Code Enforcement - Regular Meeting

Good morning. We're on? Thank you. The meeting of the city of Marco Island Code enforcement magistrate hearings of Tuesday, May 26, 2026 is hereby called to order. Good morning. My name is Robert Pret. I'm an attorney, and I will serve as the special magistrate for the code enforcement hearings today. Excuse me. My task is to hear testimony and take any other evidence to make findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence presented, and to make a determination of guilty or not guilty, and finally, to issue an order based upon the evidence that is received today. City Attorney Joe Nutella will be announcing the order of the hearings and announce each case. I will then take testimony and evidence from the city's representatives, then from the respondent or respondents. By Florida law, all testimony in code enforcement cases must be taken under oath. I will administer the oath now as soon as I can. Anybody who may wish to say anything to me at any hearing that we have here today, please raise your right hand and take the following oath. If you think you might say anything at any hearing, raise your right hand. All right, thank you. 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? All right. All right, Mr. Natello, are you ready to present the docket today?

Donatello, on behalf of City of Marco Island, starting with letter H and hotel on your docket, 260661.

This is Crystal Shores Condominium and Coastline Tree Service, pruning and maintenance and removal. Do we have anybody here on that case? Yes, we do. Okay. Thank you, sir. Sir, if you want to, you can come up up front so that you can hear everything and be ready to present anything. You don't have to. That's your call.

Good morning, sir. Good morning, Magistrate Pritt. How are you? OK. John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 600 South Collier Boulevard, which is within the city of Marco Island. On March 20, 2026, code enforced a violation of pruning, maintenance, and removal of vegetation, which is a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code, was observed by city of Marco Island environmentalist Amber Stonick. She is here to also testify. all right she does have some photos to uh explain the violation as far as the sea grapes which were pruned beyond the normal standard uh normal standards of pruning and maintenance okay i subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 30-434a all right and the paperwork that was administered to cases as follows

Mr. Nagle, I'm sorry to interrupt. Could you just please explain for the record what the charge, the nature of the charge is here?

Okay. The sea grapes behind that border, the beach behind the hotel, There's a certain standard of how they are to be trimmed. The sea grapes at this juncture on the 20th were trimmed way beyond the standards that are allowable and are acceptable through the state of Florida. And the NOV is also listed as irreparable. The city is not pursuing the irreparable condition at this time, just the charge, just the city municipal code violation. That's all. Okay, thank you. That was the posted violation. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. The notice of hearing. It's going to be the posted notice. The posted notice of hearing and the certified mail documents. Okay, Mr. Magistrate, at this point, I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Stoenick, who's going to explain the violation a little more fully, right? All right.

Good morning. Amber Stoenick, planner to the environmental planner for the city. As John mentioned, they trimmed without a permit from the city. You're required to have a permit to do dune vegetation trimming. Any trimming in the dune system is subject to restrictions placed by the state on trimming requirements, specifically for sea grapes. The sea grapes, I can show you some pictures, were taken not too long after the me.

Amber could you turn it please? The other one.

That one you can see pretty clearly. The trimming requirement for sea grapes is no more than a third of the height or vegetation. From the environmental survey that was submitted by the applicant, the sea grapes were 14 to 16 feet tall. They submitted pictures showing what they look like now, which was about six feet. Six feet is the absolute lowest you are allowed to cut sea grapes of that height. After two months, they are about six feet. That shows the extent of the trimming that was done. And if you see in this picture, all the vegetation is removed from the sea grapes in that area. I also point out... Hang on a second.

Go ahead. Would you show me where that is in the picture? Which is the sea grape? Those are the... The sticks that are standing out? Exactly.

Okay, thank you. And then, like, just a little bit further on. Again, same trimming standard.

Okay, yeah. Stay on the mic if you can. Oh, sorry.

Again, the same trimming was done in that area. The trimming that was conducted was stopped partway through because they did not have a permit and code was called out to the property.

Okay, anything else?

That's it. Okay.

By the way, Mr. Magistrate, just for your edification, the permit issue is not an issue in this violation.

Oh, OK. Just for a little bit of the math on that, though, the trimming that was done just to get six feet right now would have been about 60% to 70% of the vegetation. Again, they are only allowed to remove a third. So that's to get the height that it is currently. After the two months of growth.

And again, you are the environmentalist?

I'm the environmental planner.

And is this part of what you do as far as the environmental planning? Yes.

I'm the one that administers the vegetation permits, including if they would have applied for this permit, I would have been the one that reviewed it. And when they applied for the after the fact, I could not issue it because they would have violated the determining standards that we put in place for these permits.

Okay. Anything else?

Nope.

Any further presentation by the city's staff?

Nothing by the city, but I would ask Ms. Stoenig to stand by until the completion of this case in case there are any questions for you from the respondents when they put on their case. OK. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. They do have a right to cross-examination if they wish. So yeah, stick around. Thank you. Sir? There are two of you. OK, two sirs.

Good morning. Good morning. I'm John Louie. I'm the general manager of Marriott's Crystal Shores.

My name is David Pfister. I'm the owner of Coastline Tree Service and a certified arborist.

Thank you. We'll just go one at a time if it's okay.

All right. So I'll start off. We actually, I don't know if we need to present this, but actually we did submit for a permit back in September of 23. Let me show you the document here.

This is the...

This is a submission. And I'll flip over to the back side that shows the stated September 23rd.

It's upside down. I could read upside down, but others may not be able to. September 23rd, 2025? Correct. OK.

And in regards to the questions or concerns about the trimming, I'll turn it over later to Mr. Pfister, as he's more the expert, but I'll show you some photos of the areas that were in question and show that their regrowth is doing very well. This is taken on... May 20th, so approximately two months after the initial code violation notice. So that's one photo. The next photo actually shows the area that the young lady was presenting and shows the fencing in that area. So you can see the regrowth is doing well. Ultimately, they're showing the height of the growth exceeding over six feet. Any comments, questions?

None from me.

I do have a question for Mr. Louie. Sir, was the permit ever actually issued?

Permit was not issued. It was administrative error on our part. We had submitted the permit. It was not issued. During the time of the trimming, after it was stopped, we were asked to resubmit another one, which, as noted, was declined because it was after the trimming.

Thank you. Thanks for the explanation there, too. Sir? State your name for the record. David Pfister. I know you did already, but OK. Not a problem.

So as far as over pruning or aggressively pruning the sea grapes, when the environmentalist does a study, they don't give specific heights of each plant. They usually give a range that says the sea grapes on the dunes are anywhere from this height to this height. So I unfortunately don't know exactly, the photo she took, how high they were before that, but we do dunes and sea grapes all over the area, and we know that the trimming height is six feet, no more than a third of the reduction of the height, or the leaf foliage. However, in this case, these were severely damaged from the hurricane, and we hadn't pruned them in more than two years, I believe. So what we did was we applied a technique that's a reduction cut. And what a reduction cut is designed to do is to reduce the length of the plant down to where it'll grow a new bud. So a lot of the plants were already dead and woody at the very top of it. So by us cutting and doing a reduction cut to a lateral bud, the lateral bud starts to come out. And in some of the pictures that John showed, you can see where it's now growing again. It didn't die. It's not the sticks anymore. And I actually went out to the site again on Friday to do one more visual inspection before I came here. And as far as I'm concerned, as a certified arborist, everything is responding exactly the way we wanted it to respond to fill back out again. Okay.

Anything further? No. Any cross-examination?

No, and just for the magistrate's edification once again, the city is not pursuing damages as irreparable harm here, just the initial violation because of the fact that we acknowledge and recognize that they have grown back. So it's by definition not irreparable.

Okay, so it is work without a permit, though.

Again, the permit issue is separate and apart from this case. Oh, okay. No, the case before you today is they trimmed too much, improper landscaping.

Okay. Does the city have any rebuttal?

No.

What is it? We need to have you on a mic up here. It looks like the issue is not whether or not a permit was issued. It is whether or not the trimming was too extensive. I think I'm hearing testimony that it wasn't. I've heard testimony from you that it was. want to give you a chance to rebut anything that they may have said.

