Code Enforcement - Regular Meeting

Mister Magistrate, we're live.

Excuse me.

Mister magistrate? Mister magistrate, we're ready to go. Okay.

The city of Marco Island, code enforcement magistrate hearings meeting is open and come to order. Today is, June '25, Tuesday. And good morning. My name is Robert d Pret. I'm an attorney, and I will serve as a special magistrate for the code enforcement hearings today.

My task is to hear testimony and any other evidence, to make findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence to make a determination of guilty or not guilty and to issue an order based upon the evidence that, comes forward today. Joe Nutello, the city attorney, will announce the order of the hearings and will announce each case. I will then take testimony and evidence from the city's representatives, then from the respondent, that is the people who have been given a notice of violation. That and then after that, there'll be an there'll be an opportunity for anybody to cross examine the other side and to give me any type of a closing statement. By law, all testimony must be taken under oath.

I'll admit I'll I'll administer the oath now. I would ask that if you happen to have your phones with you, if you have them on, please set them to silent or turn them off. Last month, somebody had their phone on and it went off during the meeting, and it was me. So I forgot. So I think I took care of that today.

But anyhow, I need to administer the, oath. So I ask that anybody who may wish to say anything to me, at this hearing, raise your right hand and be prepared to take the oath. So if if there's any chance you may want to say anything, it would be a good idea to take the oath. And by the way, the oath is administered, for all of the hearings today. Okay. Do you and each of you swear or affirm that testimony that you give in any case today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, say I do.

I do. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Mister Nutella, are we ready to, start with the agenda today?

We are ready to go. Starting with letter v as in Victor on your docket, case 250888 for 1780 Addison Court.

Okay. And it looks like it's, versus seventeen eighty Addison LLC and wreck of demolition. Is, is there anybody here for that case?

The city has one witness from the building department. I don't know that there is, I'm sorry, from Public Works. Excuse me. I don't know that

Do we have anybody from seventeen eighty Addison LLC or Wreckett Demolition here today? Hearing and seeing nobody, let's go ahead and proceed with the case.

Good morning, mister magistrate. My name is James Muldoon, code enforcement officer with the Mark O'Hillan Police Department. The address of the violation is 1780 Addison Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On 05/12/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of illicit discharge,

which

is a violation of Marco Island code 18 dash two one two. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed.

Must have been taken at night. I I can we see if we can get the camera working?

Let me check with the great and powerful eyes. Okay. Kinda hard to continue. We've got evidence. Mister Muldoon, if you could go through your evidence and please describe it, and then show it to the magistrate so he can review it in person.

Yep. Document. I'm I'm showing a little triangle up here on my screen. I don't know if anybody else sees that. I didn't touch anything, but I wonder if that has anything to do with it.

Okay. I have a picture here of the Collier County appraiser's, picture of the lot in question. As you can see, there's a house. There is a house on this lot that is yellowed out. Just wanted to show it for everybody.

When I arrived at the location, this is what I saw. This lot had been cleared by record demolition demolition. They put a silt fence around the perimeter.

I see something in the middle. It looks orange.

That's just a pipe. That's just a pipe of some kind. Okay. Painted orange.

Mister Woodland, how do you know that it was this particular company that did that?

They are they had a permit to to remove this proper this house and clear this property. So this this was a general shot of the of the lot in question.

Do you do you know the permit number that they had?

I don't offhand. I'm sorry. Okay. When they were doing this lot, they failed to protect the MS four sewer system. The sewer is has no silt fence around it on this lot.

And this is the picture of the sewer itself. It's hard to see. I mean, when you look down into when you could look down into it, which I did, it's completely filled with mud. So the mud had drained from the lot. We had had rainfall previously, and it had drained into this sewer grate that was there.

And it was accumulated in the bottom. I issued a notice of violation for violating 18 dash two one two. This is the notice of violation. Do you wish to see it up close?

Yes. I would like to look at the remarks.

Mister Wildun, if you could bring all all the evidence that you showed, if you can bring it up to the magistrate, please. No. That's alright. You you you've got your evidence that you're gonna bring.

It said, the remarks say you had a demo permit for this lot and to clear the land. You did not protect the M S 4 Sewer? M

M S 4

Sewer. Is a the left front corner of the lot, and dirt has been deposited into the system. Mud has accumulated in the sewer. Correct. Okay. Yes. Let me catch up on the documents that have been testified to. I'm I'm seeing the photographs of the property, the sewer, the close-up of the sewer. I think I'm putting these back in order.

And this is the posting of the NOV on the lot.

NOV means notice of violation. Okay.

On the lot. Alright. This will be a little difficult to show from here, but can I approach Sure? Try and speak for everyone. This is a letter notice of violation that goes out to the homeowner and also the demolition company.

They are responsible for the activity that we see. We are on a document that

done the proper

work to notify all the people involved.

Those are the affidavits? Okay.

It's the affidavit of violation.

That's usually two pages. Yes. I see that.

There's a notice of hearings. Sydney, a homeowner, and to the record demolition.

Those show for today's hearings Yeah. This is we don't have anybody here in defense, so it really needs to just go to the camera.

Okay. David, the post thing, and this is a picture of the hearing being posted. Okay. Hearing letter.

That's everything. The first stop

I mean, no fire history that was discharged by wrecked them

Go ahead and get on the mic. If you let me take a look at this for a minute. Counselor, did you wanna see any of the documents?

I I that's okay. I have no objections to their admission.

Okay. I think you testified to, each and every one of them. Under the circumstances, it was the best we could do here, but I'm familiar with that. So I'll admit the documents into evidence. And do you have anything else to present? I see that somebody else wants to present, but are you finished?

I'm finished.

I have

nothing else. No prior history of

the listing.

No prior history. Thank you.

Discharge. This the city calls Justin Martin, director of public works.

Good morning, your honor. Yeah. A couple of things I wanna add. This project had

Give your name for the record. Okay?

Justin Martin. Okay.

Thank you.

Public works director, city of Mark Twilight.

Thank you.

Couple of things I'd like to add that for this case is and some clarification. This project had a demolition permit for the private property, which is private property on which the house is located. Adjacent to that private property is public property, which is where the sidewalk is, the city swales, and where this inlet is located. That's public property. That's the city's property. Okay. In order to do any work within the public right of way, they have to get a right of way permit. They did not have a right of way permit. I'd like to go over a couple other things that are ramifications of that. Because of that, they disturbed the right of way.

They did not restore the swale. They left it dirt. They didn't regrade it so that the street drainage is restored. The illicit discharge portion of it you know about where the dirt got into the inlet discharges directly to the canal. Also, they removed the sidewalk. And I'll bring up a picture showing what the house looked like before and what it looks like now without the sidewalk.

So I'm sorry, mister Martin. I'm sorry. The only charge that's before the magistrate today is the illicit discharge. So the removal of the sidewalk, unless it's relevant towards the the the eventual introduction of detritus into the water system is not gonna be relevant to this.

I I bring it up because it's it's costs to restore that sidewalk is over $50,000.

Okay. And that's but it's not relevant to the charges. That's before the matter.

That I was about to ask that question. I wanna go back and see what the charge is today and deal with that. If they haven't been charged with failure to obtain a permit for the sidewalk and that has not been notified in the notice of violation, then under due process, we cannot proceed on that aspect of it.

