Code Enforcement - Regular Meeting

I don't what.

Mister Magistrate, we're ready to go.

Good morning. Are we on the record?

We are.

Thank you. It's 10:00. The meeting of the City Of Marco Island code enforcement magistrate hearings is called to order. Today is Tuesday still Tuesday. Right? Tuesday, 05/27/2025. Good morning. My name is Robert Pratt. I'm an attorney. I'll serve as a special magistrate for the code enforcement hearings today.

My task is to take testimony and any other evidence, to make findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence presented today, and to make a determination of guilty or not guilty, and to issue an issue an order based upon the evidence that is presented today. The city attorney, mister Nottello, will announce the order of hearings today, and I will then take testimony and evidence from the city's representatives then from the respondent or the respondent's representatives. All testimony by law must be taken under oath, so I will administer the oath now. So anybody who may wish to say anything at any hearing today, please raise your right hand for the oath. Okay.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give in any in any case today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you all. Okay. We'll proceed with the, unless there are any questions, we'll go ahead and proceed with the agenda as set out today.

Good morning, mister magistrate. Joe Nutella on behalf of the city of Marco Island starting with letter EAsInEcho on your docket, case 250191.

And that's Matthew and Amanda Rice right of way sidewalk.

Correct. 25

We have somebody here on that? Yes, sir? Okay. Good. We'll hear from you as soon as we're done with the hearing from the city's representative. Okay? Yes, sir.

Good morning, mister magistrate.

Mister Miller.

My name is Gary Miller. I'm a code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 184 Ball 4 Drive, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On 02/03/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of damaged sidewalk, which is violation of Marco Island code forty two thirty six bravo. I took pictures of the violation, which is a accurate reflection of what I observed on that day.

I issued a notice of violating a violate for starting out starting off bad this morning. I issued a notice of violation for violating forty two thirty six bravo, and I gave a compliance date of 04/04/2025. Here's a picture of the notice violation.

Okay. As you know, I always look at the remarks at the bottom. Thank you.

A notice of violation posting. Follow-up inspections were conducted on foursix and fivethirteen which revealed that the location is still in violation and additional photographs were taken on that those dates. Here's a picture from fivethirteen. Here's the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting, notice of hearing, Posted notice of hearing. Certified mail doc.

And a five year history revealed no previous violations. And that is all I have, mister magistrate.

Okay. Thank you. I'd like to hear from the respondent, sir.

Hi, mister magistrate.

State your name, please.

My name is Matthew Rice. I live at 184 Balfour Drive. I'm the owner of the home. You're the owner? Okay. Thank you. My wife isn't able to be here today. She works for the public school. So everything you said is a 100% true. And I would definitely say that I there was a total miscommunication between me and my father-in-law who is a builder.

And I thought he was gonna get this taken care of. Clearly, I saw the blue paper on the garage door saying, no, this hasn't been taken care of and now there's, like, this hearing that I need to go to. I was, like, not happy and called him and let him know that, which that's between me and him. But then, immediately was, like, kind of in panic going, well, how do I fix this? What do I do?

I mean, clearly, I don't even know what this is. And so, then I came up to the police department, was asked for Gary Miller, got showed over to the building department where I talked to Herb. And he was like, look, you need to get a building permit filed. That was what that whole notice was about. Clearly, I really should have just read this instead of depending on somebody else to do it.

It is my house. And I wish I would have. However, since then, since that day, I did get in contact with somebody that does do business on the island that was also one of three or four different people that they said these are people that do work according to Herb. And one of them was Pelican Rock Company, and that was the person that I did agree to a price with. And then they, after that, did file for a permit. And so there is an application for a permit pending. I don't think it's been approved yet. That's as of this morning. I did have them print off that. And, really, I'm just sorry that I didn't get this done earlier.

That's all.

Well, thank you for your being frank and honest about it. What is under the circumstances? I don't know what anybody else knows about the history of this, so I have to ask some questions. But let me ask a question of the city attorney. Based upon what he has said today, what what is your recommendation? I'm thinking about wonder I'm wondering whether or not we can give a continuance to do this. I see some good faith working towards something.

Yeah. I I I agree with the good faith, and I I too appreciate mister Rice's candor and and for diligently taking care of it. I hope he doesn't ruin his relationship with his father-in-law in the process, because there's no winning effort. I'd tell you why I don't want a continuance, Mr. Magistrate, and that's because I want to keep this on the front burner of the rises to make sure that this gets done.

But what I will do is I will not seek a fine. I'll just seek $50 cost that they've applied for the permit, but I need wanna give them sixty days to obtain the permit, assuming there's gonna be some back and forth, give them some time to get it straightened out, and and to repair. Sixty days to obtain and repair the sidewalk or $100 per day.

Is that something the and, again, I don't know if, mister Miller, if you know officer Miller, if you know the answer to this. But if the I'm looking to see it looks like it was received on 05/21. So how fast can the city issue a permit, Or do you know? That that may be something for another department.

Yeah. I I really can't answer how long it will take them. It it depends on the paperwork that's submitted, you know, how accurate that paperwork is. I haven't seen any lately that have been going longer than the sixty days.