OK. He is right. The environmental survey, which I did not have when I went out there, said they were 14 to 16 feet tall. Again, the standards for trimming with the state of Florida are that they cannot remove more than a third of the vegetation. or the height. If you see, as this picture showed, they cut all the vegetation off. That is not a trimming standard. And I also point out that in order to do the trimming, you need to read your permit requirements. And I spoke to the landscaper who said that they thought the property manager had got a permit. Even if that was true you need to read the permit requirements and they would have specified as if they've done dune trimming in the past These standards that were not borrowed Okay Anything further from anybody I Think that the witnesses for both parties the landscaper

I'm sorry, the trimmer, trimming company, and the city. Both are qualified experts. I wanted to put that on the record. I think he said he's a certified arborist, and I haven't heard anything saying he wasn't. And the environmentalist with the city, I think, is also an expert in the matter. So I did want to put that on the record in case there's anything made of this case later on. Does anybody have anything further to provide? I see a lot of, I'm sorry.

Thank you. I'm sorry. That was relevant to the present case before you.

Anything further from either side?

Nothing further from the city.

Based upon the testimony and evidence provided by both parties, and by the way, good presentations by both sides, I think there's a legitimate issue here concerning what the ordinance says versus what the, perhaps the, I'm gonna use the word in quotes, best practices or the normal practices might be. But based upon the testimony and evidence that's presented today, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described by the city did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. And more importantly, I conclude as a matter of law that the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. So the finding is guilty. And again, just to elaborate a little bit, appears that the trimming was excessive under the city's ordinance, and that's the reason. So the finding is guilty. What is the recommendation for any penalty or order thereafter?

$250 fine and $50 cost. One-time fine? One-time fine, correct. That's jointly and severally between the property and the contractor.

OK, do you understand, both the company and the contractor, what the recommendation is of the city? It's a one-time fine of $250. And the cost of prosecution is only $50, is that correct? That's right. Yeah, the cost of prosecution really has to do with inspections and things like that. Do you have anything that you want to say? in opposition to the amount of the proposed fines. Importantly, the city is waived or is not proceeding on the theory that it is incorrectable. And your testimony, sir, was to the effect that it's growing back. And that's very fortunate for you. Because the maximum fine is $5,000, a one-time fine of $5,000. So they're just asking for $250. And I think that's very reasonable, and that will be my order, a one-time fine of $250 and costs of $50. Thank you. It's against both parties, and you can work out who's going to pay what on that. As long as it gets paid, the city doesn't care. I presume the city doesn't care. Okay. Thank you. Would you please leave them? If you need to have a copy of them back, the clerk will take care of making sure you either get, that you can get a copy, okay? Yeah, okay, thank you. Yeah, all of the exhibits have to be put into the record. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Next up is a letter, Ephes and Frank, case 260617.

Michael E. and June Areci. Is that pronunciation? Are they here?

They are not here, sir. I'm standing in front of them.

Yes.

OK.

Thank you, sir.

It's going to be F. This is F? F.

Go ahead. John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 850 Palm Street, Unit C7, which is within the city of Marco Island. On March 8, 2026, I observed the code enforcement violation of work without a permit, which is a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code. This is in response to a citizen complaint. Following photos are an accurate count of what was observed that day. We have an exterior air conditioning unit for the condo at C7 installed without a permit. I was called in response to a complaint on three of the units having the same condition. This looks like a splitter.

Sometimes we call it a splitter. Split unit, yes.

Okay. Subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 105.1 and 6-111 for the compliance date of May 18th, 2026. Our file of inspection was conducted on 5-19-2026, which revealed that the location was still in violation as no permit had been approved for the work, only an application submitted on April 16th. Okay. This is out of our system. And it shows that the application date was the 16th of April. And it's still under review. So no permit has been applied to the job as of yet. OK, this following paperwork is administered to the case. That's the notice of violation. Posted notice of violation, affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting, notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing.

and the certified male documents.

And there is no history for this unit or this owner regarding work without a permit prior to this violation. And that is all I have at this point.

Could you go back to the photograph? There are a couple of photographs of the splitter. Pull that one up a little bit. Is that on the ground? Is that ground level? That's ground.

It's a ground level unit, yes.

I heard somebody say something, but yeah. Hang on a second. I'll give you a chance to explain that. That was one of the questions I had. Okay. Anything else? That is all, sir.

I have a question for Mr. Negrum. Mr. Negrum, what's the status of the permit application at this point?

It is still in review at this time. It has not been processed.

Do we know in whose court the ball currently lies?

At this point, it just says in application on review.

I couldn't tell you if it's... Okay, so it's pending city's review. Yes.

That is all I have, sir. Thank you. Okay, sir. Good morning.

Good morning. Steven Munns. I own MAG Air Incorporated, state licensed air conditioning contractor. I was called in by Mr. and Mrs. Essary to try to help them navigate the violation. I am not the installing contractor. I am NOT okay. I was called in to ask them asked to Get the get a permit and try to navigate through any issues that we have with the city upon Making everything the way they want it We did as as was stated Received receive a call from the from the homeowners and we started a we started the application for a permit and It was sent back for more more information that was needed. We then Resubmitted everything that they asked for And we are currently under review. We're waiting today is actually the day the the review date that is expected for this permit. The only thing I have for evidence is a letter that we had sent in to the city on behalf of the owners as well as our application for the building permit.

April 10th was the application date?

I believe April 10th was the resubmission date. I may be wrong. It was either the application date or a resubmission date. Here is the second portion of that. Also, everything that we put in the permit is I'm presenting as well. Here's a sketch of the apartment in question. We did get a subcontractor to sign on for the electrical portion of it. Here is his affidavit of signing on to the permit, as well as permit's report for corrections and our resubmittal, the forms that the city sent to us for resubmittal. See an application date of 416 on those recent middle forms that would probably that would be accurate sir Also a copy of the original violation and a and a copy of a letter from the homeowners association giving the owners permission to Make the make the installation I

Could you push that up a little bit so that I could read it? Absolutely, sir. Thank you. Those mini-split systems are becoming very popular. I see them everywhere now.

Yes, they are.

OK. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Did you have anything further? You stepped back.

No, sir. I have nothing further to present. I have any questions. I'd be more than happy to try to answer the fullest of my capabilities. Any questions?

Have you had a chance to inspect the job yet or no? Yes, sir.

Yes, sir. I have been to the job multiple times. I measured the house for a manual J-load calc to make sure they were within the proper size for the project. space in question. I did go through and inspect everything pertaining to the installation.

Did you find any safety issues at this time?

I found no safety issues that I'm aware of. Everything that I looked at would be acceptable for me as a contractor to install.

Thank you. No further questions.

Yes, sir. Rebuttal?

I just might add that there were three units that were cited that day for the same violation. Apparently they were all installed at the same time by the same contractor previously, a few years previous. Unit C1, C7, and C9. C7 and C9 are still pending. That's another case for Unit C-9. That's after this one. Unit C-1 did obtain a permit under the required 60-day compliance time, and they are in compliance. So I want to just point out that it was possible to obtain that permit within the compliance time. Okay. Thank you.

Nothing further.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, If today is the deadline for the city's action on that, should we hold off until the end of the agenda at least to see whether or not the city is issuing the permit?

Well, it's not going to affect the fact that a violation occurred, right? And so we're giving them plenty of time as part of the penalty we'll be seeking to get that permit. And if the city makes their decision today that the permit's issued, then great. Then all we got is the initial fine and administrative costs.

All right, well, not until I make a determination of whether or not it's a violation, et cetera. Maybe I was the one that jumped the gun on that question. All right, anything else for either party? I'll admit all of the exhibits into evidence. Sir, thank you for coming in today. It's very helpful to know the history of this. As a finding of fact, based upon the testimony and other evidence presented in this hearing, I do find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described existed at the location and on the dates and times testified to. 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. Now let's talk about what to do about this.

So the city's seeking a $250 fine and $50 costs. They have 60 days to obtain the permit, or $100 per day fine will be assessed.

Okay. The $100 fine would be only imposed for each day after 60 days if it's not corrected by then?

If the permit's not received. All right.

Sixty days from today?

Six days from signing the order.

If that is my order, day one would be tomorrow. Okay, thank you, sir.

And I also want to just mention, if it looks like there are issues that are pending, back and forth with the city, whatever, make sure to communicate with Mr. Negra. And if there's any... Lack of communication can't help you. Communication will.

I understand that. I will speak with Mr. Negra if he would give me a minute after the proceedings.

Sometimes, depending on the workload and so on, the city is busy, too. And what happens sometimes is people come in on the 59th day, and then there's something wrong. I have a hunch you'll have this corrected long before then.

Yes, sir. We're doing our best to expedite it as quickly as we can.