Okay. I'll bring up the photo of what it

looked like before the work was done. Okay. Thank you. I think that's relevant just to to show what the what it looks like. The camera's over there.

Okay. Thank you. Wow. Nice looking house.

And this is a

And that's the before picture.

So this is the after photo where the gravel is located is where the sidewalk was. And you could see that the inlet is within the public right of way city property.

Okay. Thank you. I'll admit the before and after photographs into evidence. Again, there's nobody here to object. I do think that there is some relevance as it relates to the charge that is before me. Okay. Anything else?

Concludes my testimony.

Okay. Thank you.

You. Citi has nothing further. Just

so I can be clear, and I know we're we're working a little bit differently because we don't have the feed on, but I wanna make sure of what violation is being notified. And it was the illicit discharge only. Is that correct? Alright. Okay.

Based upon the testimony and the documentary evidence that was presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described, did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude as a matter of law that the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. So, therefore, the finding is guilty of the charge the one charge, illicit discharge charge that has been brought, violation. What is the recommendation of the city?

City is requesting a finding of irreparable harm. As such, a $5,000 fine, $50 costs, and this is for the contractor only.

Let me go back, if if I may, and reopen. How is that could you put on the record how that constitutes irreparable harm?

Mister Smith?

I kinda get it. Mud in the sewer is not a good thing. But, can you

The mud is obviously noticeable. But whenever you have water involved, you don't know what's on the soil. It could be anything that's flowing into the system, not only the mud, but if there's something else there could be flowing into the system and out to the canal.

Is that where the system goes? Is it to the canal eventually? Yes, sir. Into the waters of the canal. Okay. I didn't know that. I surface water always goes somewhere. Mean, water goes somewhere, but it may vary depending upon the systems that are in place, in a particular location. Okay. So going back, that doesn't change my mind. I think it is I I do think it is irreparable harm, And, therefore, I would rule accordingly. Your recommendation again is

$5,000 fine.

$5,000 fine is the maximum fine that is allowable under the circumstances. I think that that is fair, just, and reasonable. And therefore, a $5,000 fine onetime $5,000 fine for this violation will be imposed.

Correct. $50 cost and this this is assessed upon the contractor only, not the property owner.

On the contractor only? Okay. And that's an option of the city as whether to, proceed against both. You you would name to both, but you don't have to proceed against both. That's up to you. So the $50 cost of prosecution is very low, and I I find that to be very fair, just and reasonable under the circumstances, and that'll be part of the order. And clerk, did I get everything on that one? Okay. Thank you. Alright. Thank you very much. I'll give you the documents back because you'll need to get them to the clerk. Thank you. Next

up on the docket is letter u as in uniform, case 25870For 815PerineCourt.

Okay. This is Carolyn e Udell Trust and Red Rhino. It's illicit illegal discharges. That's the violation. I looks like Red Rhino is here. I recognize your uniforms. We have three people here presumably in defense of the case. Should we take a few minutes and see if they can resolve this issue here since we do have some

I I I I mean, he's been trying since we've started.

Really? Okay.

Taking a few minutes isn't it's either gonna happen or it's not. So I think we should just plow forward, figure it out as we go along.

Well, we went for a couple three hundred years, four hundred years without having everything on electric electronically showing. So I think we can muddle through that way. What's important though is any documents that either side may have to bring to me, show to the other side first. In other words, show it to mister Nutello. If if Red Rhino has documents, and, the city, show it to the representatives of Red Rhino.

Do we have somebody who's the primary representative? Yes, sir. Okay. And, we'll give you a chance to, to cross examine and to give us your case give me your case before we're done.

They don't

need to see the floor today.

Well, ahead do your thing and Monday you are.

Okay. Mister Sullivan, go ahead.

Yes, miss Mastry. My name is William Sullivan, code enforcement officer, Mark Wampees department. The address of violations 815 Parine Court, which is when the municipal boundaries of city of Mark Wallen. On 05/06/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of illicit discharge, which is a violation of Mark Wallen code 18 dash two twelve. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed.

Hang on one second. We're pushing some buttons. Maybe it'll work. Go ahead. Now keep going. Okay. Alright. Now what am I seeing? An illicit discharge of water or

or something? Coming from a pool, swimming pool, mister Matt Street.

And it's going to the city sewer system. Is that it? Yes. It is. Correct?

Alright. And the third one are looks like hoses or something.

Yes, miss Nancy.

Look at the blue. And what's the fourth one? More?

The hoses coming back to the back of the house with the pulleys.

Oh, what's up? Put that. Yes.

Hey. Hey. Alright.

This is this is the runoff in the road.

Okay. Good job. Looks like the, camera is working now. Before you go on, mister Nutella was showing the the previous documents to the representative of Blue Rhino.

Mister management, no objections to the first to the ones that were shown before.

Okay. Those would be admitted into evidence. I see five pages. I'll put those aside. Five pages of photographs.

Looks like you have one on top of another one. You might might wanna slow down. Need to have you testify to them rather than me guess what they are.

Yes, miss Madre. This is the photo of the discharge into the road.

Okay. And at the top of these photographs, I see your name, code officer Sullivan. That mean that you took the photographs?

I did, miss Mastery.

And in each case, are they a fair and accurate representation of the scene at the time and date you took the photograph?

Certainly are.

Okay. Thank you. Again, testify as to what that document is.

It's a photo of the illicit discharge, but also the red rhino truck that I observed that day.

Thank you. We've got

more photos of the truck, mister Medstreet.

Okay. You have to tell me what each one represents. Sorry.

This this photo, miss Manistrate, shows two of the trucks were in Rhino and also the discharge in the

road. Okay.

Here's a photo of the notice of violation.

Okay. Now hang on a second. I always like to look at your remarks. Pool water

I can read it, mister Raspberry.

Could could you read the your remarks?

It's Pool water removed from pool into the right of way of the swale contaminated water to mix in the city MS four system. Such action deceits immediately as it is irreparable harm. Contractor violations Red Riding.

Okay. And there's a notice of hearing, which is today's date. Is that correct? At the bottom. Yep. Red Rhino.

Okay. Here's a photo of the notice violation posted on the Red Rhino truck.

Oh, okay.

Here is the I issued a notice of violation for the illicit discharge 18Dash212, irreparable harm, photo of NOV, photo of NOV posting. There were no follow-up inspections, your honor, due to this being irreparable harm. I do have the NOV letter. That letter is to Red Rhino, mister Mattstreet.

Okay. Thank you.

There is a notice of violation to the the homeowners. Okay. There's an affidavit of violation. And the signature of the notary.

Someday you'll get all of that onto one page.

Yes, your honor.

I have an affidavit of the posting.

Okay.

My signature from Smash Creek and the notary. The notice of hearing. And the notice of hearing for the homeowners. The posting of the notice of hearing, miss

Is the homeowner here by any chance? No. No? Okay.

Not to my knowledge, miss Bennett Street. The certified mail It's a red rhino and then certified mail to the homeowners. The five year history for 815 Parine Court. And then the five year history for Red Rhino, mister Magistrate?

Yeah. Let me look at this for a second. The other two were on 262025? Yes, miss Metzray. Two different places.

Okay. Thank you.

That's all I have, your honor.

