes, sir.

Feel free to come up closer if you want to. It's your call. As long as you can hear okay, that's no problem. I just want to make sure that you hear what he's saying. Thank you.

That's the stop work order.

Yes, sir.

There are the items posted on the front of the house. Looked on the computer twice on April 20 and April 28. They don't have a they have they do not have a permit as of yet. They applied for a permit on 03/06/2026. It's in the application review status right now. Okay. It's the NOV letter.

NOV means notice of violation?

Yes, sir. Okay. Certified mail. Affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting, And the notice of hearing. And there is no five year history there at that address.

Okay. Anything further?

No, sir.

Alright. Sir or one of you or both of you, if you're going to testify, come on up. Looks like you might have two people test testifying.

Hi. Name is Handler Portal. This is Eddie Yanes. He's the owner of the property. I'm just here to translate for him. Okay. Because he only speaks Spanish. Okay. Handler Portal.

We let

Ed, what is your relationship? Just

Oh, we're just friends.

Translator for him? Yeah. Just the owner. Okay. Correct. So the appearance is on behalf of the owner, and the owner's name is Tomasoyama.

Eddie Iannis. Okay.

And spell that.

Eddie Lanes. Okay. Thomas Akrue. A.

Thank you.

Mister Raschari, if we could just swear in the translator as a translator.

Yeah. I think he did raise did both of them raise their hand? Did both of them raise their hand, to testify?

Yes. He did. They both raised their hand.

I thought so. There was one oh, I see the person somebody else in the room didn't. It was but both of you did. So they have been duly sworn. Okay.

Alright. So so what we're what we're missing is the what he's missing is the Permit. The permit. Like I said, it is in revision. It was submitted on 03/06, which is, I think, thirty nine days after he was cited for the violation.

In those first thirty nine days, he tells me that he was looking for a contractor in order to finish a job, you know, drop plans or everything else that he needed to do. After they were submitted on 03/06, they, they went back and forth. I have some some reviews here that went back that went back and forth to him and the city, his contractors. And since then, we've just been waiting for the actual permit itself to well, he's been waiting for the permit itself in order to pay for it. This is what we just got from their office this morning.

Those are all the documents that need to be revised in order for him to receive the permit. But at this moment, we don't have it and haven't been able to pay for it. But I think we he is within his sixty day period of of notice that they gave him. That's all we have at the moment. Okay.

Okay. Do you have anything else?

He says he took out the cabinets because there was a leak in or, like, a major leak in the in the kitchen. So in order for, I guess, a proper not to get mold or destroy more than it already was, he took out everything. And then he had just bought the house a few days before, probably weeks, a few weeks, I think. And that's why he took out the cabinets so there would be no mold in the property. And then from there, he would get the permits, but I guess they got those pictures before that.

So he he you see, he bought the house, and then shortly after that, noticed that there were there was mold in the cabinets, and he had that removed.

There was a pipe leak, then everything got wet, and that's when he decided to take the cabinets out, cap the leak, and take out the old cabinets. It was an old very old property.

K. Okay. Anything further?

No. The

documents that

And then he's just waiting for them to authorize all these documents and pay for the fees to get the permit to start the work.

Okay. Is that everything?

Yes. That's all.

Yes. I'll admit that all the documents for both parties into evidence, that'll all be all the documents will be part of the record of today's hearing. You can tell him that.

Okay. Thank you.

We'll so we'll we'll keep those, and, we can make a copy for you, but, the clerk will wanna keep all of the documents.

Sure. That's fine. Thank you.

Yeah. You only have about three or four pages, but we need to keep that in the record, And they'll make a copy for you. So if you want, you can just leave them there. I'll just send them Or give them to her. Yeah.

Thank you.

Does the, city have anything further in response? Yes. Okay. I am, I have to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. So tell him that.

Can you repeat that? Sorry. Pardon me. 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.

Conclusions of law. I conclude that as a matter of law, the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island.

So it is a so you're saying it is violation.

Yeah. Okay. The finding is guilty.

So guilty. Okay.

Now it's necessary to see, for me to issue an order, that would be a penalty or a requirement, going forward. So tell them that. Okay. What is the city's recommendation?

City recommends $250 fine, $50 costs, sixty days to obtain the permit, or $100 per day.

Okay. The city is recommending a $250 fine, $50 in cost of prosecution. You you tell him that.

Okay.