All right. Well, with that, I will go along with the city's recommendation. The $100 per day fine thereafter, that's per day, so that can add up. But that is like right in the middle of or actually at the lower end of the maximum fine that could be imposed. So I think that's fair and just and within the confines of the state statute on fines. So it would be $250 per day. $50 cost of prosecution, which is inspections and things like that, that's very minimal in Marco Island compared to most other cities and counties. And 60 days to come into compliance, and if not, a fine in the amount of $100 per day for each day of noncompliance thereafter would be imposed. So that will be my order. OK.

Yes, sir. MR.

Thank you. And for the record, Doesn't sound like any of this is your fault. It's just good for you to come in and get it cleared out.

Yes, sir. I was called in after the fact. I have a friend that actually has a place in the community, so he referred us to all the parties in question.

OK. Go ahead. Thank you. Next case. It looks like the next case is very similar to this case. Are you here on this case, sir, also? Yes, sir. All right.

Letter G is in golf, case 260618. And this is C9, unit C9.

Correct, Mr. Magistrate.

All right.

Mr. Negron, go ahead. John Negron, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 850 Palm Street, Unit C-9, which is within the city of Marco Island. March 18, 2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of work without a permit, which is a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code. This was in response to a citizen complaint. Following photos are an accurate account of what was observed on that date. Once again, another split unit that was installed without a permit. So it's going to use you to notice a violation for violating ordinance 105.1 and 6-111 with the compliance date of May 18, 2026. Follow-up inspection was conducted on 5-19-26, which revealed that the location was still a violation as no permit had been approved for the work, only an application submitted again on April 16, 2026. The following paperwork was administered to the case. That's the notice of violation.

OK. Sir, I always look at the remarks. That's where you find an explanation that's very helpful. So split air conditioning unit installed at address with no permit and so on. OK. Thank you.

Posted notice of violation. Affidavit of violation. Okay. Affidavit of posting. Okay. The notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. And the certified mail documents. Once again, in our system, shows the application date. And that is still under review.

And that's still in the system, still under review? Says application.

On review.

OK.

So that is all I have. And there is no history at this location for the similar offense.

All right. Thank you. Anything further?

That is all, sir.

All right. Sir, this might sound repetitious, but come on up. Each case stands on its own, so we have to make a record in each case separately, even though it sounds like it's a little repetitious.

I completely understand. Again, Steve Munns, Mag Air, state-licensed AC contractor. behalf of mr. and mrs. Kinsey property owners they're here again I was called in to try to rectify this violation by getting a permit and getting it inspected miss mrs. Kinsey has sent a letter to the city to try to explain explain the situation they had hired a contractor for a remodel and they didn't they had one of their subcontractors install the system and did not pull permit that's why we're here so and just

And again, for the record, I want to make it clear, for the record, that was not you or you were not involved in any of that or your company, right?

I was not the installing contractor. I'm just here to try to help them get the situation under control and move forward in whatever manner the city sees fit to do so. Here is a copy of the letter and everything that she sent into the city.

Give me a minute here to read it here. We were unable to discuss with the contractor due to his recent passing. He passed away?

I do not know who that contractor was, but that's all the information I have as well.

There isn't a contractor newsletter that goes out?

Not that I subscribe to.

Since we have hired a HVCA Contractor to apply for the permit and have it inspected. That's that's where you come in.

Is that yes, sir. That would be me. All right Okay, thank you Also along with her her letter. She sent in this supporting document the letter for this the special magistrate hearing as well as the code violation, the initial one. She also sent in her original permit for the remodel that they had done which excluded a permit for the mechanical.

The second page of that.

The certificate of completion by the city for that permit as well as the inspection card. as well as this is the printed version of their inspection card at the end that it was accepted and passed for the original remodel they did. Here is also a copy from their homeowners association in regards to having permission to do any work. what we had what we as company mag air had sent into the city is the following our letter to the magistrate very similar to the last case our building permit which we applied for our ac permit which we applied for and is still under review page two of that along with other documents supporting our application for the AC permit here's a sketch of the property the condo in question as well as a subcontractor for the electrical portion his subcontractor form also the the the planning review permits report Corrections report from the city Okay. And then also two resubmittal forms for corrections needed to be made to said permit.

Okay.

Is that it? Yes, sir. That's all I have.

Is there any cross-examination? No. Mr. Negra, is this rebuttal?

May I just add again that three units were cited that day, C1, C7, and C9, and C1 was able to obtain the proper permitting in the allotted time frame of the notice violation.

Okay, thank you. Unless there is an objection, I will admit all of the evidence, all of the exhibits from both parties into evidence. Any objection? No objection. No objection? All right. So they're admitted. Anything further from either party?

Nothing further from the city, no.

Based upon the testimony and other evidence that's presented here today, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. Conclude as a matter of law that the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinances the city of Marco Island The finding is guilty What is the recommendation of the city? for a Penalty if any $250 fine $50 cost 60 days to obtain the permit or $100 per day fine In the $250 Recommended fine is a one-time fine.

Is that correct one time fine and it's on the the property Only property owner property management.

Okay the property owner, right? The unit owner sir any Anything you want to say objection to that or anything else?

No, sir.

Okay, I think that the That the proposed fine by the city and I The costs are reasonable and are within the guidelines of requirements of the state statute, and that will be my order.

I do have a question, Your Honor. Yes, sir. Is it appropriate that I would make the payment on behalf of my client to help make this matter speed up?

I'm sorry, what? That's up to you guys. His question was whether or not it would be appropriate for him to just go ahead and pay the fine. That's completely between you and your client. Okay.

Thank you for that. Anybody in the world can pay it as long as it's paid.

All right. Thank you, sir.

And thank you for coming in. You did a very fine job on behalf of your client.

I appreciate that, sir. I'm going to put them all up here and give them to that young lady.

If you need any of the copies back sir, we'll make sure the clerk will make sure that you get copies back if you need Next up is letter s is in Sam on your docket He's twenty six zero nine seven eight

Magistrate Keith Richter, Code Enforcement, Walker Island. This is a noise complaint. The address is 180 Bonita Court. This occurred on April 22nd, 26th at 2.44 a.m. I have the officer here for additional information after I present the case. This is the notes.

Notice of violation. Mr. Richter, could you just go back? I just want to get a sense of the nature of the noise. Go back.

Oh, I'm sorry. The notes say party in the pool area. Okay, thank you. Notice of violation. Notice of hearing. Affidavit of violation.

You checked repeat violation.

It is repeat.

But they have not been to Madden Street, so I don't think we should have that as a repeat right now.

OK, so you're waiving repeat violations, just regular violations?

Repeat violation fine, correct.

OK, thank you.

David, a violation.

So they've already partially won this case. Not being a repeat violation is very helpful.

Certified mail. Okay, the officer did issue a citation to the Person making the noise And this is the um so it's it's within a rolling 12 months so there have been three previous violations at that location and then this is the noise we're talking about today i'm sorry i didn't hear it That's all I have. You want to speak to the officer?

Yeah, we're going to call Officer O'Brien.

Good morning.

Officer O'Brien, you were on, what day was this? What was the date of this violation?

April 22nd. Were you on patrol on that date?

Yes. Okay. About what time of morning did you receive a call to respond to this particular address? Yes, I did. Okay. And what was the nature of that dispatch call?

Loud party in the pool area.

Okay. And did you respond to the address?

Yes.

At what time?

2.44 a.m. A.m.?

Okay. And upon arrival, what did you observe or detect?

I parked my car about 100 feet from the residence and shut my engine off and walked to the front of the residence. I had heard the noise from the minute I got out of the car so about 100 feet, no need to measure from the property line, rang the doorbell, spoke to the occupant.

I'm trying to interrupt real quick because the significance of the distance is what?

Plainly audible noise, 50 feet from the residence.

Within 50 feet from the residence, but you heard it from 100 feet? Correct. Roughly. Okay, thank you.

Spoke to the occupant who stated it was a bachelor party in the pool. He apologized for the noise. I explained the ordinance to him. Asked him if he was remaining for several more days because subsequent fines increased. He gave me his driver's license. I issued him the citation, and they... We've received no more complaints that evening or morning.

Thank you. I have no further questions, but I believe there's somebody here from the property. Okay. Very good. Officer O'Brien, unless Mr. Magistrate, do you have any questions for Officer O'Brien?

Well, the basis is that it was plainly audible from 100 feet. Is that correct? That was your testimony? Correct.

No further questions Brian if you don't mind just staying by a couple more minutes in case the property owner has any questions for you.

Thank you Yes, and I'm the property owner by taking care by my manager and she could not come today because she's out of country so and our concern she told me and she you know helped me to write that you know later and that only one single neighbor complaining all the time out of those.

Oh, you're the property manager? Property owner.