Well, the but the thing is is if he has sixty days to get the permit and to do the repair and it and he can't get the permit until day 50 '8, then and we may need to make a

said to complete the repair. Right? Yeah. He said sixty days to

Sixty days to obtain Obtain the I will say I will say this. I'm sorry, mister Miller, interrupt you. But look, if you you've already started the permitting process. Right? Yeah. So if it looks like if you're going back and forth with city and it looks like that sixtieth day is starting to approach, communicate with mister Miller. We would take that in consideration. Right? It's always it's all about good faith efforts to come into compliance. If you wait until the fifty ninth day to respond to something that the building department may have asked from you to get the permit, then that's a different story.

So that's why it's important that obtain what I'm looking for here is to make sure that it stays on your front burner so that it gets taken care of. The trip hazards on the sidewalk, you may or may not realize, it oftentimes ends up in litigation against the city and the property owner. People trip and fall on those things and hurt themselves. So that's why we have to take them so seriously. So, Madam Clerk, could you give us an idea of where the permit process is at at this point? And

just so that everybody kinda knows the general circumstance around the sidewalk, It's a giant tree that everybody that walks past stops and wants to be under. Mean, anybody working in the area, the landscapers that work for the city, they're always laying in my yard. They love the tree. But now this is the second time within like the last four years that I'm gonna dish out a couple thousand dollars to fix the sidewalk versus maybe just a couple thousand dollars to take the tree out. Because that tree, it's awesome. It's probably one of the biggest on the island from what I can see. And it's like, man, if every two to three years I gotta pay another $2,000 to fix the sidewalk, this is that's that's really disheartening to me.

Let let me suggest that you, for your own benefit, that you focus on the sidewalk for now. And let us I did. We're trying to work something out here reasonably for you. I'm not saying don't deal with the city on the tree issue or anything like that. But let's not have it cloud this

Okay.

This discussion Yeah. Because so far, it's been very positive. Okay. Go ahead.

It's under application review as of the May 21.

Okay. So it hasn't gotten to any further stages at this point, at least as far as

the record.

Okay. Alright. So so mister Rice, see or mister Magistrate, what we're looking for is just $50 cost for the hearing. No fines in recognition of Mr. Rice's efforts to achieve compliance on this real quick. Sixty days to obtain permit and repair. Again, please keep in communication with Mr. Miller. If it looks like it's not, you're not gonna be able to make

Okay.

That. And and, you know, we'll we will, of course, take into consideration all of that in in Yeah. Okay. And the but our our whole goal here is to have that thing repaired. Whether it's grinding the sidewalk down, if that's suitable to the city within, you know, within the Yeah. The process of the code or or whatever it is.

Yeah. Okay.

Alright? Anything else, sir? Okay. Based upon the testimony and evidence before me today, I find that the that the violation as described exists. I think it was very creditable that the alleged violator the violator came in and was very frank and honest with the city.

And, frankly, that saved you a little bit of fine money. Good. So all all we're going to do I do conclude as a matter of law that the violation did exist on the date, time, and at the pay the place indicated. So the order will be to finding us of guilt, but the order will be to impose today only the $50 cost of prosecution. Cost of prosecution is the cost of them having to go out and doing you know, going through the process and so on.

It's it's a very small cost Yeah. Compared to what a lot of other cities and counties charge. Yeah. But so it'll only be the $50 cost of prosecution for now. Yeah. And you'll be given sixty days up. We usually have it a date certain a day before the next hearing or or a hearing after that? Do you know what day that would be, the the July hearing?

July hearing.

Hold on. I'll tell you. Yes. It's the twenty ninth.

July 29? Is that the is that the July hearing? Okay. July 9. So I'll give you until July 28 to obtain the permit and get the work done. If that has not occurred by that date, then a fine in the amount of $100, for each day of noncompliance would be imposed thereafter, which could become a lien. So there's a lot of impetus for you to get this resolved within that period of time.

Yes, sir.

Okay? Okay. And, yeah, thank you for coming in. And quite often, we do impose a fine upfront, but not today.

No. I appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Good luck with your father-in-law.

Ready for the next

one? Next.

Next is letter K as in kilo, case 250490, 230 Stillwater Court.

That's Elizabeth and John Murphy, revocable trust, and CB Marine Construction, DBA Duane Thomas. Do we have anybody here for that matter? Sir, you're here for that matter? Yes. Okay. Good. Go ahead. I both of you while you're here, both of you, just identify yourselves for the record. Mister Miller?

Gary Miller, city of Marco Allen, police department code enforcement.

Okay.

Good morning. Mark Rohr, r o h e r. I'm here for Duane Thomas, Demolition and Concrete LLC.

Okay. Thank you. We'll go ahead and proceed with mister Miller.

Alright. Mister magistrate, once again, Gary Miller, code enforcement officer of the city of Markle Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 230 Stillwater Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the City Of Markle Island. On 03/10/2025, myself and officer observed a code enforcement violation of construction temporary use permit, a marine staging permit or a marine staging without a permit, which is a violation of Mark Wyland code 30Dash793. Myself and officer Muldoon took pictures of the violation on that date, which is a accurate accurate reflection of what I observed at that time.