The city will give him sixty days to obtain the permit. Mister Nutella, is is that is that correct? Mister Nutella, 60 to obtain the permit?

Sixty days to obtain the permit. Correct. Or $100 per day time.

Or a fine of $100 per day for every day after sixty days that the permit is not obtained.

The sixty days start today?

Tomorrow. Tomorrow. Tomorrow is day one.

Day one today is day zero. That's until we attain attain the actual permit itself. Right? We have sixty days to get the permit.

You have sixty days to get a permit. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. You understand? Where does he pay this? How does he

Where does he pay it?

Yeah. The the the same thing. Yeah.

Somebody tell him how to mister Sheldon will help you with that. Okay? Okay. Yeah. Are you all done? Are we done? Yeah. I'll I'll give him help him find out how are you supposed to pay the it'd be $300 today, $2.50 plus Yeah. The cost of prosecution of $50. Okay? Somebody could help him with that.

More cases.

Oh, they have two more cases?

Yes. Yes.

Alright.

That's we just did.

Okay.

I'm sorry. My mistake. My mistake.

No. Are we finished?

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for coming in. That was very important. Okay. Thank you for helping them.

Let's go ahead and call the next case.

This case is PAsInPaul, case 260377.

1649 Piedmont Circle. Mister Snager? Do we have anybody here on that case?

Yes. We do.

You're here on that case? Okay, ma'am. K. Proceed.

John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Markle Island Police Department, addressed in a violation of 1649 Piedmont Circle, which is within the city of Markle Island. On 02/25/2026, I observed the code enforcement violation of work without a permit, which is a violation of the Mark Marlin, municipal code. Following photos of the violation are an accurate count of what I observed that day. K. At the home, there was extensive removal of concrete being done in sidewalks.

That's the front of the home. The one side Dumpster showing the dumpster showing the debris. The back of the home that had, I believe, the patio removed and forms for a new patio. This is the opposite side of the home. Some of the debris that had been removed, showing piping more debris, I'm sorry, showing piping and electrical lines.

And, these following pictures show, electrical lines that were left vacant or I should say vacant exposed.

Are those live?

I don't know.

But they

were left exposed, alright, at some point.

Okay. You can do, man.

Apparently not. He's here.

Yeah. I didn't I didn't touch them, so I don't know. Okay. More electrical lines and a shower at the rear of the home that was disassembled. Okay.

Subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance one zero five point one and six dash one one one with a stop work order with a compliance date of 04/25/2026 to obtain permits for the work. This is the notice of violation.

K.

Stop work order. Posting of both notices, affidavit of violation.

I'm sorry. I can't see the signature there. I'm sorry.

Sorry about that.

Is that yours?

That is the notary signature.

Oh. I am sorry. Who signed it for the city? Who?

Is this Joan Alora yours?

Can you slide it up? No. Take that page off. Slide that up. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. That

was James.

James signed it. I'm sorry. Okay. See affidavit posting. The notice of hearing.

Posted notice of hearing. The other, notices of hearing, mister magistrate, are for separate violations that we will get to.

Yes. I see you have two cases,

that's the same property. Three altogether on this property. Certified mail documents. Okay. Follow-up inspection was conducted today, 04/28. And at this point, no permit or application had been applied for in at the in the EnerGov system for the work that was being done. There is no history for this location as well.

K. There

is no, history for this location as well, sir. That's all I have at this time.

Okay. Ma'am, did you have anything you wanted to tell me?

I don't. Thank you. Okay.

We're here. Yeah.

You're here. Did you at least wanna have your your name in front of us so to show that you appeared?

Yeah.

Oh, okay. Yeah. Go ahead. Come to the mic and just tell us your name.

Oh, okay. Yeah. Sure. My name is Crystal Marabilio.

Okay. And what's your relationship?

M I r a b I l I o.

And what is your relationship to the case? Are you the owner?

We're the owners of Maribilio Family Trust. I'm the daughter of is it Joe and Sheila Maribilio listed? I'm not sure who or it's Maribilio Family Trust. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright.

You're you're certainly free to testify, if you wish. And you don't have to. If you don't want to, that's okay. But we just wanted to register your appearance that you were here. Okay.

For all three.

For all three cases. Okay. Thank you. Anything else, mister Nager? Nothing, sir. Alright. I'll admit the, exhibits into evidence. No.