Buckets in it, questioning the relevance of it. I would argue the relevance is

This one here with the buckets. Is that the one? Yeah. Yes. Sir, could you get up there and give me your name? I don't like to have more than one person on the mic at one time just to keep order, but I did have a question. What's your name?

I am Richard Conn. I'm the branch manager for the Naples Red Rhino.

Oh, okay. Richard

Richard Conn.

Oh, Conn. Okay. And you objected only to this photograph. Is that correct?

I don't know what that has to do with the illicit discharge. That's just his his work buckets with his pressure testing equipment and stuff in it, but everything else was good. The rest of the photos were good.

Sidney, any response? I would

argue that it's just evidence of there being work done on that property on that day that he was there

in support of what the

underlying charges?

I am going to admit it into evidence. I think it has some relevance, probably not very much as to the charge itself, but it is an indication that that was the condition that day. So I'm going to admit that and all of the other documents into evidence. Do you want this back, mister Sullivan?

Thank you, sir.

Did I give you all of them back? Is that all of them?

Thank you, sir.

K. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

You have the right to cross examine the witnesses the witness of the city, or you have the right to go ahead and and you tell me Yeah. Your your position on it.

Yeah. So you've seen the three for 2025 in there for the illicit discharge. So this this has happened very frequently in 2025. We've been serving the city of Marco Island for almost thirteen years now. And so the first two offenses, we we didn't have the hose far enough back. And then when we got sight sighted for the instance, that's what we were sighted for. It wasn't on the grass. We didn't have enough room. So on this third one here with the photos you were looking at, we had enough room when we were on the grass. A lot of the photos were taken of water on the street, but we are on the grass and that water is dechloride.

So it's just like spigot water coming out of the pool. And so we were taking steps every time we got sighted since we weren't back on far enough for the grass. The the second offense, we needed to have Decor strips. We didn't know we needed to have Decor strips. The third offense is now water in the street when we were had the hose far enough away. Also, we had Decor strips and test strips of it with zero chlorinated in there. And so all we're looking for is is some clarity. Every time we've got sighted, we never got clarity, And we're just we're just trying to comply. We have to continue to work. We we love serving Marco Island, and we wanna continue to do so.

We just need clarity on where do we drain the pool. Because if you've seen in some of those photos, he took a picture of the hoses. The canal is directly back there. So we're trying to stay away from it, putting it towards the front of the yard. And when we're putting it towards the front of the yard, the water's gonna go somewhere. It's obviously gonna go through the grass and then eventually travel over the other side of the sidewalk into the remainder of the grass and then into the street. My question is where where do we drain this water? We we're trying to stay clear of the canal, and we're trying to comply. But to continue to do work, we need to know because some of these pools, they're, like, telling us not to drain fast. We have to because we're working on tides.

When we drain these pools, we risk popping these pools and them coming straight out of the ground. So we're on a time a time crunch to get this thing drained to pull the plug from the bottom of the pool to take the pressure off the bottom of the pool. And that's the high the rate the rising tides and the water table. So I'm not saying we're not in the right. I'm just we're just wanting to comply and get some sort of understanding because we have no understanding of what the next steps would be after we're totally dechloring these pools and bringing them down to regular regular water.

I sir, if I can ask. Yes, sir. You you said you tested the water before. When you say dechloride, I assume that means dechlorinate the pool the water? Yes. Dechlorinate the pool. Yes. At what point did you test the water to make sure it was dechlorinated?

Before we start the repair. Before we start to drain.

Okay. By any chance, do you save those test strips or

Yeah.

We submitted my office. This all goes to West Palm Beach. They were submitting the photos of the decor. Okay. You guys should Are they got them.

Can I see this? Brady, I'm sorry. And I know you offered them to me before, and I didn't look at it. Yeah. This do you know who took this picture?

The Daniel Sylvester, the the specialist that was there on on the job.

Yeah.

Took the oath. So yeah.

Hi. My name is Daniel Sylvester. I'm a repair professional with Red Rhino. I did not directly take this picture. I was with the person that did take this picture. Okay. I did submit it to our we have findings that we send to the customer as well as the pool partner. And this picture is from the findings of the water.

Was this picture taken on the date that you were doing the work on the at the property?

Yes.

Okay. Could you explain to me what this means?

So essentially, I don't completely understand them, but I do

I don't need to know if

this explains me now.

Just tell me

what it's spelled. So basically, one of these things shows you the amount of whatever this is in the water. So stabilizer, alkalinity, chlorine and the pH. The pH doesn't necessarily have as much to do with this as the chlorine. So if you look, it matches the color for zero amount of chlorine in the pool. We use what we call aftershock. It is a dechlorinator. I also have a photo of me using the dechlor on the day of. Essentially, we dechlor the pool, let it sit for a while. Pretty much cuts chlorine out of the pool almost relatively instantly.

We use a lot of it. You're only supposed to use a little, but we do use a lot to cut that chlorine as fast as we can, especially when we know we have to drain the entire pool like we did that day. So this is the test strip. I don't necessarily completely understand what it means by that.

By any chance, do you know it?

No. Not on those

test strips. How about the stabilizer?

Nope. Are roughly the same colors we get when we turn on the for example, if I were to take a bucket of water from, let's say, the side of someone's house, it would be very similar to this. It wouldn't be exactly the same.

With the results on the test?

Roughly. Yeah. Would be similar, wouldn't be exactly the same because granted, you know, it is city treated water, it is a little bit different. So some of the pH and alkalinity could be different from tap water on the side of a house or something like that. But what we focus on is making sure that the pool is chlorine free.

Okay. Hold on one second. Yep.

There while you are doing that, there was another photograph that he said that he has. Did you say

It's on my phone. I don't know

if it was submitted. Well, why don't you pull it up on your phone and you can put it up over the screen. Mister Ravisher, I I see he has no objections to the admission of of this.

Okay.

And, also, I'm gonna just submit the complete defense packet.

We'll put it

on the record.

I don't know if we can see this or not. Maybe I have to bring it up. Here you go. No.

No. No. Just just go ahead and put it down. There you go. Okay. So

That is Aftershock chlorine reducer. You use enough of that and it's gonna take 99.9% of that chlorine out relatively quick. It's what we use every time we drain a pool more than a third of the way. We don't necessarily use as much as I did that day but we knew we were draining the whole pool so I did use an ample amount to make sure that the chlorine was reduced. As well as I had the hose set up pretty far away from anything in public in in her private property.

The hoses were set up at least, I wanna say 30 to 45 feet into her property away from the sidewalk. I would also like to say that the storm drains were completely clogged.

Okay. Hang on one second. There's a there's a discussion going on behind. No problem. And I wanna make sure that he hears everything that I'm hearing. So what your your testimony is that this is the aftershock. You use the aftershock Mhmm. Chlorine reducer that's shown on your phone here.

Yes.

Right? Yes. What I would like to have you do is Mhmm. Don't erase that. Yeah. Send it to the city. You know how to send I

don't know how, but I can figure out.

Somebody knows how to send it. Yeah. So the city can have that in their file. They'll they'll make a a paper copy in the file. Is that the clerk is shaking their heads. Yes?

We'll figure that out.

Yeah. So that's how we'll deal with that one. Do you have any objection to that being admitted into evidence? No.

No objections.

Okay. So without objection, that will be handled. Is so I I didn't mean to butt in on you, but I wanted to make sure that the city's attorney heard everything too.