Oh, owner. Yes, sir. Okay.

Okay, yeah, let me just, well, go ahead. You tell me, and then I might still read this, but.

The only single owner, neighbor, is calling all the time that the police involved. And you can, you know, I believe his name is Mr. Walter.

So you're the owner, and you rented this to somebody, and they allegedly had some kind of a party going on

And that's why we have the noise maybe couple time was legitimate like you know they say but you know This gentleman called I believe in 18 times And most of time it was just false Were you at

The location when this incident occurred? No, sir. So you don't know how loud it was or anything about it?

No. I believe it, you know, Ms. Merriam, she's the property manager. And she took a lot of this information from the city note. And so she wrote that letter.

OK. All right. Thank you. Anything else?

No, sir.

Thank you. Anything from anybody else?

Just a comment regarding the gentleman's presentation. Although interesting, the presentation or the defense that this is just a subject of harassment was clearly refuted by the officer's presentation testimony of not only of having heard from twice the distance the code requires, but also recounted the conversation with the respondent who admitted that he was doing it so We appreciate the gentleman coming out and speaking on his own behalf, but the end of the day It's irrelevant given the evidence presented before you Anything else from either side Yeah, the issue in front of me is whether or not I

there was an excessive amount of noise, not whether the neighbor should or should not have called it in. That's a different issue, but that's not in front of me. What's in front of me is what happened. And, sir, thank you for coming in. I think it's very helpful. But you weren't there, so I don't have any evidence that This was not excessive noise. And I do have evidence from the police officer that it was excessive noise under the ordinance. The ordinance has two bases for that. One is they go out and set up a noise detector. Or also, the courts have allowed testimony from a police officer who who actually saw or heard the noise and found that it was plainly audible from a distance. And I think it is, I think the ordinance does say from 50 feet, is that correct? That's correct. Yeah, and this was actually, she was actually further away, twice as far away, and still found that it was plainly audible. There's a difference as to whether or not it's during the day or in the middle of the night, and the testimony was it was the middle of the night. Go ahead, sir, you wanted to say something.

The question was only one neighbor is continuously calling, and nobody else, just only one.

I understand that, but that's not in front of me. The neighbor issue is not in front of me. That's a different issue to neighborhood issue. But what is in front of me is what happened that night and whether or not the noise was excessive.

So now all up to you guys. I just came to present to you.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today at the hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as alleged and as testified to by the police officer did occur on the date, time, and place indicated. I conclude that as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island, and therefore the finding is guilty. Now let's talk about any recommendation for a penalty.

One time, excuse me, one time fine of $250 and $50 in costs.

So the recommendation of the city is for a fine, one time fine in the amount of $250 and $50 in cost of prosecution, cost of prosecution and Marco Island is pretty minimal, $50, but that's for the cost of bringing the case forward, inspections and things like that.

Send me the bill or I have to go and pay or how it will work?

If I impose the fine and the costs, then you would have to pay the city. And they have people who can help you get to where to pay.

All right. So you guys will send me the bill, right? OK. All right.

Anyhow, that will be my order, $250 plus $50. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is letter I is in India, case 260660.

Mr. Negra, go ahead and proceed. This is I, John Williams, Sodelco Trust. Is anybody here on this case? Yes. I assume it is. OK. Feel free to come up front there if you want to hear any better. OK. Mr. Negros, go ahead and proceed.

John Negros, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 686 Pelican Court, which is within the city of Marco Island. March 25th, 2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of illicit discharge, which is a violation of Marco Island Municipal Code. This was in response to a citizen complaint. Following photos of the violation are an accurate count of what I observed on that day. Okay, this was an illicit discharge of a pool into the canal. hose is running from the pool area into the canal discharging the wastewater from the canal excuse me from the pool okay as you can see in the pool there's a lot of sediment and debris so this wasn't only a matter of water being chart being discharged into the canal it had the elements of sediment in it which you can see in the bottom of the pool. So that was apparently discharged into the canal as well. In the contractor's truck, there was some tiling that was removed from the sides of the pool, which gave the element of sediment to the bottom of the pool. Is the contractor here also? Yes, sir.

Oh, okay. Thank you.

also noted in the contractor had sent us a defense packet I'm gonna let them provide their own defense but in that defense packet they stated that they had drained the water into the backyard and that the area of the yard started to flood and they didn't realize that the hoses had moved into the canal

Mr. Nagle, was there any discussion as to whether the water was tested prior to being pumped out?

No, sir. What I want to note, as you can see in the photos I took, there was no flooding in the yard there at that time. The pier is dry. I didn't see any flooding as well while I was there. All right. So I subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating Ordinance 18.212 with no compliance date as this is irreparable. The following paperwork was administered to the case. Notice of violation. The posted NOV. Affidavit of violation. The affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing, the posted notice of hearing, and the certified mail documents.

Mr. Snaggert, can you go back to those photos, please? I can't see the whole of the picture. Are there any time or date stamps on those?

uh what if you can't see it due to the glare it's 9 0 7 a.m on march 25th i see okay all right thank you and they were taken by you it shows correct sir okay all right mr magistrate there is no history uh at this address or for the contractor as well regarding this matter and that is all i have at this time

Let's hear from the respondent and respondents. Do you want to hear from the owner first or the contractor? It's up to you. You can go first or have your contractor go first, either one.

Thank you, sir. I did send this in. I don't know if you want to see it, but I had written a letter, and I also provided some information that I had provided to the contractor.

I was actually... First thing, for the record, give us your name.

John Sidelko. Okay, thank you.

We assume that's you, but the record doesn't know anything more than what we put in it.

I had written this letter to you explaining I was actually out of the country when this work was being done. I had to go out of the country for a funeral of a dear friend that passed away the week before.

Give me just a second. I'll go ahead and read this. No, go ahead. You're here, so just tell me what you want to tell me.

I was out of the country. Actually, this happened on Wednesday. I didn't get back until the following Thursday. The Saturday before I left, I left on Sunday before the work commenced. The work was to commence Wednesday morning. I had sent this to, finishing by Theodore, I had sent to his office. explaining I have a picture of my yard I took this from Google Earth and I said to them please don't dump in the backyard here this is the back of the house the canal would be down in here please dump in the front yard and Theodore I think will tell you when he comes up here I do have two starter burrow nests one is here and the other one is here and they are actively with owls now And I believe what happened is Theodore wasn't there. He did tell his people, I'm assuming, to dump in the front, which is where I had told them to do it on the Saturday before I left. And they didn't because of the owl nests. That's when I got back into the country. That's what Theodore said. Hey, my guys were worried about dumping all of that water on the owls. And you can see on the other side, it's on both sides of my driveway. Why they dumped it in the canal, I can't say. And then just so you know, this is the contract I had with them. This contract was signed in March. That's all I have. Again, had I been in the country, you know, I definitely would have went back in the backyard and said, hey, please don't do that. Unfortunately, I was not here, and I was in Tobago, so I had no access to phone at the time.

Okay. Thank you. And can I have the contractor testify also? Okay. If you want any documents to be placed into evidence, like that letter that you sent, you want that in evidence?

It's part of the city's file.

It is in the file. Okay. We just need to make sure that any documents that anybody wants in evidence are in the file, the clerk's file. Yeah, come on up on the mic again. Thank you. I can hear you, but the record maybe cannot hear you.

I can leave those documents, but I had already given them to the audience on Friday.

Yeah, just so that they have a copy of whatever you want to have in the record. Yes, sir, it's your turn.

Good morning Theodore Ferguson with finishing by Theodore We we drained the pool the day before we always put chlorine reducer in a pool That's what I've been doing for 37 years that I've done it and that's uh And here's a picture of it sitting on the table That that bottle there is chlorine reducer we put it in today before we empty a pool and My guys got there, I believe it was on the 25th, the drain. That was on the 24th of March. 25th, we drained it. We noticed the Birmingham Owls were in the front of the house, so I told them to pump it on the side in the back, which is in the back corner where you can see the hoses laying there. They were in the gravel bed at the beginning. But once the water got... Full force and started flooding right there by the rocks that somehow they dumped in there Well, my guys were in the pool at the time didn't notice it fell in to the canal or on the dock and We didn't we couldn't dump in the front because it was going into these Birmingham house So that's why I chose to dump it back there. We pump it to the street It goes into a drain that goes to the corner of the lot which is down the street and which goes into a gutter, which ends up going into the canal itself at the neighbor's house. So that's why we chose to dump in the back of the yard. And these were the Birmingham house. This is on the side street. Right here is where we were going to put the water, right here, which is on the corner of the dock, which it all flows that way. Even if we pumped it in the front of the lot, it would have ended up in there anyway, but We're told as pool contractors when we dump water, if the hose is ten feet into the yard, it can disperse wherever is what we're told. That's what I've been told for 30-some years. Sir, can I ask you a question?