Here's a truck in the roadway that was bringing in dock pilings, Pictures of them, the company unloading the dock pilings and dropping it onto this lot. And then the pilings being picked up and transferred on the barge. And then the last pictures are the the barge leaving the the site of the violation. I issued a notice of violation for violating 30Dash793. That gave a compliance date of immediately due to the violation being a temporary or fleeting in nature.

And here's a type picture of the NOV. Picture of the NOV posting. Of course, because this was a transitory violation, we have no follow-up pictures because everything was removed from the scene while we were there. Here's an affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting.

Notice of hearing to the contractor. Notice of hearing to the homeowner. Posted notice of hearing. Certified mail document to the contractor. And certified mail document to the homeowner.

Five year history revealed no prior violations for either the contractor or the homeowner for staging without a permit. And that is all I have.

Okay.

Mister Miller, just quick question. The lot where everything was staged at, is that do you know who the owner of that lot is?

Oh. Yes, right here. Well, Elizabeth and John G Murphy revocable trust.

They own the lot next to the house?

Oh no. The the lot where this was happening, it's a new construction lot. And they're the ones that owned the lot that this new construction was taking place on. It's a fairly large lot and on the right hand side of the house was where they were actually using it to stage these marine dock poles to take them off-site.

And it requires a permit to stage in such a fashion?

Yes. The site has an active dock permit to construct the dock that's on the property. But these dock poles were being taken to the property and while we were there, were loaded onto a barge and removed to another site.

Okay. Did permit to construct the dock allow for staging on that empty lot?

Not to my recollection. Normally, no, they do not.

Further questions. Okay.

Sir, do you have any questions or do you want to make a presentation? Questions. Okay. Thank you.

So just just to be clear, I'm representing I'm here today for Duane Thomas, Demolition and Concrete LLC. There's a mention of, c b. Well, let me let me let me well, let me, yeah, let me clarify who I'm representing. I just want I want you to be clear on this. Do you need hard copies or you just wanna see them on the

Go ahead and put it on there first, and we'll see if we need hard copies.

Okay. So as you can see as exhibit a, Duane Thomas Demolition and Concrete LLC is a separate entity. It's a limited liability company.

And that's that's Sunbiz division a division corporation.

Yes. And as

you can see, printed that

out this

morning right here. Exhibit b says it's a fictitious name detail for CB Marine Construction LLC. And you could see the LLC owners All Trades Construction LLC. Exhibit C is the some biz for listing for All Trades Construction LLC which is a separate entity. So And think that's

understanding is that a new

permit that's has been issued, good and and I that's can give you that number. It is looks like it's CTUDash25DashO1850. So that that's all I have unless you have any questions.

I'm sorry. Has the city seen that? The code enforcement officers, have you seen the permit?

Yes, mister administrator. Actually, I have a copy of that permit. Okay. The permit was the application date, the date received was 04/07/2025. So the the permit was applied for after the date of the violation.

But they do have a permit

They do have a permit now for temporary staging for marine use. Yes. Correct.

Okay. Yeah. That could be relevant for any fines or anything like that going forward if there were a finding of guilt.

Yes. Correct.

K. Officer Muldoon, I see that you're here also. Just, anything that you need to add to that?

Yes, sir. Officer Muldoon, code enforcement officer. I would like to just state what I observed. I arrived right after officer Miller. We were basically standing in the street watching this operation happen. And a car came speeding down the street, passed us, and went over to the workers. I recognized the gentleman because I had seen him before. I walked over to him, started talking about the operation, what was happening here. He seemed he wanted to take me to the back of the property. He said he had a dock.

I'm sorry to interrupt you. The the this this it's not necessary for this. We're we're just ready to proceed forward.

Okay. Okay.

They accepted, the violation and and yeah. Thank you, though. Appreciate it.

Okay. So so mister Rohrer. Right? R r o h r?

R o h e r. Thank you, judge.

Oh, e r? Okay.

E r.

You're an attorney? I am. I thought so.

Twenty five years.

Okay. Oh, you're just a kid.

Yeah. Okay.

I just, I wanted to make sure that you're accepting on behalf of Duane Thomas. Is that right? Yes. Duane Thomas. C b, Marine Construction. Okay. So it it appears that there was a violation. It appears the violation has been corrected. Again, let me just ask mister Miller or or or, or mister Nutello. There's no question. The violation has been corrected. Right? Yes. It has been

corrected. Right? They have received the the temporary staging permit for marine activities.

Yes. Thank you.

It is issued.

Okay. So the question is simply whether or not there was a violation. I think that the and and what to do about, any, penalty, if any. So I think that based upon the testimony and evidence presented, the findings of fact and the representation of attorney Aurora on behalf of his client, I I think that a violation did occur, on the date, time, and at the place indicated. I concluded as a matter of law that that is a violation of the temporary use permit section.

I think it's thirty day seven nine three, but it but it and now it's a violation of the codes of Mark city of Marco Island. So the finding would be guilty. So the question is, really, the big question is penalty. Mister Royer, what I normally do is only only once there's a determination of guilt do we get into a penalty phase. I'd I'd like to keep those two straight because who knows? There may not be a penalty if there's no there's no guilt. So I'll ask mister Nottello what his recommendation is, and then I'll hear from you also.