Completely understandable.

So so go ahead and proceed with what you were telling me about

Like my what

was done that day.

Yep. Like my branch manager was talking about what what we're really looking for in the situation is clarity. Because obviously we don't drain the we can't drain the water into the natural water of the canal system. We know that that is completely against code. We are under the assumption that we want to keep the water as far away from that water as we can.

So when we do drain a pool on top of de chlorinating it and testing it prior to draining it, we keep it as far away as we can. I'm paranoid. So I like to be very far away from the natural body of water. In this specific instance, we were at least just off the top of my head 30 feet possibly 40 feet away from the sidewalk. So we're in her private property that we were draining. We weren't draining into the street. I know the pictures that you saw, the water did get to the street. I am not denying that. But what I am saying is we weren't draining into the street. We weren't even draining onto the sidewalk.

I if I can interrupt, I'm sorry to interrupt, but it's important to interrupt here. We will talk to you about clarity Okay. After the hearing. Okay. And and it's not it's not about location.

Okay.

Yep. We'll

get into that later. But in the meantime, what I wanna do is I just wanna announce a continuance on this case because I have this testing. The testing of the water is significant. And so I can't it. He can only interpret the chlorine. So I wanna take it to somebody in the city to take a look at it and and see if if in fact that's sufficient for the purposes if the water was cleaned enough so that it's not illicit.

I was thinking about, the same thing, and that is, since they did submit something that's in the city's file, and something here that's on a on a on an iPhone that is not in the file, it would be very helpful to everybody to have a clear understanding. Agree. Red Ryno, do you let me get the boss up here. Is he the boss? Alright.

The manager. The, city is recommending that we continue this matter until the next, meeting, which is, July 29, I believe. Is that correct? July 29. That'll give you and the city the opportunity to get the clarification

Yes.

Rather than, have me try to do a, an order on that. Do you object to that?

No. I don't.

Okay. So without anything further, this matter will be continued to the meeting of July 29. If it's resolved before then, then it won't go forward. Yeah. Okay. So thank you very much for coming in. The clarifications, I think, are helpful for everybody.

Awesome. Thank you.

Mister magistrate, the city attorney pointed out that this should be put on the record, the defense packet.

Oh, no. I don't need the defense packet now. If if it's alright with you, let's just leave it. Don't throw away your defense packet, Red Rhino. They may need it for the next you may need it in case the case comes back up to me.

Mister magistrate, one one item I wish to point out, I was the investigating officer that day

Uh-huh.

And I was never shown this.

Yeah. Yeah. Don't go away. Yeah. The the testimony was that he was the officer that was investigating, and he did not he was not given a copy of that. Yeah. And and, again, I'm not throwing fault at anybody for anything, but let's get it cleared up. If it can't be cleared up, then we'll be here on the twenty ninth.

Sounds good.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you all. Okay. Next case. Next case

letter n is in November. Case 250647183GeraniumCourt.

And this is, David and Sherry Og. No building permit. David and Sherry Og, are you here? Okay. Are you David?

I'm David.

Did I pronounce your name okay?

You did.

Okay. Thank you.

Morning, mister magistrate. My name is Ron Hofstadter. I'm a code officer with the Markle Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 183 Geranium Court was with which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On 03/28/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of working without a permit, which is a violation of Marco Island code one zero five point one and six dash one one one.

I took pictures of the I took pictures which accurately reflect what I observed. In this picture, it's showing expansion of the driveway pavers being expanded. This is this is the other side of the driveway where it looks like there was expansion on that side, it was already done. Back to the right side of the driveway. And then a picture from behind, which I don't know what was going on behind the home, but I have a picture of workers and some pavers stacked up.

This is from another property? Is that correct?

No. That's same property. It's just the the rear rear view of it.

From another property. The picture was taken from another

Oh, yes. From across the canal.

Thank you. Sorry.

I issued a notice of violation and a stop work order, one zero five point one six point one one one, and I gave a compliance date of 03/27/2025.

Can you see that there?

Which is approximately sixty days to apply obtain and apply a per apply and obtain for a permit. I did check it today, and there was a permit applied for as of 06:14 which was Saturday for a right of way construction which

Did there was or was not?

There was. It's pending. Oh. It's not. There is no it was Internet submitted and it's pending. But it's for a right of way permit which this would require a site permit, I believe. I'll show you the document. And then here was a stop work order they issued as well. K. That was the NOV that was posted or written.

And here's the posted notice of violation and stop work order. Follow-up inspections were done on 06/05/2025, which revealed the location was still in violation at that time. I didn't have an active permit in that was ever filed for at that point. And the photos I took were the finished product. You can see a little bit of different coloration in the in the pavers.

So the pavers were put in?

They were put in.

Yes. Okay.

Extended. The driveway was extended. This is an affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Page two is my signature.

Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. Here's a copy of the certified mail document. And this was the only violation on record for this location at for working without a permit. And that's all I have.

Could you clarify something? You said it, but I just wanna make sure that I'm clear on it. Sure. The in order to correct the violation, it's your position that the property owner needed to get a site permit as opposed to a different kind of permit?

I believe it I I I don't work for the building department, but I believe what it requires is a site permit. A right of way permit would be anything work being done in the right of way, which is a city owned property. You know, from the sidewalk to the street would be the right of way.

And that's not the situation here?

No. This is on private property, which they did submit for a permit. I'm sure once they the permit department or building department looks into it, they're gonna say this is you need a site permit. They'll just change what what is needed. Okay.

Alright. Thank you. Don't take away those documents yet. Okay. Is that it?

Yes, sir. That's all

I have. If that's all, then mister Aug, would you please come forward and give us your position on this?

I'm

guilty. But I applied for the permit and didn't couldn't find where the site permit area was. So I did pick right away. So and he gave all of everything I that you asked for.

Okay. Anything else?

That's it.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented, I find that the conditions as as a matter of fact, the conditions as testified to and shown this morning did exist at the date, time, and at the place indicated. I conclude, and and thank you very much for your plea of guilty. Should take those first, I suppose. But, so I I conclude, as a matter of law that, this is a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island. And, so, therefore, the finding is, guilty.

Let's talk about penalties. It looks like he made an attempt at least, over the weekend to try to file for something.

First of all, mister Rock, thank you. I I appreciate your candor. Yeah. So the city is just looking for compliance. So we're we're we're looking for sixty days. Give you another sixty days from today to comply. And by comply, we mean just get the permit opened and closed, right? If you find yourself running into issues with meeting that sixty day benchmark, please communicate with the Code Enforcement Division. We can give you consideration as long as we know you're working in good faith towards gaining compliance. With that said, there is a standard fine for building projects without a permit and that's $250 and $50 cost, please.

Mr. Aug, the recommendation is $250 fine and $50 prosecution cost. Any response to that?

Yeah. I would like to add that a a few days after the code violation, my mother-in-law had an accident and broke her jaw. She fell out of her wheelchair. So I had been dealing with that and trying to get all this done at the same time,

which I

actually sent a letter to Susan, I believe. And I came three times to the building department every time I was able to get back to the island. So I was trying to get it all done and dealing with other things at the same time. So I I did my best to do. No. We we we appreciate that. And that's why, you know, another sixty days, loose sixty days, are is you should be able to get this in and out. This you you you don't have to involve contractors. You don't have to involve they come out. They get the the permit. They come out. They inspect. They make sure it was done right, and they close it, it's done. Yeah. Everything's already submitted. So Alright. So we just gotta see this permit through, and then that's Right. And then that's it. So

If he doesn't comply within sixty days, what is the fine If he doesn't recommendation?