I'm sorry. I accept the fact you put the dechlorinator, the chemical in the water.

Every full, yes, sir, when we double.

Did you by any chance test the water to see how much, whether or not the dechlorinator was successful prior to pumping out?

No, sir, because normally that size of a pool, if I use a full-size can like that, that is for actually a commercial pool. We put that big canister in that small pool in every one of them.

Okay. Just so you're aware, whatever happens today, if you do work on Marco Island, before you pump out water, call the Code Enforcement Division. They'll come out and they'll test the water for you.

Okay.

And I mean, what better evidence that you didn't violate than the actual code enforcement test that showed? And you find out that it's dechlorinated properly beforehand. But I digress.

I'm sorry. I appreciate that. Yeah. Everywhere is totally different. I mean, if I go to Naples, they make me put bales of hay out there. We can put them in a storm drain. It's a hay. Yeah. I get it. But like I said, I can keep one of your guys in full-time business because I do like 20, 25 pulls a week. Yeah. And this is my first violation in 37 years, just to let you guys know. But I drain them every day. And this is the other vermin now, sir. Sorry. And this is the letter that I wrote to CODA on her behalf.

There was a photograph and some testimony by the code enforcement officer. He circled some areas in the pool as I think there's some evidence that that something wasn't supposed to go out into the canal. Can we pull that photo up again, Mr. Negra?

Did you already move this paper? Yeah. OK.

So there's debris, looks like sediment, whatever it is, at the front of the pool and the back of the pool here, right where they were draining from with the drain for the pool, which you can see all the sediment and whatnot at the bottom of the pool. So apparently in draining the pool, not only with the water unknown if it was chlorinated or not, if the chlorinator had done its job, there was also sediment at the bottom of the pool that was apparently drained into the canal as well. OK.

I'd like to have him testify.

As to what we're seeing I believe when these pools were these pictures here were taken the pool was completely drained at the time and That that towel was taken off as the pool was drained down. That's why that debris is in there They usually start once the pools like three-quarters empty we start tearing the tile off on the shallow end because we can get in there because the pool floor is exposed and

Is it your testimony then that there was nothing but chlorinated treated water that went into the canal? In summary, is that what you're getting at?

Yes, sir. This was done after the fact. You can see where they were hosing it down right there.

But I believe there's one picture that Mr. Negra took where it shows the water actively being pumped into the canal while he was there.

Let's take a look at that. And I'll give him a chance to... Okay, so the water's actually going into the canal.

Okay, this was while I was there, Mr. Magistrate. Obviously, you see an active pump being ran and water pumping into the canal here. It's pretty evident that water was being pumped while I was there. It wasn't pumped out prior to my getting there. And I was there in an after-the-fact manner.

But what I'm getting at is, is there anything unlawful about having treated chlorinated... Chlorinated treated pool water going into the canal itself chlorinated Well, yeah His testimony is that they put the I'm sorry his testimony was I think that they They put the trichlor or whatever you call it in the court. Yeah in the pool before he pumped it out, so Therefore follows that any water that went into the canal was the water that had been properly treated and

So as long as the water was dechlorinated to a sufficient point that there's no chlorine in the water, then that would not be a violation. Pumping sufficiently dechlorinated water into the canal would not be a violation. However, the sediment and the debris that was in the water at the bottom of the pool at the time it was being pumped into the canal, that's the issue primarily. since we'll take the gentleman's word that he put the dechlorinator in and that we have no way of knowing that it was properly, fully dechlorinated, but okay. But what remains is the issue about the debris. And you saw the condition of the pool and the debris that's at the bottom of the pool while that water's being pumped into the water, and that's our issue.

What about the testimony that the The photograph was taken after the pool was dried out.

Magistrate, like I said, I took this photo while I was there on scene. It was actively pumping. When I got there, I had to have his workers shut down the pump and tell them to not pump anymore into the canal. I couldn't have taken a picture unless it was active at that time.

OK. There's any either party have anything further to tell me anything else Can we go back to that photograph of the sediment So it's your testimony then that the sediment, I heard from your attorneys, I just want to make sure I understand, that the pumping of any other sediment other than chlorinated water is also a violation?

Correct. So as you can see with the time stamp too, the time stamp of the pumping was 9.07 a.m. and just A minute later, the other photo is 9.08 a.m. All right.

Can you slide that picture up, please, Mr. Negler? Slide it up. That actually shows a better. There's the pump pipe.

Yeah, it looks like there's still some water there around the drain. Not much, but yeah.

You can see the edge of the water.

The edge of the water where I outlined there. Okay. Thank you. Sir, anything further?

Well, just one thing. If you look, the debris is up here. You can see where the guys hosed it down. That came from this over here because this was all dirt at one time. But if you look, the debris is here around all this circle right here. There's nothing. It's just pumping the water out. The debris is at the water line level right there. And then once the pool's empty, we shut the hose off. I mean, we shut the pumps off, and then we clean it up, vacuum it out, and that's how we clean them out.

Okay. Anything further? Anybody?

Nothing further. No, sir.

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

The city was seeking a finding of irreparable harm. The city is not seeking the maximum of $5,000. The city is only seeking a $2,500 fine one time.

$2,500 fine? Correct. To me, this is kind of a close case. You certainly don't want to be flooding out the... burrowing owls. And it doesn't take much to do that, as I understand, from sitting here for a couple of years. The burrows go not just two feet. They go quite a ways. And so I think there was certainly a mitigation factor there. The maximum fine is $5,000, a one-time fine of $5,000. The city is recommending only half of that. And I'm going to cut that down another $500 to make it $2,000. That'll be my order. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Oh, I'm sorry. Cost of? $50 in cost. $50 in the cost of prosecution also. So it'll be $2,050 total. Sir? Is this against the property owner or the contractor?

Or both. Okay. Based on the gentleman's assertion, and thank you very much, by the way, we'll just make it against the contractor.

Only against the contractor. Yes, sir. And 37 years. By the way, that counts for something. If you haven't had any complaints on record here, and I don't think we had any record here. So, yeah. Yeah, just be real. I think you know to be real careful. And also, take his advice, if you would, on... checking with the city because we have a number of these cases. And a lot of your people that are doing your kind of work are knowing now to make sure that they have something where they can prove that they've actually been doing what you've testified you're doing. That bottle on the table helped you a lot, by the way. OK, thank you.

Thank you, sir. And next up is E as in Echo, case 260588. Mr. Medgar.

Mr. Medgar.

John Medgar. You again. Sorry. Code enforcement officer with the Markle Island Police Department, the address of the violation is 10 Tampa Place, which is within the city of Markle Island. On March 13th, 2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of no solid waste container enclosure, which is a violation of the Markle Island Municipal Code. The following photos of the violation are an accurate account of what I observed on that day. basically two dumpsters without the required enclosure per city ordinance i subsequently issued notice of violation for violating ordinance 30-1012 subsections b and one all right with the compliance date of may 13th 2026 to obtain permits for the installation follow-up inspection was conducted on may 14th which revealed that the location was still a violation no permit uh had been applied for on that date and the check on 21st also found that no on may 31st may 21st excuse me also found that no permit had been applied for on that date as well okay but the condition still exists at this time uh let me correct you i'm sorry let me correct something here these were the initial photos i haven't reversed i'm sorry Those are the photos I took on May 13th. I'm sorry, March 13th. And this is a follow-up photo on May 14th.

I apologize for the error, sir.

The following paperwork was administered to the case. This is the notice of violation. OK. Posted notice of violation. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing.

And the certified mail documents.

Okay.

Anything further? I'm going to add that there is no history for this address 10 Tampa Place in regards to this violation. And other than that, I have nothing.

Thank you. Do we have anybody here on that case? Yes, sir. Yes, we do.