So in in recognition of them bringing this into compliance so quickly, you know, after the fact, the city will only be asking for a $100 fine and $50 cost. And and we'll make that jointly and severally, however it gets taken care of.

Well, what about the owner of the property? Are we going to purse does this proceed against the owner of the property also?

Joint yes. Jointly and severally, it is against the owner of the property and Duane Thomas is is his business entity. So jointly and severally, $100 fine.

I'm willing to take it all on my client. I'd rather it not be.

Okay. Sounds like it's going to cost $150 one time $100 fine and $50 in costs. As you probably know, cost of prosecution, that can be pretty expensive too. For whatever reasons unknown to me, it's none of my business either. Mark the city of Marco Island keeps those very, very low, but the cost going out and doing the inspections and all of that

I have no complaints about the $50 or the $100. Okay. So if if the fine can be solely in my client's name, again, he's they're willing to take full responsibility and and satisfy it.

Yeah. That's and mister Natello is having a meeting

with

his people. I I'm I'm wondering whether or not we can just not have this against the owner of the property.

Yeah. That's fine. If if

Yeah. If the

gentleman is willing to take mister Warren's willing to take it, that's fine.

Okay. Yeah. I I in this case, I don't think it's necessary. I could be wrong. But the so the order will just be against Duane Thomas. Duane Thomas. Yeah.

Sorry. Duane I'm sorry. Duane Thomas Demolition and Concrete LLC.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Does the clerk have that? Thank you. I can show Thank you for coming in and, and explaining what the situation is. Thank you. Taking care of it.

Something I cross off my bucket list. I know they're hearing before different hearing before a different tribunal.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. So starting with letter a and your oh, when you're ready to proceed. I'm sorry.

For the record, I don't see anybody else in the room right now that's here on any of the upcoming matters. If if that changes, we'll make a note of that. Okay. I'm sorry then. What was what's the number? Which one are we doing? Which one?

So we're gonna go ahead and start from the top and just work

Oh, okay. You. A?

Letter a's in alpha, case 250705.

And that's Blue Point Asset Management, Management, Noxious Plants.

Hi, mister magistrate. Once again, name is still Gary Miller, court enforcement officer with the city of Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 458 Capri Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city Of Marco Island. On 04/07/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of prohibited noxious plants, is violation of Marco Island code eighteen thirty six three. I took pictures of that day as actual reflection of what I saw.

The bush back there is a Brazilian pepper tree, which is listed as a prohibited species on Marco Island. I issued a notice of violation for violating eighteen thirty six three, and I gave a compliance date of 04/28/2025. And here's a photo of the NOB.

Shine is terra bentholio.

Oh, you're good. Picture of the NOB posting. Follow-up inspection were conducted on 04/2013, and 05/2025, which revealed that the location of the violation is still in violation with the digital photographs taken. Here's a picture from May 13. And here is the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting, notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, certified mail doc, and a five year history revealed no prior violations for this offense. And that is all I have.

Question for you. Is part of your training being able to identify certain types of plants, the noxious plants?

Yes. I have had training with Marco Island. I don't know if she's a botanist or a biologist, but, I have had training.

Okay. Thank you. It looks to me like it's Brazilian pepper too, but from the photographs, it's sometimes it's kinda

Hard to tell. Yes.

Yeah. Okay. Anything further? I'll admit the documents into evidence, and my finding of fact will be that based upon the testimony and evidence presented today, I find that the conditions as testified to and as shown in the exhibits did did occur and existed on the dates, times, and at the place indicated. The conclusion of law is that this is a violation of the noxious plant ordinance in one of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island, and therefore, the finding is guilty. What is the recommendation?

Recommendation is a $100 fine, $50 costs, obtain the permit to remove within thirty days or $100 per day fine.

Actually, because this violation has occurred on a improved lot, the city of Marco Island doesn't require a permit.

Does not?

Does not. Only on a unimproved lot. Correct?

Is that correct? So they can get out there and get rid of it very quickly.

Very quickly.

As soon as they can get somebody to to do it. Yeah.

So so so then we'll give them fourteen days to comply. No. We'll stick with thirty.

Let's let's do thirty. Thirty. Just

do thirty days to comply.

And by thirty, it's the day be whatever the day is before the next hearing.

June is hearing.

Okay. So by June 16.

Well, that's not thirty days. Yeah. It's like two weeks. With the

Oh, that's right. Yeah. We're late this year. Well, thirty days. I'd rather give them the time.

The is defined by removal, not Right. $400 per day fine.

I think that the recommendations are clearly within the confines of the statute one sixty two point zero nine. And therefore, I concur with the recommendation and that will be my order. Thank you.

Next up is letter b as in bravo, case twenty five zero two six nine.

Mister Miller, what does it take for you to sit down?

I've got got a I've got a slowdown. Got some I work for a taskmaster.

No. Ready to teach him.

No. You don't need to slow down.

The record will speak for itself. Oh, go ahead. Alright. Which one is this? Me?

Bravo. Yes.

Troy and Margo Wold. And and by the way, on the last one, there was nobody here to defend. And on this one, I don't see anybody here to defend either. So Troy and Margo Troy j and Margo Wold, noxious plants.