Like I said, Joe, no permit has been applied for at this time.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described, at the hearing today, did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude as a matter of law that this does, the conditions alleged, do constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island, so the finding is guilty. Let's talk about a penalty. Okay. Did you hear that, ma'am?

I did. Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

You have the right to tell me your opinion on it. If you think it's if you wanna challenge it, you have the right to.

I understand that. Yeah. Okay. And I'm

You're not challenging. Okay. Okay. Alright. I think that under the circumstances that's fair, just, and reasonable, the $250 fine is the maximum, but it's I think it's justified under the circumstances. And you're being given sixty days to get this permit, and, hopefully, that will happen long before the sixty days. So $250 fine sorry. Mister Nutella? Okay. I'm sorry. Just not

sure. But just

to clarify the record, the

$250 is the contract fine for the premises.

Okay. Under the, ordinance? Under the Okay. I because it's a, building code, violation. So, regardless, that that it's, it's $250 fine.

The cost of prosecution is that relates to the cost, for going out and doing, inspections and reinspections and things like that. And, that's a fairly minimal cost compared to most other cities and counties. I can tell you But sixty days to get the permit is really important. If not, you are saying $100 per day fine? So it would be $100 per day each day thereafter of violation.

I did wanna look at something here. P says, and FDZ Sitework. Is anybody here from FDZ Sitework? No.

They're not. And I I can speak on that.

Mister Negara, are they the contractor? I

have no idea, sir. I haven't heard anything from the homeowners. I have not seen an application, so I have no idea who the contractor may be.

Yes. If you don't mind, come on to the mic there and tell us why FDZ site work is not here. They they've been cited also.

Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah.

It just we need to get you on the mic, though.

Okay. Sure. Sorry. Okay. All right. So they have been cited as well?

Yes, it is listed here that they have been cited. So are they still on the job? Are they the contractor?

Or If they're still on the job, no. Because we've stopped, like, work order for the reason we're here today. I'm I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that.

Did they do the work? Did they do this site work that we

Well, it wasn't it wasn't a, I guess, big work order. Sorry. Did you okay.

So Maybe I can clarify.

Yeah. Let me just

okay.

Let's just go. I'm not really sure.

So Okay.

It was a repair. Like, it just

That's okay. Yeah. If you're not sure, you're not sure. Mister Nager, do you have any information on that?

I cited them as the contractor on the notice of violation. There was a language barrier when I was there. I was not able to communicate with, any of the workers that were there. They spoke limited English. I do not know if they were a subcontractor from an actual general contractor that was there. I basically took the information from the trucks that were there. Like I said, the language barrier was was was evident where it was there that I couldn't communicate with the workers.

But did you cite them?

I noted them on the notice of violation. Okay. As the as the contractor on the scene.

Were they issued a separate

They were not issued separate violation.

Okay. Okay. I I believe there was a certified mailing sent specifically to the contractor. If you could go to certified mailings, please.

Yes.

Then on the on the formal notice of violation, could you put that up, please?

We have the one for the family trust.

That's a notice of hearing.

Correct. Have to

talk about the notice of violation.

Notice of violation. Hold on one second. Let me look here. Affidavit of violation and and the notice of hearing as well. They

were sight

Before you put anything else down, look up top. And that lists FDZ network. It's that lists two respondents. Okay. Go ahead and is there a is there a notice of violation?

Notice of hearing.

And they were also given the notice of hearing. You just put that down. They're they're listed also.

The affidavit of violation and the notice of hearing does list FDZ.

Okay. But what about the notice of violation that was mailed to them? Not not the affidavit, but notice.

See if I can find that. Hold on. FDZ site work.

So they were sited? They were noted. Okay. They were cited. Okay.

Well, the, my conclusion or my findings of fact apply also to FDZ site work.

If I can just amend what the city is asking for on this, please, now that that's been clarified. What these fines and fees and conditions jointly and severally so that the the contractor is included in it as well.

You're asking that it be jointly and severally? Correct. Right. So since FDZ site work was, issued a notice of violation also and also the notice of the hearing. There's nobody here from FTC site work, is there?

Okay. Then, I find as a matter of fact that, the conditions described do apply, and do apply to them. And the the conclusions of law that there's a violation also apply to them. So the finding as to FTZ site work is guilty also. The recommendation is for the city's recommendation.

The city's recommending the $250 fine, $50 costs, sixty days to obtain the permit, or $100 per day.