My name is Carl Richland. I'm the property manager, Sunrise Bay Resort. Okay. Been here 25 years. that dumpster has been there for 40 years until the city came in tore up the road to put in a new water line the dumpster was enclosed by bushes i have pictures of it bushes were removed the code enforcement issued a thing and if you look at the picture they stapled it to a palm tree next to the dumpster When we found out that it was by mail it was a dumpster that needed the enclosure I Have the permit has been requested I Have six different fence companies that came to do the job that refused to do it because of the layout There's a fire hydrant next to the dumpster. So not only did I contact code enforcement for a meeting, at the same time I had the fire department come because they had to tell us what was allowed and what wasn't allowed for the fence. The proposed fence now is under contract with a supplier. However, they will not purchase any material to do it. until the permit is issued. The original fence was to be done where the swirls are, and that was going to be what the bids were going to be done. Once it got changed because of the fire hydrant that is here, where it's 18 is, the fence had to go to give the fire department 36 inches of access. Okay, so now the plan that's being submitted for permit is to accomplish the fire hydrant and take care of the city. If you look in the purple thing, all except for the one line, this has all been bushes forever, eight feet tall bushes. Nobody ever noticed the dumpster until the city came and tore up the street. Then they eliminated all the bushes on that side. Once the permit is given and okayed, The defense company will purchase material and get it installed, but they can't do it until everything is okayed by the fire department, code enforcement, and whatever.

Can I ask a question? Sir, the company that you're looking to purchase the materials from. Yes. Are they licensed to install the fence themselves?

Yes, there's another issue I have three contractors that I deal with them on property now maintenance We would have put the fence up ourselves and had it over with Because it's a condo. They're demanding that we use a company The company came did the walkthrough summary and this is the company that's going to do it out of Cape Coral okay and they're the ones that also applied for the permit okay it's a situation where it's been there the dumpsters been there 40 years The plants, the bushes, everything.

I get it, but it sounds like you've got 40 years of free. Well, I don't know if it's 40 years of free. And I'm not holding it to 40 years. But the point being is that you had a good run.

If you look in the neighborhood, sir, go down Bald Eagle, behind all the buildings, there's no dumpster enclosures whatsoever over by Al's. We'll take our violations one at a time before the magistrate right now it's yours that's in front of the magistrate So we'll just deal with that one so

Is your proposed contractor, are they willing to meet out there with the fire department and with code enforcement? They have already. They have already? Yes. And is there a solution to the fire department problem?

They needed to change. It can't be the original plan. Okay. The fence is going to be a square fence. The fence can no longer be a square fence. got to have the opening here you got to have the opening here so that they can empty the dumpster at the same time they're requiring a fence here so that the people can go in and out so that's 36 inches so this has got to stay the same however this can't be Because the fire hydrant.

Fire hydrant.

Fire hydrant and tree. There's palm trees there and everything else.

So it sounds to me we've got a solution, a viable solution. Sure. We have a contractor that's willing to do it.

It's been paid. It took a down payment.

And they're waiting for the permit?

The city permit.

Okay. What's the status of the permit right now?

I went to the city and they haven't even looked at it yet.

When did you apply for it?

Permit was applied May 13th.

OK. That's not unreasonable. No.

The contractor is telling me it's going to be a month before the permit will ever be OK. Because you've got the fire department, you've got everybody else involved.

Let me ask you this. Would you be willing to come back another time If I gave you a continuous to see how that works out Yeah, that's that's that's what I was thinking of doing is just not not having a finding entered today and And Giving you giving you that month and if it brings if it brings it into compliance within that month, then we don't come back and Would that work?

Well, hopefully it can get started, yes.

Well, and that's where it's going to be on you to keep in touch with the code enforcement officer. Okay? You've got to keep him posted regularly.

Yes, Laura.

Can you just say your full name for the record, please?

Carl.

Joseph Ralph Nutella.

Carl, C-A-R-L. Rich, R-I-C-H-O-E-N. It's Sunrise Bay Resort.

Are we talking about a continuous to the next meeting?

Are you good with that, sir? Are you good with that? Continuous for 30 days? We'll bring you back in July? Yes. Not June? Not June. Is this? What month is it? May. Thank you. We'll bring you back in June.

Sir, you're being offered the chance to get this thing resolved. It's a 30-day, right? Yeah, what's the next meeting? 25th? 30th. 3-0. Oh, 30th of June?

Okay.

Yeah. So it'd be before the 30th of June. Is that fair enough? I'll continue the matter, unless you object, I'll continue the matter to June 30th. And if it goes away before June 30th, I'm fine with that. You'd be fine with that. They'd be fine with that. Okay? No problem. All right, good. Thank you for coming in. It was very useful for you to have come in today. Okay. Continue to June 30th.

Next up is going to be C as in Charlie, case 25, I'm sorry, 260514. I'm fading fast. I'm trying.

Families of Marco LLC, solid waste disposal. Is anybody here on that matter? Yes, sir. OK. Sir, I don't think you, you didn't get sworn in, or did you? Did you take?

No, he raised his hand.

He was sworn in? OK. There were a lot of people, and I thought that you had not. OK. I just wanted to make sure you did. Good.

Okay, John Negra, Corridor enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Addressed to the violation is 227 North Collier Boulevard, which is in the city of Marco Island. March 9th, 2026, I observed a corridor enforcement violation of no solid waste disposal enclosure, which is a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code. Following photos of the violation are an accurate account of what was observed that day. All right. Subsequently, the issue of notice of violation for violating ordinance 30-1012, subsections B and 1, the compliance date of May 9th, 2026. Follow-up inspection was conducted on May 12th, 2026, which revealed that the location was still in violation. Additional photos were taken on that date. All right. It's showing the dumpster still without an enclosure.

All right.

Following paperwork had been administered to the case. Notice of violation.

Oh, OK.

Thank you. Yeah. I see.

Followed with the posting. Affidavit of violation Affidavit of posting Notice of hearing The posted notes are hearing This is a photograph So I say okay close the nose here and the certified mail documents and the location of 227 north collier boulevard has no history for the current offense that is all i have sir okay yes sir your turn hello my name is miguel hernandez um the general manager couldn't make it today so i just

going to try to solve this. So they sent you? They sent me. We received everything. We know that we need to do that. The bookkeeper just sent me a text, and she says that The permit has been approved by the city, but it's not processed yet. So we're still waiting for the permit to build the fan.

So you filed for a permit?

Yes, I did.

And it has not been issued yet, is that correct?

No, what she says, it says has been approved. Oh, has been approved? I have, but not processed by the city yet. I don't know.

Has been approved but not processed by the city, that's kind of two different things. That's opposites there.

Yeah, I really don't know.

Laura, do we have any access to the permit system to be able to tell what the status of this permit is?

Do you have access to the permit? Okay, Laura, do you have access to the permit system?

All right. In the interest of fairness, given the kindness that I just extended to the previous gentleman, same violation, same everything, sir, would you be willing to come back in 30 days? Yes. All right. Yes. Let's just continue this one for 30 days.

This will be continued until the next meeting, which is scheduled for June 30th. Okay.

Okay.

So that's your notification. I don't know if you get another notification, but the next, my next, The special magistrate hearing will be June 30th. So if it hasn't been resolved by then, then it will be on the agenda for June 30th. Okay?

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Please be in touch with your code officer, Mr. Negra, and let him know the status of it. Please stay on top of the building department for the permit. So they get it issued and if they give you some directions and some instructions on what you got to complete Do it fast Okay, thank you cuz I'm not I'm not gonna be in such a state of weakness come that come June Okay next case

We have one person still here.

He's for this case. Oh, that's this case?

OK. All right.

This is case 25-0925. Keith Richter. I'm sorry.

What letter?

What letter is this? Y. Y? Yes.

This is a medication request Magistrate Keith Richter code enforcement Marco Island This is a case where code issued the same violation on the property twice the first time was 513 The second case was 527 Both cases came before you. Case 1021 came before you in September. I'll show you the United State order. The second case, this was totally our error. We wrote one officer wrote for pool filter, second officer wrote for electric, and it happened to be the same issue. So they only needed one permit. The same case 0925 came before you in July. The July case, 0925, was noncompliant and had per diem fines of $3,400, which were certified. Unfortunately, we never caught it, but the previous case was paid in full, and they received the permit. So the previous case, the first case, was brought into compliance? Correct, yes. The previous case was brought into compliance. We never caught the fact, brought the case again back to magistrate. The fine was never addressed because the owner thought that everything was taken care of and it was a mistake, and actually it was a mistake on our part. What we're asking for is... To rescind the order.

Rescind the order. Rescind the final order and the certification order on 250925.

Okay, now is there another one for the other case?

No, the fine and the court costs were paid in full for the other case. Okay. And it was closed compliant. They had a pulled permit.

OK, so the state statute says that I can reduce, but it doesn't say that I can do away with. However, you're not asking that. You're saying that this was issued in error. And I think that any judicial or quasi-judicial officer has the authority to rescind an order that was Clearly and admittedly in error, so I'm willing to do that.