Alright. Mister Magistrate, my name is Gary Miller, code enforcement officer of the of Marco Island Police Department. Address violation 35 Tahiti Road, which is within the Muse boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On 02/11/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of prohibited noxious plants, is a violation of Marco Island code eighteen thirty six three. I took pictures on that date, is actual reflection of what I observed.

And this is a vacant lot, unimproved lot in the city of Marco Island. There you actually in the back, it's a ear leaf acacia. In the front, it's Brazilian pepper, more Brazilian pepper.

I'll I'll go back to the first one, the acacia. Where's that? Where's the acacia? It's Wow.

That tree there.

How'd that get to be so big?

I took pictures of the violation, actual reflection of what I observed. There's the pictures. I issued a notice of violation for violating eighteen thirty six three, and I gave a compliance date of 04/12/2025. And here is a picture of the notice of violation.

So we have in this case both Brazilian pepper and ear leaf acacia. That's your testimony?

That is correct. Okay.

Thank you.

Picture of that will be posting. Follow-up inspections were conducted on fourfourteen, fivethirteen and 2025, which revealed that the equation is still in violation and no permits have been pulled. Here is a picture from or pictures from May 13. And in the background is the ear leaf acacia. Foreground is the Brazilian pepper.

More Brazilian pepper. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting, notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, certified mail doc, and a five year history revealed no previous violations for noxious plants. That is all I have.

I will admit all of the documents and evidence. I go back to that picture of the ear leaf acacia, if you don't mind. I know I asked you this in a in another case, but each case stands on its own. As part of your training in code enforcement, are you trained to identify ear leaf acacia and Brazilian pepper?

Yes. I have been trained for both of those. Alright.

So you're you're reasonably certain that that they were cited for were the trees that you had testified to.

I am a 100% certain.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this case, today, my finding of fact is that the conditions as testified to and as shown in the exhibits did exist, on the date, at the place, date, time, and at the place, so testified to. My conclusion of law is that this constitutes a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. Therefore, the finding is guilty. What is the recommendation of the city?

A $100 fine, $50 cost, thirty days to obtain a permit and remove, or $100 per day.

I think that the amount of the fine and the time to take care of the problem are reasonable and within the confines of one sixty two point o nine of the Florida statutes. And, therefore, that will be my order. $50 cost is a very reasonable cost of prosecution. So that'll be that'll be my order. Thank you. Next case.

Next case is letter c As in Charlie, case 250703458 Capri Court.

That's Blue Point Asset Management? Correct.

Alright, mister. My name is Gary Miller, code enforcement officer of the city of Markle Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 458 Capri Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Markle Island. On 04/07/2025, I asserted a code enforcement violation for weeds and litter on private property and sidewalk encroachments with the violation of Marco Island codes eighteen thirty six ten and forty two thirty six echo. I took pictures of the violation, which is accurate reflection of what I observed on that day.

And so This is the same location as a previous case we had this morning.

Correct.

458 Letter A. Capri Court.

Yeah. Guess it was. Forget my own cases.

Some of

the palm fronds litter litter and debris about the property, Weeds and grass encroaching into the sidewalk area. I usually notice a violation for violating eighteen thirty six ten and forty two thirty six echo, and I gave a compliance date of 04/14/2025. And here is a photo of the NOB.

Okay.

Picture of the NOV posting. Follow-up inspections were conducted on 04/16/1955, 05/13, and 05/16, which revealed that the location is still in violation. And here are pictures from 05/13. Here is the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing.

Posted notice of hearing. Certified mail document. And five year history revealed no prior violations for these offenses.

In your follow-up inspection, did it look like anything was done from the first inspection?

Nothing has been done. And I spoke to a neighbor, and he said he has seen no one around that house since the tenants that were living there vacated the property. I thought he said, if I remember right, it was like three months ago.

And is Blue Point Asset Management the owner of the property as far as your records show?

That is correct.

Yeah. Looks like okay. Looks like they're the owner. Okay. Okay. There's nobody here from Blue Point Asset Management to defend the case. Do you have anything further?

I I have nothing further, mister magistrate.

I'll admit the exhibits into evidence. My findings, in fact, will be that, based upon the testimony and other evidence presented today, the conditions as testified to and as shown did exist on the date, time, and at the place testified to. There my conclusion to law is that this constitutes a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. Do you have a recommendation, mister Natello?

I do, your honor. 100 fine for each case. So $200 aggregate, dollars 50 cost, ten days to comply, or $100 per day fine, plus permission to enter and and remediate, plus cost for doing so. And and we're we're looking for permission to enter and remediate the encroachment on the sidewalk only. We're not remediating the weeds.

Question for you. You said that there are two there. That there was one case, a, which we dealt with already.

No. No. There were two different violations within this one case.

Under under c, there are two different violations. Okay. Just want to make sure that we're Sure. Somebody might ask that question sometime. And I just want to make sure we knew what we're talking about. Based upon the your recommendation and applying the requirements of section one sixty two point zero nine, I find that, the recommendation is fair, just, and reasonable under the circumstances, and, that will be my order. And my question is, is it did the clerk get all of that down?