Okay. And, ma'am, that I think we went through that, but I just wanna make sure that also applies to them. So

So it's, like, double?

It's not double, ma'am.

It's No. It's not double.

You're both equally responsible for that this these conditions, these fines. Whether whether you split it in half or whether somebody covers it in full. $100.

Yeah. How however however you work it out with them, the city is looking for $250 from somebody and $50 from somebody.

Four. Four. So e Okay.

So we're only doing the one price

One or price violations. Right.

And we're just talking about this violation, though.

So much. Alright. I gotcha. Thank you. Mhmm. Okay.

And I I'm not sure. Maybe off the record. I don't know if that could be picked up by the microphone, but she indicated that you understand that. Is that correct, ma'am?

I do understand. Thank you.

Alright. That's for this violation. And let's go on to the next case.

On on this same property, letter s as in Sam on your docket, case 260404.

Okay. S is also 1649 Piedmont Circle. And it's versus FCI Holmes Inc.

No. That

is what S

says. Okay.

So that was not properly noticed. We going have to pull S off the docket.

You're pulling s off the docket? S

was not properly noticed. Okay.

S

was not properly noticed, so I'm removing it from the docket. Okay.

Next up. Then are we going to t?

To t. Correct.

Okay. T is 1649 Piedmont Circle, and this one just says City of Marco Island versus Mirabilo Family Trust.

Correct.

Mr. Madrigal, if you can hold. We appear to be offline.

We went offline. I hope that is not a brain scan.

Are we on the third? Is this the third violation? So the second one, we just kinda like They've

they've removed it for today.

Because it was it it was at

It was your I

run off. I run off. Our forehead.

Yes. Okay.

I I gotcha. Thank you.

You know, it's a little bit like a parking ticket or a speeding ticket. If it's if it's incorrect, then they they can't proceed with it.

Is that okay. So we on the three. Thank you.

Doesn't mean they would never proceed with it, but they can't right now because improper notice.

Oh, okay. Yeah. So we can just fix that.

Talk with them.

Okay.

So we are on the record that can be heard.

So I am told. Okay.

I'm sorry. I think we're on t.

We are on T. TAs in Tom on your docket case 260405.

Thank you. And, this is, City of Marco Island versus Mirabilio Family Trust only.

Correct. Alright.

Mister McGregg, go ahead.

John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 1649 Piedmont Circle, which is within the city of Marco Island. February 25, I observed a code enforcement violation of missing silt fence, which is a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code. Following photos of the violation are inaccurate account of what was observed. Now the prior case showed the work that was being done.

Any in the municipal code, any surface that is denuded requires a silt fence to be erected to prevent any runoff. As you can see, the back of the property has no sill fence on it, and the ground is denuded all the way around. Okay. I subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 18 dash two one three with a compliance date of 03/05/2026. Follow-up inspections were conducted on March, April revealed which revealed that the location was still in violation.

Okay? On the twenty second, I took these pictures to show that the sill fence still was not erected. That's one side of the property, and that is the left side of the property. K? Following paperwork was administered to the case, a notice of violation.

Okay. Thank you.

Post a notice of violation. K. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing.

Post the notice hearing and the and the certified mail documents. There is no history for the property, and that is all I have at this time, mister Magistrate.

Okay. Thank you. Ma'am, if you would like to, say your name one more time and you could say anything else you'd like to say.

Sure. Yeah. My name is Crystal Maribilio. Okay. Thank you.

Alright. And you're here on behalf of the Maribilio Family Trust?

Yes. I am.

Okay. Thank you.

Did we say

anything further up from the city?

Mister Nager, just real quick. The the we did not cite the contractor on this one? No. Okay. Nothing further from the city.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented here today at the hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. This had to do with the silt fence, lack of a silt fence violation. I conclude as a matter of law that the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island so the finding is guilty. Do you have a recommendation as to a penalty?

$150 fine, $50 costs, fourteen days to comply, compliance meaning in the installation of the silt fence or $100 per day.

Do you think fourteen days is soon enough to get somebody out there to get a silt fence? I'm not ask actually asking you. I'm asking mister Nigra, I think. Would that be a sufficient amount of time for them to get somebody out there?

Than enough time. I'm sorry? That's more than enough time.

Okay. Ma'am, do you have anything you'd like to say about it? No.

Thank you.

Okay.

I understand. Thank you.