Thank you. I would not appeal it, and nor would this gentleman here appeal it. If I could speak, be so bold as to speak on your behalf. You wouldn't challenge the throwing. All right.

Okay.

All right. Now, guys, please understand the release of the lien has to follow immediately, and it's got to be worded very specifically.

I guess what I'm, the word that I'm kind of trying to avoid is a mitigation. It's not a mitigation order. It's a rescission of an existing order that was issued in error.

In error, in the error in the city's part.

And I'm not sure if you're, whoever will be writing this up will be able to write that without some assistance from you.

I'm more than, they know how to read it.

Got it. Okay. Yeah. Very highly unusual, that's why I'm saying so. All right. So ordered, yes. Thank you for coming in and making sure that this gets straightened out. Maybe it is. OK, good. All right, anything else? Nope. Next case?

Next case, we'll start from the top letter. A is an alpha, 260122.

Yeah, I can't tell which ones have been removed. So do we have a...

I'll tell you as we go along. I'll tell you which ones.

Okay, I'm thinking about taking a break, though, if it's going to be a while.

Go ahead. It's not going to be long, but go ahead. Okay.

Okay, A, dilapidated dock.

We'll take a break after this one.

Okay. Okay. John Negro, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Address to the violation is 865 Wintergreen Court, which is within the city of Marco Island. January 15th, 2026, I observed the code enforce a violation of a dilapidated dock, which is a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code. Following photos of the violation of an accurate account of what was observed. As you can see, the duct has missing decking. Loose decking is piled on adjacent to it. And an even closer photo of the duct. So it's currently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 54-112H, the compliance date of March 15th, 2026. Follow-up inspections were done on March 16th and May 14th, which revealed that the location was still a violation. That's from May 14th, showing the doc still in the dilapidated condition. Following paperwork had to be administered to the case. Okay. It's the notice of violation, posted notice of violation, affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. The certified mail documents. All right, sir. And there is no history for this address regarding the condition of the dock. And on the last of my checking, on the 14th, a permit had not even been applied for yet for the work. So no application, nothing has been applied for through the building department.

Okay. I'll admit the exhibits and the evidence. I do not see anybody here to defend. Have you received anything from them in the way of a letter or? Any defense packet? Nothing, sir. Thank you. Based upon the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing today, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as described did exist and do exist at the location indicated on the dates and times indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Marco Island. Finding is guilty. What is the recommendation of the city?

City seeking $150 fine $50 in costs Do 45 days to obtain a permit to remove or permit to replace either one and 60 days to remove or replace or $100 per day 60 days after the 45 to replace I No. So 15 days after the permit. So 45 days to obtain the permit, whichever permit they choose to get. OK. And then 60 days from the date of the order to replace it or remove it.

The failure to do so within that period of time Will be $100 per day fine. Will be $100 per day fine. And you say the initial fine would be $100?

$150 fine and $50 cost. Oh, $150.

I think that the recommendations are within the confines of the state statute. considering the the gravity of the violation attempts to correct which are apparently done and no history so that works in their favor so 150 and 50 and 45 to obtain the permit 15 days thereafter to complete the repairs or removal or a $100 fine for each day thereafter I think that's fair, just, and reasonable, and lawful, so that'll be my order. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay, next case.

You want to take a break?

Oh, yeah, let's do take a break. It's 11.50. About, what, noon? Sure. Is that too much time? Okay, yeah, we'll come back at noon. Thank you. Recess. Okay, we're back on the record, I think. Yes? Okay, I believe we're on B.

Correct. B is in Bravo, case 26-0436.

Coquina Gardens Condo. Mr. Negra. Correct.

John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department.

All right.

The address of the violation is 1047 Hartley Ave, which is within the city of Marco Island. On March 2nd, 2026, I observed a code of force of violation of no solid waste disposal enclosure, which is a violation of the Marco Island code. Following photos of the violation of an accurate account, what was observed? basically dumpster for no enclosure I subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating the ordinance 30-10 12 subsections B and 1 with a compliance date of May 2nd 2026 follow-up inspection was conducted on May 18th which revealed that the location was still a violation and no permit had been applied for this is a photo from the 18th showing the violation still remains

It kind of looks like, especially the last photo, like maybe there used to be a gate there. Is that right?

Possibly at one time, Mr. Magistrate. I am unaware of that.

But there's not a gate there that just happens to be open, right?

Correct. Correct. There is no enclosure, period. Okay. Following paperwork was administered to the case. The notice of violation. Okay. Okay. Posted notice violation. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. All right. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. And the certified mail documents. And there is no history at this location for the current violation. I have nothing further.

Okay, I don't see anybody here to defend. Was there a defense packet or any information from the alleged violator?

No, sir.

The documents will be admitted into evidence. Based upon the testimony and evidence provided today at this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as described did exist on the dates and times in that the locations indicated. I conclude, as a matter of law, that this does constitute a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island. Therefore, the finding is guilty. What is the recommendation of the city?

The city's seeking a $150 fine, $50 costs, 60 days to obtain a permit, or $100 per day.

I think that all of those recommendations are within the parameters of the state statute, and therefore that will be my order.

So next up would have been D as in Delta, but that's been removed from the docket. That brings us to See we've done we just did be And see we've done was number eight right we've done Laura can you confirm for me? 26 oh five one four two twenty seven North Collier. Can you confirm for me? We've done Case twenty six zero five one four 227 North Collier Boulevard That was continued yeah, that's that's what I thought all right, so then you with us good morning I Think oh yeah, well well I got it. I got to put on the record. We've removed a J is in Juliet, K is in Kilo, L is in Lima, M is in Mike, N is in November from the docket. And we are now proceeding with O as in Oscar, 260844.

I see you have another officer who has sat here all day long waiting for this guy to get done. Should we call him out of order?

We accuse him of being out of order often, but we don't necessarily call him out of order.

I keep looking up, and I keep seeing the same person.

I apologize, Mr. Mastro. I apologize. These other guys didn't even work around here, you know?

I will not comment on any of that. Only joking on that last statement. Okay.

Only joking on that last statement.

Okay. All right.

John Decker, code enforcing officer with the Markle Island Police Department. On April 9, 2026, I observed a code enforcing violation of illicit discharge, which is a violation of the Markle Island Municipal Code. The following photos of the violation are inaccurate, accountable, as observed on that date. Thank you. What we have here, there was a redecking of a dock behind a home. The dock was, the cuttings, I should say, from the dock when they cut the planking was allowed to fall into the water. As you can see, all the white particles are the dock sawdust, per se, as you want to call it. It was composite decking, which is plastic, so it was not wood.

And Mr. Neger, please, just for illustration for the record, can you indicate on those photographs that you're currently depicting on the screen where the docking material is in the water?

Yes.

Okay, so if you could slide that up a bit, please.

I think you need a new pencil.

Yeah, it's not working on the photos. This photo shows an even clearer picture. a close-up of the material that's in the water.

So each of the photos are depicting white chunks, small shavings, chunks, pieces that are bigger than dust in the water, and that's the docking material, the material used for the construction of the dock.

Yes, it was composite. It wasn't wood.

So that's what kind of looks like the snow in the water, snowfall there. Is that it? Correct. Thank you.

As you can see there, they had no attempts to to deter the deck material from falling into the canal.

So nothing like the equivalent of a silt fence? No fencing, no vacuum, nothing being done.

Nothing to prevent the decking from falling in the water. And just to show that they were at the end. Once I had gotten there, the gentleman who was working, it was only one gentleman working at the scene, he attempted to use a pool skimmer for the property to start removing it. But at that point, there was so much in the water that it was a futile effort. All right. Subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating the ordinance 18-2 12 with the complaint with no compliance date as it is irreparable The following paperwork is administered to the case The notice of violation Okay Posted notice of violation This is the mail notice of violation, noting the repeat offender status for this contractor, Imperial Marine Construction. OK. Affidavit of violation. OK. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. And the certified mail documents. OK, a five-year history revealed two prior violations for illicit discharge against the contractor Imperial Marine Construction, one in 2023 and one in 2024.

And those were cases that went before the magistrate?

Correct. That's all I have, sir.

Was this cited as a irreparable and irreversible violation? I saw that it was cited as a repeat violation.

As noted on the notice of violation, it was cited as irreparable, sir.

Okay. What about on the other document? The other notice of violation? The X's there do not include It just has initial recurring and repeat. Yes But on the handwritten one you did put down that it was irreparable and irreversible, correct? Have you received anything from anybody in response to this I don't see anybody here to defend I Have not Well, this is maybe a new one. We have something that's listed as repeat and also as irreparable and irreversible.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think we can go beyond what we were going to be asking for anyway, the max.