Just to clarify, it's just, abate the encroachment, the city.

That's correct. We're we're looking for permission to enter and abate the encroachment only. Okay.

Okay. And well, yeah, the permission to enter is limited to that. Yes. And, the $50 cost is very reasonable under the circumstances.

Plus plus cost for remediation.

I'm sorry. I was talking about the $50 cost of prosecution. Right? Right. Yep.

Ready for the next one?

Here he comes again. Hello? Are you done? Okay.

See you next week. Thank thank you, mister.

Okay. Take care.

Next up is letter DAsInDavid.

We're down all the way down to D. D.

2507251315WhiteHartAvenue.

That's quite refreshing. Yes. Good morning, mister room now, so I can say that.

Good morning. I am not Gary Miller. Good.

Good morning.

My name is Patrick Young, and I'm assigned to the court enforcement department of Markawan Police Department. On April 9, while on a routine patrol, I observed an encroachment of weeds and trees, which is a violation of city ordinance four two dash three six Charlie, and I gave a compliance date of April 16. This violation occurred at 1315 White Hart Avenue was in which is within the confines of the city of Marco Island. These are photos of the violation. I wrote a notice of violation, in the remarks I showed both, the tree encroachment and weeds.

There's a notice of violation posted.

I'm sorry. Sir, can you go back to that notice violation one second? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Notice of the code of violation? Affidavit of violation?

Go back if if you don't mind, go back to that last one here. I was reading that. Probably for the same reason Mhmm. Mister Nutella was looking at the other one. Clear all vegetative encroachments from sidewalk and or maintain a zone encompassing the entire width of the sidewalk by seven and a half feet.

And just just to bring to mister magistrate's attention, it was cited as a repeat violation.

It's repeat violation. Yeah. That was the other thing. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

It's the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting. And notice of hearing.

It also says repeat violation in the highlighted section. Okay.

Posted notice of hearing? Certified mail to the homeowner. There was multiple follow-up. First was on 04/09. Second on 04/17.

Some photos from 04/17. May 6. May 13. Photos from May 13. And I headed back there this morning just to make sure so I knew, and these are photos from that were taken this morning.

As was stated earlier, this is repeat offender. There's two other cases that were a magistrate found guilty and both that were invoiced.

Of the same thing?

Yes, sir. Same weeds and litter on both. Weeds, litter, and encroachment.

Anything further?

That's all I have, sir.

I don't see anybody here to defend the case. I will admit the exhibits into evidence. Mr. Nutella, anything further on the guilt phase?

Just one question. The prior cases, does your record show whether or not those prior cases were remediated by the city going on and and fixing it?

It does not.

Okay. Alright.

Nothing further for the for the for this part.

Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence that was submitted here today at the hearing, 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 so indicated. I concluded as a matter of law that these conditions do constitute a violation of the codes of the city of Marco Island. Therefore, the finding is guilty. Do you have a recommendation as to the appropriate penalty under the circumstances?

I do.

I'm I'm and just to tell you, I'm I'm looking at it's a repeat violation. I'm not convinced that it's the most under one sixty two zero nine three c that the that the gravity of the violation is is that great. So but anyhow, I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on it. You're probably having the same thoughts that I am, but repeat violation, but it's not the worst in the world.

In recognition of that, the city is looking for $500 fine and $50 cost, ten days to comply, or $100 per day fine plus permit excuse me, permission to enter and remediate and costs foreseen?

I would I think all of that is fair, just, and reasonable and within the confines of the statute. There's one thing I would change. I would I would change the ten days to fourteen days. In Florida, a lot of times, ten days is can't get a mail out that fast anymore. Understood. Yeah. So fourteen days for the compliance. Other than that, everything in the recommendation, I agree with and would be part of the order. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

So E as in echo, we've already done. F as in Frank has been removed from the docket. G as in golf has been removed from the docket. H as in hotel has been removed from the docket. And I as in India has been removed from the docket. Leaving us with J. Juliet. Okay.

Good morning, your magistrate. Good morning. My name is Anthony Ferrero. I work for Markku Island Police Department, division of code enforcement city of Markku Island. On 03/06/2025, I actually got dispatched to the location of 1601 Windmill Avenue for working without a permit and illicit discharge into the canal.

I responded to the location, and I proceeded to write a notice of violation with a compliance date of 04/06/2025. I wrote the violation for work without a permit, which was one zero five point one and also chapter six section one eleven. And I also wrote it for illicit discharge, which is chapter 18 section two twelve.

If you don't mind, would you the remarks are a little difficult to read on that, Cai. Would you mind just reading those remarks into the record, please?

Observed marine construction dock repair being conducted without proper building permit issued. Also observed sawdust into canal, MS four violation, illicit discharge. Illicit discharge is irreparable and irreversible, given thirty days to apply for permit, sixty days for issuance of permit, and life of the permit for compliance. Also, on the bottom there, I put in a little star next to it. I issued a stop work order.

Is that okay? The

the materials that they were cutting, was it wood?

No. It was like trek decking, Almost like the plastic trek deck. Okay. Yeah. It wasn't like wood. It was like there was some wood and then they were replacing with trek decking. So there was actually treated wood also they were using cutting.