Thank you. So that'll be my order. I think that that is fair, just, and reasonable under the circumstances. So you only have fourteen days to get somebody out there to get a silt fence out there. I Like

thirteen on

my Yeah.

So Go ahead.

Alright. So that'll be my order. Do you have that, clerk? All set on that one? Okay. Thank you. So that's two out of three. The third one, I do not know what they are going to do with it. But my suggestion is you talk to Mr. Nagra or somebody about Just get that

a copy of it.

Is that okay?

Yep, I will speak.

Yeah. Yeah. Just and certainly, you can talk with them about anything having to do with any of the cases. They're looking to get compliance.

Absolutely. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. And thank you for coming in. It was worth it.

You. Yes. I'll take the

you ready? Mister Magistrate, are you

ready? Yeah. I'm sorry.

That's right. Letter O as in Oscar, case 260350.

And that looks like it's 1895 Woodbine, Joseph And Karen Callahan Trust And Luxury Homes Of Southwest Florida. Do we have anybody here on that case?

I'm Karen.

Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Go ahead and proceed.

K. John Negro, code enforcement officer with the Markle Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 1895 Woodbine Court, which is within the city of Markle Island. 02/18/2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of a missing sill fence, which is a violation of the Markow Island municipal code. Following photos are an accurate count of what I observed on that date.

As you can see along the back edge of the lot, there's no silt fence. Along the side, apparently, there was a home demolished on the site by the contractor, and this is how the lot was left. Okay. I subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 18 dash two one three with a compliance date of 02/24/2026. Follow-up inspections were conducted on February 2, March 12, twenty seventh, April 8, and April 16, which revealed that the location was still in violation and additional photos were taken at that time.

Still notes that silt fence was not erected on the sixteenth.

Where is the silt fence supposed to be? Is it protected from the water?

Correct. It should have a silt fence on the back and the sides. Okay. And there was no

silt sides of the And

there was no silt fence erected at all.

Nowhere. Okay. Thank you.

Alright. The following paperwork was administered to the case. The notice of violation.

Okay. Good. Got it. Thank you.

Posted notice of violation. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing, post the notice of hearing, and certified mail documents. At the April 16, we were later notified that the property came into compliance.

Okay? And I have since been out there and found that it has been come into compliance. We are not seeking penalties against the homeowner at this time. They own it a lot. We're seeking penalties against the contractor. Alright. And miss Callan Callanan. Okay. I'm sorry. Miss Callanan did provide a letter to code enforcement.

Well, since she's here, we'll just have her testify. Are are you going to testify, ma'am?

If you would like

me to

ask Yeah. For my letter. Sure. Yeah. You can. And if you wish, you can use your letter, but wait till he's done. Okay? Thank you.

There is no history for the homeowner at this time or the contractor.

Okay. Thank you. Ma'am, you're up. And if you wish to use the letter, that's fine or just tell me what's what's going on.

So good morning. I'm Karen Callanan. This is our property and we are with Luxury Homes of Southwest Florida for the build of the property. We tore the property down in January, probably mid January. And until about February there was that we demolished the seawall, a new seawall was installed on a 175 feet of the waterfront. So from the point the house was torn down until I saw the notice of a hearing on April 16 posted on the property, there were and it's it's all my fault entirely that I allowed

Hold on a second. I think we have a I wanna make sure that the attorney hears everything that's being said too. So

a new C wall was installed, and that was probably done the February. I think it was completed, maybe it was before that. Regardless, when the house was torn down in January, it became a free for all with a house that was being constructed two doors over from our house with parking. So from that point forward, there were probably ten, eight, six vehicles parked on 1895 Woodbine Court to build the house two houses over. I neglected to see anything else on my property because I would drive by, get my mail, and I didn't notice anything until actually coincidentally Thursday the sixteenth.

And as soon as I saw that and I understand that we were sent a letter that went to my mom's house, and she's 85 and I did not receive the letter, not that that's her fault, but there was a breakdown of communication. So on the sixteenth, I called the builder asking for answers. By the eighteenth there was a silt fence installed so it took I think him checking on the property and then the next day installing it on the April 18. So here's where we are. So I apologize for that as a newly full time resident on the island.

And hopefully, we won't have any more of these things happen with luxury homes of Southwest Florida because I have a lot of faith in them. Okay. That's it.

Thank you. Do you want your letter to also be put into the record?

That's exactly what the letter

Okay. We'll be glad to do that. Anything further from the city? Nothing further from the city.

No, sir.