If he doesn't comply, then the our standard recommendation is a $100 per day fine. So but but, again, if you find yourself running close to the deadline, communicate with us and and we can we can grant some grace.

I'm going to impose a $100 fine, not a $2.50. Sixty days to comply. If compliance is not achieved within sixty days, then, fines will accrue at another $100 per day. So make sure you get that taken care of. And, the the cost of prosecution is very low, and, fortunately, in Marco Island.

A lot of places, it's several $100, but, it's only $50 for cost of prosecution. So $100 fine, $50 cost of prosecution, sixty days to comply. If compliance is not achieved by then, it'll be $100 per day. So don't be one of those people that ignore it for years and wake up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. Okay? And, yeah, some sometimes, so you get some credit for coming in and pleading guilty and being very candid with everybody. Thank you.

Thanks.

Okay. Next case.

Next case is letter q as in Quebec. Case 250806 for 1084 Cottonwood Court.

And that's, Hugo Sanchez and Jack Cipiano. Anybody here for that? Oh, okay. Thank you. Okay.

Mister magistrate, my name is Ron Hofser. I'm code officer with the Mark Wyland Police Department. The address of the violation is 1084 Cottonwood Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On 04/25/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of activities within a protected zone, which is a violation of Marco Island code 18 Dash1446. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed. What you're gonna see is a landscape truck with a trailer that's next to an owl burrow, and it's stuck.

Okay.

It's basically just a few pictures of the scene.

Where's the I'm sorry. Mister Hossett, where's the the Owl Burrow?

Right here. Where you see the the white pipes and the ropes. This one shows where the tires were down deep. Basically, the the Owl's Tunnel in in many directions. And you never know where they're at or where their babies are at. So you're not supposed to go anywhere within 33 feet of the protected zone. And this was about 15 feet, which I didn't know whether or not the tunnel was caved in or not. So I had called out FWC and my supervisor and our environmentalist to the

scene. What did they find?

They found after, you know, after the fact, did a survey with a camera or whatever for the tunnels, and there was no damage to the tunnel from my understanding.

Okay.

On that day, I issued a notice of violation for violating '18 one forty four six, and I gave a complaint a compliance date of irreparable and immediate.

Well, you can't be immediate and irreparable both.

Well, immediate meaning you the violations

Take take the truck away from there.

You have to get away. I mean, they were trying to get the truck out of there, but it was stuck. And I I didn't want him to cave in any more tunnels or anything without knowledge. So it it was irreparable damage in my opinion, but I didn't immediate means, like, there's no compliance date.

Okay. Go ahead.

This is a posted notice of violation, again, on the truck. These are notes from our CAD, which is where we enter all our notes into the police CAD system. And this basically explains that FWC was also on the scene and they measured it at fifteen feet. I do not have any of their notes. There were no follow-up investigations on this situation.

Affidavit of violation. Affidavit. This is part of the violation as well, page two. Affidavit of posting. Affidavit of posting, page two with my signature.

Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. Certified mail. And this is to the landscape company, not to the lot owner. We're not going after the lot owner. They were basically up on private property. And this is there is no prior postings or history from HSE lawn care on this location. And that's all I have for you.

Okay. Okay. Let's hear from the respondent.

Hello. Jim Lucero.

And give me your name and

Jim Lucero. I was the one driving the truck. I was the one driving the truck.

Okay.

So that day, I turned into Conwood Court. And at the end, at the cul de sac, there was people blocking that. So I decided to turn into the lot to just make a u-turn, and I got stuck in a sandy spot. And trying to get out, accelerating it, the tire just kept sinking because it was just sand. Mhmm. And, yeah, just got stuck.

So you're not disputing the testimony his testimony about what he found when he went out for his inspection?

Yeah. No. No. I'm not. Okay.

Anything else? Nope. You saw the photographs and the documents that he offered into evidence. Do you dispute any of those?

No. Okay.

I'll admit them into evidence without objection then. Anything else you wanna tell me?

No. Just that.

Okay. Anything else from the city?

Nothing else from the city except that I appreciate everyone's candor today. It's a breath of fresh air. Based

upon the testimony and evidence presented today, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions, as shown and described by the city, did exist on the date at the time and at the location testified to. I find I conclude as a matter of law that the that the conditions described constitute a violation of the the codes of ordinances of the city of Marco Island. So the finding would be guilty. I'm I'm a little bit concerned about the or not it's irreparable.

I'll I'll I'll address that if I can.

Yes. I'd like to have you address that. Sure.

So so the city is not gonna be seeking a finding of irreparable damage due to the fact that the follow-up investigation revealed that there were no tunnels damaged. There were no owls harmed. It it it it it ends up just being thankfully, just the thing of encroachment upon the thing in violation of the code. So for those reasons, we are not seeking a finding of irreparable harm and just seeking a fine of a $100 and $50 cost.

A $100, a fine of a $100, and $50 prosecution cost. Right. Sir, do you have anything you wanna say to that? No. The if if the finding were irreparable harm, it could be up to $5,000. They're asking for they're recommending $100 Uh-huh. $100 fine and cost of prosecution, which is very low and very reasonable. So you might get out of here with $150 and a lesson to stay the heck away from those owl nests. Was the how far away? 30?

15 feet.

How many?

They were 15 feet.

No. Mean, how what do they have to be?

33 feet. But you're not supposed to come on private property either.

It's Okay. So, yeah. You know what the owl's nests look like, right?

Yes.

Saw pictures of that. Be very, very careful to stay well away from it. So if you get stuck, you'll be far away from any burrowing owl's nest.

Okay? I know. I'm finding a misdemeanor for that right now.

Okay. Alright. So that's be a $100 fine and $50 cost. Thank you very much for coming in and and and again for being very candid in your in your testimony. That that's very helpful.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Next

up is letter AAsInAlpha, case 25250052 for 383 Henderson Court.

This is a, this is against, Sandra Goldstein replicable trust. Is Sandra Gold yes. Are you Sandra Goldstein? Okay. Thank you. We do have somebody here for this case.

Good morning, mister magistrate. My name is Anthony Ferraro. I'm a code enforcement officer. Markle Island Police Department, City Of Markle Island. On 01/09/2025, I got a dispatch call regarding a city code violation for a potential or possible failing seawall in the rear of three eight three.

The address is 383 Henderson Court. The date of violation was 01/09/2025 with a compliance date of 02/09/2025. I wrote the violation for public nuisance failing seawall, which is chapter 18 dash 36 subsection four. And I also wrote for failed seawall on law for public nuisance, which is chapter six dash 83. 383 Henderson Court is within the admissible boundaries of city of Marco Island.

And the the pictures I'm about to present are fair and accurate depiction of the violation, which I observed that day. That, is a broken piece of the seawall onto the property. As you could see, this is the that part is the deck into the canal right there.

So we have grass, seawall

And partial deck. Correct. But it continues, the the following pictures I'm gonna show you.

Okay. Thank you.