OK. Well, let me do this. Let me do my findings of fact and conclusions of law. I find, as a matter of fact, there based upon the testimony and evidence that I received here today, that the condition as described did exist on the date, time, and at the location indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Marco Island. So therefore, the finding is guilty. What is the recommendation of the city?

The city is seeking a $5,000 one-time fine and $50 in costs. Against the contractor only? Contractor only, correct. They were the only ones cited.

Well, that's right. I thought the... Well, I was just looking at the docket here, and it says... versus Charles and Melissa Dara.

I believe we're pursuing .

But if you're not proceeding against them, it's irrelevant then. We're not proceeding against them. OK. So you're just proceeding against Imperial Marine Construction Inc. And it's based upon it being irreparable, irreversible, which it is. That's my finding. The fine, the amount of $5,000, which is the maximum, will be imposed and $50 in prosecution costs. That'll be the order.

Next up, we're doing letter Q. Mr. Youngkin? Yeah. 260903.

You could have taken the morning off.

Good morning, Mr. Magistrate. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Magistrate. Yes, my name is Patrick Young, and I'm assigned to the Code Enforcement Department of Marcon Police Department. On April 14th, while on routine patrol, I observed GNC landscaping working without a required City of Marcon Island registration, and that is in violation of City Ordinance 8-73, Subsection A, Landscaping Registration. They were at 106 Channel Court, which is in the confines of the City of Marcon Island. Here's a photo of the violation. They had parked there while working in the rear of 106 Channel Court. A notice of the actual notice of violation, in which I gave him 30 days to obtain the registration.

That 30 days expired when?

May 13th.

I see the date of violation is 4-14, 30 days at the top, so the question and answer were appropriate.

Thank you.

Posting of the notice of violation?

I have a question. Is that supposed to... The registration, is that supposed to be on the trailer? Is that how you came to find that it was?

Well, they also received a citation On the city of Markawala, you're not allowed to park a trailer unattached. So they received a notice of violation and a citation for being unattached. The sticker is supposed to be affixed to the front windshield of the vehicle that should have been attached to that.

Oh, okay.

I was then able to go into Intergov and find a list of all registered landscaping, landscapers, and they were not on that list, so I therefore knew they were not registered.

Intergov being the city's database. Okay.

Thank you. Here's a notice of the code of violation. Affidavit of violation. The affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. and the certified male I spoke to city environmental planner Amber Stoenick this morning she keeps the landscaper registration list and as of this morning GNC landscaping has not applied for registration has not with the city no sir they have not

That's all I have. Have you heard anything from the respondent?

I have not. And last Tuesday, I actually Googled them and looked them up and called them. I left a message as well. They didn't answer the phone, and they never called me back.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented here today at the hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as described did exist on the date, time, and at the location indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that this does constitute a violation of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Marco Island. Therefore, the finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation?

A $150 one-time fine and $50 cost.

And no particular time to come into compliance. I guess it's not the nature. Who knows? Unless they come back and have the same situation, I guess it's irrelevant.

Yeah, if they do work in the city again, then we'll hit them for a repeat. But if they don't do work, then there's nothing to comply with.

I find the recommendations to be

Just reasonable and within the confines of the state statute and therefore that will be my order So we've removed R as in Romeo from the docket Which brings us next to letter T as in Tom case 26 1 0 1 1 You

Now we're into the weeds. Yes, we are. It says weeds and encroachments.

OK. All right, John. I'm a co-inforcement officer with the Marconi Police Department. I'll be presenting this case for Officer Hopstetter, who's unable to attend today's hearing. Adjusted violation is 1370 San Marco Road, which is within the city of Marco Island on April 25th 2026 officer Hopps that are observed a code of force a violation of high grass and weeds and encroachment which are violations on the marker on the municipal code following photos of what he observed on this day on that date and The encroachment of the bushes into the sidewalk and the conditions of high grass. let it be known this is the uh and i shouldn't say a vacant lot but a lot that has a parking lot that is not being used any longer it's pretty much an abandoned parking lot officer hop settler subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 1836 subsection 10 and 42-36 subsection e with compliance date of april 30 April 31st 2026 Follow-up inspections were conducted on April 27th May 4th and May 11th, which revealed that the location was still in violation These are photos that were taken on the 11th Bush's thought these were this was taken by you.

Correct. You did the observation. All right, and

And the encroachment issue on the sidewalk still remains. Filing paperwork was administered to the case. All right. That's the notice of violation. Posted NOV. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. Pretty clever posting there. And the certified mail documents. Okay, on the five-year history, there is no history on this property for the current violations. And that is all I have, sir, and nothing else.

You haven't heard anything from the respondent?

I have not, sir.

All right. The exhibits will be admitted into evidence. I'll do it from the... absence of the violator, alleged violator in the room, that they're not present. I find as a matter of fact, based upon the testimony and evidence today, that the conditions as described did exist on the dates and at the times indicated and at the location indicated. My conclusion of law is that this constitutes a violation of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Marco Island, so the finding is guilty. Recommendation?

Recommendation is $250 one-time fine, $50 cost, $250 in the aggregate, in other words, total of the two violations.

I was going to ask, there are technically two violations, but you're Putting that together, $250 total, okay.

Correct. $50 fine, 14 days to comply, or $100 per day?

For each day thereafter of noncompliance. Correct. That's kind of scary. I'm finishing your sentences.

Okay. It's been a long time at this point, right?

I guess so. I think that's fair, just, and reasonable, and within the confines of... Chapter 162. So that will be my order.

Thank you, sir.

So that's the last of the substantive cases. Next we have certifications and mitigations.

Magistrate Keith, Director of Code Enforcement, Marco Island. Good afternoon again. Letter U, 23-3243. I have an original magistrate order.

OK. So these are certification orders for imposition of fines, is that correct? Yes, sir.

Notice of hearing. Certified mail. And I have one-time fine and court costs have not been paid. And I have $77,150 total.

What was this for? It was just a... Oh, go ahead. I'll look at your calculation sheet here.

I have public nuisance and encroachment sidewalk.

Okay.

Brazilian peppers, not just plants. All right. And that's all I have on this.

So the calculation is on the, under number three, from 3-29-24 to 11-25, it's 606 days. And then 11-25-25 to 5-7-26, 164 days, 16,400.

And it's still not in compliance, is that correct?

Noncompliant, correct. I used the calculator this time. OK.

It's a simple calculation and I find that it appears to be correct.

So therefore that will be my order Letter B 25 dash 1 8 0 0 Rich you know original order Notice of hearing. Certified mail. And I have a breakdown on the fines. The 250 and one-time cost was paid in full. However, the per diem fines have not

So nothing has been paid?

Not on the per diem fines, no. Just the original fine. Oh, I see.

Yes, it's paid in full. I see at the top. Okay.

And the calculations are?

So one and two have been paid in full, so the calculation is under number three. Yes. With the calculation under the bullet points underneath. And you haven't heard from anybody on this? No, sir. Is that correct?

All right. So is that calculation March 19th through April 4th? Yes. Was it brought in compliance then, or that was the last day that you? They are in compliance. Oh, they are? Okay. Okay, thank you.

Sorry. Oh, they're compliant now? They're in compliance.

Oh.

Well, on the other one, were they compliant? They were not at all, right? Okay. Based on the testimony and evidence, I find that

The imposition of the fines that certification order should be approved in the amounts indicated Next is letter w 24-0 579 Original magistrate order Notice of hearing. Certified mail. I have this as non-compliant. I have an affidavit of posting. And I have calculations. They're one time fine. and costs are paid in full. Number three has the calculations are non-compliant.

Okay. You say they're non-compliant still? Yes. Okay. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today, I've been looking at number three of the proposed order, of the, yeah, of the proposed order. I find that that is correct. And therefore, the imposition of the fines and certification order will be approved accordingly.

And the last case is letter X, 25-1164. And this is a mitigation, a joint stipulation mitigation signed by the party and the city.

I'm looking for that. Wait a minute. Here it is. 25-1164.

Should be last one.

Okay. Approved and so ordered.

And it's paid in full. Yes, $1,350.

Okay. So it was why that I earlier rescinded the order, is that correct? Yes, sir. I think we have completed the doc. She's saying yes, so I guess we can go home now. Or go back to work. She can go to work, and I'll await the orders. So if we have nothing further, meeting adjourned.

No, I'll get her out.