What what kind of decking?

Called Trek decking. I'll show you the pictures when I put the

Is that plastic, you see?

Correct. Yes. It's like PVC. It's like PVC.

The dust was plastic as well as wood?

As long as as well as wood. Yes.

Okay. So we're really looking at two violations. One, not getting a permit, and the other The illicit discharge. Discharge and the illicit discharge only would be under the you've alleged it's under irreparable and irreversible. Do I have that correct?

Correct. Yes.

Alright. Correct.

That's that's correct. The pictures I'm about to present are a fair and accurate depiction of the violation which I observed that day. As you could see the particles in the canal. Now you see the type of decking here. It's not wood.

It's almost like that plastic trek decking, but they also have wood on-site also which they were cutting. And you could see the particles there. This is the piece of wood I was referring to for the next two photos. As you can see the the piece of wood, press it looks like pressure treated wood in the canal, and here's another one here where you could see all the sawdust in the in there. And then at the bottom over here is where you could see that piece of wood.

The where's the the wood that you're talking about, is that what at the bottom of the picture right there?

Yes. That's correct.

That that kinda gray thing. Would you mind pointing to I'm sorry.

Looks like it might be the old wood.

Yes.

Okay.

See, that's like the old old presuppressing screws

in the

Yes.

Top there. Yeah.

And here's a picture of the sawdust also on the thing. And I got a picture here of the gentleman actually blowing with a blower the sawdust into the canal. As you can see them see them right over there, blowing into there. I proceeded to, to write a notice violation, the stop work order because I did the EnerGov EnerGov search, and they did not have an active permit that implied for the permit before they did this work. Here's the affidavit of violation.

Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Now if you notice also, this is a repeat offender, and it went out with the notice of hearing.

Oh.

And I've highlighted there, it's a repeat offender. The repeat offender, your magistrate was for the illicit discharge, not for the stop not for the work without a permit. Okay? Because I did a five year history, and I'm gonna present that in a minute.

So you've got a repeat offender and an irreparable and irreversible

That's correct. Action Yes, sir.

All for the same

Yes, sir.

Contention. Okay. I don't

see Is the notice of hearing and the notice of hearing posted, which also says on it, repeat offender, it's been notified.

So the repeat offender only applies to the Elicitations. Contractors

Yes.

Not to Jeffrey and Veronica Sue Lin.

Correct. It's contractor only. It was a repeat offender. Okay. Certified mail was sent out to the homeowner and to the contractor, which is DSI, general contractors.

And like I said, I did a five year history, and it looks like three separate times it was brought to magistrate for illicit discharge. It was 09/01/2023, 09/26/2023, and also 12/31/2024, all separate addresses. And I'm gonna put that under the glass so you can see that. I've highlighted the different I also have a sworn statement from the caller who called the. And she was act she actually able to fish a few pieces of wood out of the canal, and she marked them as exhibit one, two, three, and four.

So I'm gonna put down the sworn statement first. You can read the sworn statement.

Okay. Thank you.

And these are the photos that she took. She she marked them exhibits.

What what is I I can't see from this angle. What is exhibit two depicting just the water?

Think exhibit two is if you look at the seawall over here, you could see a lot of the sawdust. See this over here? That's a lot of the sawdust that got into the canal up against the seawall. That's exhibit two. Exhibit three and four is actually the pressure treated wood that she actually got out of the canal.

And then we have a few more exhibits that she wanted to be presented. Exhibit five and exhibit six. And she actually measured. Can't really tell how long it was, but it looks like it was at least a few feet. That's exhibit five and exhibit six. That's the wood that she actually got out of the canal. And this is the last exhibit seven and eight. Same thing. Similar what she pulled out of the the wood.

Don't see her here today. Where was there a reason why she didn't come in and chose to use herself?

I I'm not sure. So she just present the the, the sworn statement.

Yeah. Okay. Anything else?

That's all I have, for this case.

The, those exhibits and the sworn statement can be used, as hearsay. Their hearsay, normally, would not be allowed in the evidence except that hearsay is allowed in these types of hearings, but only to corroborate the testimony, that's here today. So your testimony here today, is being corroborated by that, and I I presume you would know that.

Yes,

sir. And by the way, there's nobody here to defend the case. Anything further from you?

That's but just like I said, the repeat offender was for the illicit discharge, not for the work without a permit.

Okay.

And that's contractor only for for both violations.

Mister Badger, if I could just add real quick, and speak with mister Richter, the, the witness who completed that sworn affidavit was unavailable to be here today. She's out of town. Okay.

Yeah. It doesn't really matter whether she's out of town or not, but I was curious. Sometimes people like to complain, but they certainly don't wanna come down and testify because it's a lot harder. And but well, based upon the testimony and other evidence presented today, I find, as a matter of fact, that both of the conditions, as test ified to, did exist on the date, and time and at the location testified to. And I find that in both cases, they constitute a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island.

So the finding is guilty on both counts. However, it gets a little tricky. Don't don't remove that just yet, if you don't mind. Sure. Gets a little tricky as to the penalty.