As you could see, the top is the broken piece of, the seawall, and you could see possible some of the rebar showing.

Is that the water to the right?

Yes. It is. That's the canal to the right.

And that's a rebar kind of right there. Yeah.

Yeah. That's a little bit it's hard to see with the shadow, but that's a piece of rebar. And I have more pictures here that could be a little bit more clearer when it comes to that. Here's the next picture I'm about to present. And the next photo, I was able to get a photo on an angle, okay, which you could see the, the canal right there and little bit more of a chunk of it missing and possible some of it into the canal.

Sir, if you can go back to that last picture and and please explain what we're looking at there.

Okay. The photo right there is I took a picture of an on an angle, okay, facing the, the canal. And that is rebar showing with chunks of the seawall missing, from the seawall. And they're actually went lower. You can see this little, piece of concrete right there catching the, chunks of, the seaball that we're missing.

And that's just a picture of the address. It's the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting. There's notice of hearing. Notice of hearing posted. And it was also sent out, certified mail to the homeowner.

I didn't your magistrate, they did an EnerGov search to see if there was an actual application for the permit. And apparently, there was an application applied for, but the application is on hold because the the seawall contractor did not download the plans yet. So that he did apply for it, but it didn't download the plans. And here is the, copy of the EnerGov search which I conducted this morning.

The home The application date is 03/13/2025. That's quite a while ago.

Yes. The original date of wrote the notice of violation was January 9. And just for your own knowledge, we have continued this. We've actually extended this three separate times. The homeowner requested a continuance for for a little bit more time, And we did grant her since January 3 separate extensions for this case. She is here today. The homeowner is here. Miss Sandra Goldstein, I do have the defense packet. If you'd like to see it, I could present it under the glass. Or would you like to just hear from her? Well, since she's

here, let's hear from her. And if she wants to present the packet also, we'll let her do that.

But I do have it here if you need to see it. Okay? Yeah. I'll leave all the pictures.

I'll leave it there. Right.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Are you finished?

Yes. That concludes my, testimony.

Okay. So it's one violation, but it happens to violate two sections of the code?

Correct.

Okay. I wanna make sure you you didn't write a separate violation for each section because

It's it's one violation, but it encompasses two sections of the statute and and and the code ordinance.

Okay. Thank you. Ma'am, would you like to tell us your side of the story? And you're allowed to cross examine anybody from the city if you wish or sometimes it's just as effective or more effective to tell me what's going on.

Okay. I'll try to keep it brief. Okay. But it's a long story. Of all, I just wanna say thank you to officer Ferrero, to Susan, everybody's

trying Could to you pull that mic a little bit closer to you there? You go. Okay.

Anyway, every everybody's been trying to help me with this. I've been trying to deal with it all on my own. It's overwhelming, and I'm very nervous right now. First of all, I don't understand what public nuisance is. On on the violation, I was just understanding there was one violation, not two. I didn't understand there were two. Just saying.

So I I I I just clarified that that there that is. I I come forward if you might. We'll we'll treat this as cross examination. Mister Ferrer, could you explain that? I I thought you just I just asked the same question, and I thought that it's one violation, but it happens to violate two sections of the code. But they're not going after you for two violations, just for one violation. Is that correct? Mister Nutella, you agree with that? Yeah. Yeah. So we're just dealing with one.

It is one violation, but just the wordage and the verbiage is a little bit different and stuff like that where where the second one, chapter six, subsection 83 has to deal with a failed seawall and stuff like that. Public nuisance is just a general wordage and stuff like that. Like if somebody's pool is green and stuff like that. It's just a public nuisance, stuff like that in terms of the aesthetics of the seawall. Right. But it is in in essence just one violation we're seeking here.

Oh, okay.

Okay? That's how I understood it. Yes.

Okay. And you could if you could grab that mic He wouldn't move that on you.

I'm a short person. Okay. Okay. Where do I start? First of all, this was violation was, you know, taped to my wall, but I was in Denver. I was recovering from a total knee replacement, which I had end of last year. I was not here. Denver is my primary home. This is my secondary home. I'm here six months out of the year, usually.

But I was, you know, laid up. So I did not get this notice of violation until it was sent to me certified mail in Denver at the January. Of course, then I'm panicking and thinking I've gotta get here. So I didn't get down to Marco until mid February. And that gave me two and a half weeks to get everything put together.

So let's just start with that. Oh, I don't even know where to start. Let's let's start with the violation says that I had x number of days to to get a permit and acquire a company. And I did that as quickly as I possibly could. I contacted Duane Thomas. He was the the last week in February. We talked about getting the seawall repaired. And he said he would file the permits, and we would go forward. And then we would talk more detail. Okay?

So I thought that I had all that taken care of, which should have taken care of this. It says that permit for compliance, so on and so forth, and seawall company. The pictures that were sent let me back up. I'm sorry. I'm disor orange here.

Right now, I do have inspections, on planned. I've a engineering inspection planned for June 20 at 4PM. I was under the impression when I hired Duane that they were sending out an engineer to look at my wall so they could tell me if I just needed to have the cap replaced or if I needed to have the whole seawall replaced or wrapped in vinyl, whatever. That was the discussion. I found out after the fact that they never sent out an engineer that and a wall that old, he just signs off and says it automatically is a failed wall and has to be replaced.

So the city doesn't have an engineer that came out and looked at my wall to say it was failed. The marine company didn't send out an engineer to actually look at my wall to see it was failed. The I tried calling other engineer company engineering companies in February and March, and they couldn't get to me until way out, months out, weeks out, whatever. And the pictures that the officer showed you are of damaged cap on the wall. I totally agree that that needs to be replaced.

My question is, do I need to replace that only or the whole seawall? Big difference in price.

I mean, we we

as you

said, we we the city did not send out an engineer.

Right.

So so so

Officer for and Ferrero and I had a long discussion about that. He was going to bring a supervisor

out If if you could, could you stay on the mic there?

Oh, he officer Ferrero was going to bring a supervisor out the next day to look at my wall since there was no engineer. And then he called the next day and said, oh, by the way, I've got the pictures. And we don't have an engineer even in the city that can do this. So that's when I hired Duane and I said, he said, well, I'm doing an engineering report. So I'm assuming he's sending out an engineer to look at my wall, right?

One eight by one. I go into the office a week later and I said, well, I want to meet with that engineer and talk to him and see what he says. And he goes, oh, well, doesn't come out. He just he's in Naples and he just signs this form and says it's a failed seawall because on an older seawall, the seawalls, you know, as old as mine, they just assume it's failed. So, you know, there you

go.

So the city's the city's violation that you've been cited for is is more towards just the fact that its pieces and its exposure, it is it's structurally not sound. Now whether that means it can be repaired by a replacement of the cap or whether it means the whole we don't know, but that's not part of what the violation is. So what the violation is is it's structurally not sound, and because of that, it's a danger. That's where the public nuisance aspect of this comes in. It's a danger to people who are walking on or near there, as well as if it is a structure a a entire wall, the structure of the entire wall is compromised. If that's the issue, then then you will

always run

the risk of of of the land just kind of falling into

Right.

So but the the the the violation is strictly just that that your your your wall is not what it's supposed to be.

Is this And I totally agree.

Okay.

I totally agree. You are absolutely right. My problem has been I don't know if I just need to replace the cap or if I need to spend the money to replace the whole wall, you know, wrap the wall. Don't know. And I haven't been able to get an engineer to come out.

I just turned in a packet to everybody, and it had a typo on it. The packet was because last week, I hired a a a c, market Martin Pickney pink Pinkkey to come out and actually do an engineering report on my wall, just so I know which direction to go. Sure. We sent the packet out, and Carissa made a typo. And she said that the inspection will take place May 20, and it's actually June 20.

And I've got her I talked to her this morning. She sent a a clarification on that if you'd like to. You can see right there on the top where

she corrected the top of that piece of paper there?

I'm sorry?

Can I see the top? Just move it down a little bit on the screen.

It's it's right here where she's saying Okay.

Now that's AEC

May 20. It's June 20. Okay. So I I turned in the packet. You guys probably already thought I had the engineering report, but it's not until a couple weeks from now. So just Okay.

The the the so that's very important information. But it's most it would be most important if your charge were doing work without a permit or whatnot. So we're right now, for this, it's just an issue of the condition of the wall itself. The repairs and the permits to do so and all this stuff are gonna come into play after the magistrate makes his decision today. And and and your testimony is important because what that does is that gives us clarity as far as what you're facing and how much time we think you might need to be able to bring it into compliance more so than not because of the difficulties you've you've

been in. And that is the direction I'm trying.

I got

you. I'm I'm not being very clear here, and I apologize. But with

you. I I understand what you're where you're going.

I wanna get it done. I want it fixed, but I need more time. I thought I was and just a little background, and I sent this packet. You've probably read it. I I was cooking along here thinking, you know, we're gonna get this all done. And then I had a water backup in my house on April 6, and it flooded half of my house. And so I've been dealing with mitigating my house. Almost done. Another two weeks, I should be able to move into the other half of my house again. But that's you know, I'm I'm a single person.

I don't have somebody else helping me. Gotta go into Naples and take all this stuff out. And this stuff takes time. And that's why this has not been as timely as you would like, I would like. You know, it's just it's life. What can I say? So I'm not disputing anything. I'm just asking for some because another consideration to give me some more time to get this done. I need to get this engineering report back so I know which way I'm gonna go. I already have Duane has already put in permits for replacing a whole seawall. Of course, he did that when I thought an engineer had come down and looked at everything. So

Let me ask a question if I may. Would the city object to continuing the matter to July 29? I'm I'm hearing that, probably under undisputed that, she's trying very hard to get something done. One of the problems we have, ma'am, is that the, quite often we hear somebody say, well, need more time. I need more time. But when it comes to it, they nothing had ever been filed. Nothing had been no attempts had been made to get into compliance. This sounds like it might be a little bit different. Mister Natello, what what does the city say about just continuing the matter till the twenty ninth?

So here's what I'm thinking. I think I think miss Goldstein needs a lot of consideration for the for for time. However, what I was thinking was just a finding today because I wanna keep the heat on the contractors, the engineers, or whomever. Because if we if we keep miss Goldstein on the timeline. She's got some clout to be able to hold over the contractors heads as far as I gotta get this done because I have another hearing set.

So what I was thinking of this was was asking for a just a finding and and a and a fine today with a case management conference set. Two months, sixty days, ninety days to see where we're at as far as that goes before there's any determination as far as any per diem fines.

I'd appreciate that. Can I also just say one other And I don't know if this is either here neither here nor there? But the and I I'm not disputing the the cap needs to be replaced. But this is embarrassing. But back in Ian 2022, and I've got pictures, a good Samaritan in our neighborhood decided to tie my neighbor's boat that was floating down the canal to my dock without my permission.

And then I've got pictures. Another neighbor took pictures. And then the the boat ended up the boat ended up on my dock, on my seawall. This is the picture of the boat with the motor on the seawall. And then this is why a lot of the structural damage happened.

This is the same picture that you had taken. And you notice the cap is totally eaten away. And look at over here. The motor on that boat is what ate it away. To get the boat off of off of my wall after it was on there, these guys, again, I didn't give anybody permission to go on my property. I didn't it should've never been tied to my dock whatsoever.

Was this from hurricane Ian?

Uh-huh. These guys came over and started jacking the boat up and down on my seawall to get it off, which, again, crumbled. That's we're seeing it all crumbled. That's what it's from. Okay. And, you know, that I'm not disputing it needs to be fixed. It needs to be fixed. But I I've had that seawall I've had that seawall inspected every year since then because I've been concerned about it. And everybody has always said, this wall is fine. It's the cap that's deteriorated. I don't dispute. And like I said, I was planning on getting this done, and then my house flooded, and here I am.

Do you have any other documents, that you want to have me consider put into evidence?

You can take all of these, none of these. I don't know what's I don't know what you need. I would definitely like to

Well, whatever you think might be relevant for me to consider in Well,

I think my determination. The new engine the amended engineering date definitely needs to be in there. Okay. And I made copies of all this for you so you can have the whole packet if you'd like.

I I have no objections to it.

No objection. Okay. Without objection, the documents will be admitted into evidence.

Okay.

And you can get with when we're done, either get with the clerk if they're not tied up or mister Ferraro might help you. I wanna make sure that all of the documents on both sides are in evidence for my consideration.

Okay. So why why don't I just give you everything? And

That's that's fine with so I'm with May. It's they have not objected.

So It's whatever you want. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

She'll she can take it.

Okay.

Or you could bring it up here. That'd be fine.

I'll just give it to

them. Okay.

That that'll free you up for the next person. So we're doing ninety days?

Are you Well

Sixty days?

No. The I asked the city whether or not they were willing to continue the matter for a certain period of time, and they had indicated I think it think this is correct. I think they've indicated that they would like to have a determination as to whether or not there's guilt. In other words, do the conditions exist, and are those a violation? And then we're we'll be talking about penalty in in the amount of the penalty or whether there'll be a penalty and so on after I make my determination. But they're looking for a determination.

Okay. So that'll happen next time?

No. No. This will happen.

This time? The the one thing that I wanted to mention is that I do have I do have the permits in place, and I did hire the contractor. So yeah.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Anything else? If not, anything else from the city? Okay. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today, at this hearing, I find that the conditions as described by the city did exist and do exist, on the dates and times and at the location indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that, this does constitute a violation so of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. Therefore, the finding is guilty. Now let's talk about the other aspect.

What are we gonna do about that? Normally, this in law, we have something called a guilt phase, and you've indicated, ma'am, that that essentially those conditions did and do exist. Now we wanna talk about the penalty and, whether or not there will be a penalty and how much it would be and and so on. First, I wanna hear from the city, and then I'm going to hear from you on that issue. And I've heard from both of you a little bit on that issue already. Okay.

So so the city is gonna be seeking a finding of fact and $50 costs. We are looking for a hearing, a follow-up case management hearing, sixty days out, roughly whatever the hearing June, was this June, July? August hearing?

That would be the August hearing date. Can we get the date for the hearing? I I have that here somewhere. The August 20 August 26 is the hearing date. You sent that to me once, and I kept it. Okay. So it would be until August 20 you're you're going to have a hearing? You're gonna have come back again on August 26?

Yeah. I I I'd like to I'd like an update on the status of of the efforts to be able to get this this resolved, and and the city will reserve any decision on a requesting a per diem fine. Okay. Depending on what happens at that hearing.