Mister Nutello, it's a it's a repeat, but only as to the illicit discharge. And it's also I think it's first one I've had where we've had testimony that it's both a repeat and a irreparable irreversible. I do think it's irreparable irreversible. Therefore, the repeat is really not sustainable because a repeat violation a regular violation that's not irreparable, irreversible carries daily fines. So you can't carry both daily fines and irreparable an irreversible fine at the same time.

I don't think I saw a case not too long ago where a judge got kinda got confused on the issue. I think that's on appeal now, but but not not this particular issue. But anyhow, what's your recommendation, mister Nattella?

We'll make it we'll make it simple. So we were gonna ask for a finding of irreparable harm, which you've done.

Yes. I agree with it. It is. Yeah.

So we're only gonna we're gonna see $5,000 fine one time. Not factoring in the repeat offender. It's my opinion that at least at this at this point, we cannot do any higher fine than the $5,000 fine

That's correct.

Whether it's repeat or not. So therefore, it's only $5,000 fine, dollars 50 cost for prosecution. We're also looking for $250 fine for the operating without a permit.

Okay. Now are these against the Against the contractor. Contractor and the owner or just The owner. Not the owner. Just the owner. Not the owner? Mister

I would agree with that.

Contracts are wrong. Correct. Okay. Yes. Sometimes the owner and the contractor is the owner and then, you know, all kinds of combinations.

So keeping it simple, it's going to be one time $5,000 fine, which I think is correct and proper under irreparable and irreversible, especially with the testimony that it's not just sawdust. It's also plastic shavings. There there is so much going on now in this world in in in lawsuits and so on, PFS, AS, PFAS, and everything else, and plastics, and the problem like that. So I I think this is a a major, violation. So I agree with the $5,000 fine on the irreparable portion of it.

As to the the other portion, the recommendation is for $250 fine one time.

One time and $50 cost.

And $50 cost. I think that's very reasonable under the other sections of of the code and one sixty two zero nine. And so that'll be my order. Is that clear enough? And it's only against the contractor, not the owner. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

So now we're in the certification of orders stage of the of the docket starting with Letter LAsInLimaCase233475CAsInCharlie.

K. Thank you. Well, it's good to see you.

Yes, sir.

It's always good to see you because you're last.

That's correct.

I'm a docket.

Keith Richter. Hold on.

Hold on. There's a question, from the clerk.

One that's 467 Kendall Drive.

Kendall Drive. Correct. Correct.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. We moved we removed the two from Kendall. I'm sorry. Oh. We only have n and P.

Thank you, Susan.

Sorry, Joe.

Somebody's looking out for me.

I'm sorry. Which one was that? That was removed.

LAsInLima and MAsInMike have been removed.

Okay. So is it P that we're doing now?

NAs we're doing NAsInNovember.

Oh, N. Okay. Got it.

242324CAsInCharlie.

Alright. Magistrate Keith Richter, cone of force, Island. The address is 1790 Maywood Court. This came in front of you on the 11/19/2024. I'll show you your order.

Okay.

Have notice of hearing. Certified mail. Posted at the residence and affidavit posting. And the total amount is $17,150.

And we're asking for the lien to be imposed. Is that

Yes, sir.

It says certification. I just wanna make sure, for the record, what we're doing. And that has not been paid?

Not been paid. No. It's noncompliant also.

Okay. I agree with the request for certification in position of plane. That'll be my order. And and again, as of now, it's $17.01 50.

Correct.

Okay. And it's it's accruing at the amount of $100 per day. Is that right?

Is that that's correct, right?

Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you.

Ready for the next one?

Okay. We're ready for O?

OAsInOscarCase242863CAsInCharlie531SouthCollierBoulevard.

Excuse me. That's also

been removed. Oh.

Oh, remove? Oh, yeah.

We're both for three jokes.

Susan, I appreciate the communication from you and James. Letter p as in Paul, case is that been removed, Susan, before I

That's the last one.

Okay. Good. Alright. P as in Paul, twenty five zero zero three nine, c as in Charlie.

Magistrate, Keith Richter, Marco Island code enforcement. The address is 1275 Andalusia Terrace. This was a on order from the 02/25/2025.

There was a one time fine. Oh, I'm sorry. Let me let me read that last

Oh, I'm sorry.

Page. Yes. Okay. A onetime fine and $50 to reimburse for costs.

And number three.

And number three. Okay.

There we go. Ten days to correct failure to meet is fine at $100 per day. I thought they were getting off pretty cheaply there until I looked at

number three. Notice of hearing. Okay. Certified mail.

And there's nobody here to defend.

And posted. Affidavit.

Mister Richter, is this in compliance?

This is not in compliance. The total right now is $1,785.

$1.07

$1.07 8 $1.07 $8.05.

And what about the $100 that includes a $100 per day and $50 cost?

Right? Correct.

And it's still receiving

for you. Okay.

Do we have horses upstairs?

I

don't know

what that is, but I'll hurry up with with this. Based upon the testimony I presented today and in light of the fact that nobody's here to defend, that amount, $17.85 will be imposed as a lien certified.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Thank you.

And that concludes the dock.

Are we in concurrence with that, madam clerk? Alright. So that concludes the agenda for today. Is there anything else that needs to be brought to my attention today?