So what it's going to what it's going to cost the, respondent today is $50 cost of prosecution. Okay. K. The maximum fine would be $250 plus cost of prosecution.

Okay.

They're waiving any fine. Right. They essentially, they're waiving the fine for now.

Okay.

And they wanna look at it again. We'll look at it again on August 26 if it hasn't been resolved by then. If it's been resolved by then, they can always withdraw the case, if they want to. But, but, if it's not resolved by then, then we'll bring it back kind of where we are, where we stand right now, and see what if anything needs to be done about it.

Just for my clarification, when you say resolved, that means the seawall has been fixed. The seawall is scheduled to be fixed because when I talked to Duane well, not Duane. He's out of town.

But Well, I'm not going to give I'm not going to give an order that encompasses that. What he has asked for and I think it's a very it's somewhat unique, and it's a very good idea. Courts do it all the time, by the way, and that is to have a status conference on August 26.

Okay.

If it's resolved before then, then then you don't need to do anything. They'll well, I mean, if it's handled, then it doesn't have to come back to me anymore.

And who do I who do you want me to contact with the updates of what's going on? I've I've been trying to, you contact a lot of people. So

whatever you need to do to to get your contractors moving towards whatever they determine to be. So your engineer is coming this Friday. Right? Whatever that engineer determines, whatever your your your construction, your your seawall construction contractors, gotta get them going. That's why I asked for the magistrate to do two things today, to find a a violation and to set another hearing. This way, you can go back to them and say, look. I've already been found guilty for this. Okay. I have a hearing on this date. You gotta make this happen. Right. Okay? You I've given you ammunition to hold over their heads.

Okay.

So

There and you've been found guilty of a violation, and there might be a penalty in whatever amount. We don't know yet because I haven't determined that and haven't asked me to determine it yet. So you do have that to hold over their heads. And and mister Ferraro, could you kinda help guide her to the person, or desk or where she needs to go next?

I can explain to

you what

we need to do, and I'll give you my number to call me and just tell me the progress and how it's progressing and stuff like

that. Terrific. Okay?

Okay. Yeah. One of the I'll I'll editorialize a minute. One of the positive aspects of these hearings is sometimes it gets the parties together where they can understand each other and know what the path is to get everything straightened out. So

That's actually what I need.

Yeah. And you He'll help you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. And very good job in your presentation, by the way.

Oh, thank you.

Okay.

Are these your pictures? Yes. I'll take them.

Yes. I'll speak to you, if I need. Okay?

Okay. Next case.

Next case is letter TAs in Tom. These poor people have been waiting so long. Case 250819 for 138 Bahama Avenue. That that's you. Right? Yeah.

Mark and Sheila Gerrado and Veronica Gerrado. Must be you. Everybody else has left. Okay. So somebody's here, to defend the case. Mister Youngkin, go ahead and proceed when you're ready.

Alright.

Yep. Still good morning. Good morning, miss magistrate. My name is Patrick Youngkin. I'm assigned to the code enforcement department of Mark on one police department. On 04/28/2025, while on routine patrol, I observed a boat and boat trailer parked in violation of city ordinance three zero dash one zero zero seven subsection D, Subsection 1. And that is at one thirty eight South Bahama Avenue, which is in within the confines of the city of Marco Island. First off, I looked around for anyone and also rang the bell. Nobody was home and nobody was working on the boat. So I then issued a notice of violation.

Here's photos of violation which are clear and accurate depiction of what I observed that day. Picture picture of the boat parked in the driveway. The life split of the boat trailer. When I saw that, I issued a notice of violation. Here's a photo of the notice of violation.

It says boat and boat trailers must be parked in an enclosed structure out of view from the street. And then that's something

Twenty four hours to comply or you're subject to a citation or fines.

Thank you.

Because this this violation is subject to a citation if we wanted to go that route.

Okay.

I instead gave twenty four hours to comply.

Okay.

Here's a photo of the notice of violation. What that is? I'm sorry. There's a photo posted. A photo of the notice.

The notice of violation went both to the homeowner and to the boat owner.

The boat owner is different than the homeowner?

Yes, sir. I'm getting to that. So after the boat owner received us in the mail, she did send us that they did sell the boat. And here's the notice of the I'm sorry, the sale of the boat. Problem solved. To the homeowner. Correct. There's an affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. The notice of hearing.

Notice of hearing also went to both parties. Posted notice of hearing. Certified mail. Did a follow-up on 05/07. They were, remain noncompliant.

We did another follow-up violation I'm sorry. Another follow-up on the seventeenth. They still were. When I did a follow-up on 05/19, they were compliant at that time. There's the five year history.

None none of which came to magistrate court. They did have four other violations for boat boat trailer parking, but none of them that came to magistrate court.

That's all I have.

K. Thank you. Can I hear from the respondent now?

Yeah. I'm Jacob Crawford. Basically, what happened, we bought the boat and planned to put it on the boat lift, and the boat lift pull failed. So we didn't really have time to deal with it before we got a violation. And now the boat pull is fixed and the lift is working and it's obviously fixed.

And you sold the boat?

No. We didn't sell the boat. The boat is on the lift now instead of in the driveway.

Oh, okay.

I see. The lift was basically failed.

And the trailer's not in the driveway anymore?

No. Okay.

And when did you do that? I think there was some testimony that it was gone by about the nineteenth of, was it May?

Yeah. The, we had heard from the contractor that it'd take about a a week or so to get the boat dock fixed, and it ended up taking about two or three. I don't recall. But it, took longer than expected. So

So how long was how big was the boat?

It's a 25 foot boat. Oh, okay. Yes.

Alright. Anything else?

No. I mean, the boat was there. He saw it.

So k. Thank you. Anything else on behalf of the city? Okay. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today, I find it as a matter of fact that the conditions, as described by the city, did exist on the date, times, and at the place locate indicated. And, I concluded as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island. Probably, you were not surprised by that. So the finding is guilty. The bigger question is recommendation concerning any fines and cost of prosecution.

City requests a $100 fine and $50 costs.

$100 fine and $50 cost of prosecution. You have, respondent, you have the right to object to that or to tell me what you think it should be.

I guess no objections.

Okay. The, $50 cost of prosecution, you've heard me you've heard some of the other cases. They Marco Island charges a very minimal cost of prosecution. You usually, that's done by the number of times somebody has to go out and so on and so forth. And if you look around any of the other cities and counties around here, it's a heck of a lot more than 50.

So, so maybe you're getting a little bit of a deal, because, on the cost of prosecution. $100 fine is somewhat I mean, it's it's never minimal, but the maximum is $250 per day. So it could be it could be worse. Yeah. You could be having a worse day than today. So, so that will be my order. $100 fine, $50 cost of prosecution.

Thank you. Next up is letter i's in India case 250917 for 138 South Bahama Avenue.

Okay. And and I see this is the same respondents. No wonder you haven't gotten up and left. Okay.

Good morning, mister Magistrate. My name is Gary Miller. I'm current enforcement officer with the city of Mark Lyon Police Department. The address of the violation is 138 South Bahama Avenue, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Markle Island. On 05/13/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of litter and debris and sidewalk encroachments, which is a violation of Markle Island code eighteen thirty six nine and forty two thirty six echo. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of words