Code Enforcement - Regular Meeting

Are we on the record?

We're ready.

We're going.

We're on the record? Okay. Hi. Good morning, everybody. This is the, city of Barco Island, code enforcement magistrate hearings, date.

Today is July '25, and I'll call the meeting to order. My name is Robert d Pritt. I'm an attorney. I will serve as the special magistrate, for the code enforcement hearings today. My task is to hear testimony and take any other evidence to make findings of fact, and conclusions of law based upon the evidence, that we hear today and to make a determination of guilty or not guilty, and, to issue an order, based upon the evidence, which could be an order of compliance.

It could be, it could be a fine. It could be cost, etcetera, depending upon, the outcome of the hearings. The city attorney, Joe Nutello, will will announce the order of hearings this morning and will announce each case. I will then take testimony and evidence from the city's representatives and then from the respondent or respondents. So everybody will have a chance to testify here today.

Now all testimony must be taken under oath, so I'm going to administer the oath right now. If there's anybody in this room who thinks that they may want to say anything at any of the hearings today, please raise your right hand. Okay. I see everybody in the room has raised their right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you will give today in in any or all of the hearings will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I hear it. Okay. Everybody in the room has been duly sworn. If anybody comes into the room later on, and, they haven't been sworn, if somebody could, help me identify that, and we'll administer the oath to that person if when they come into the room. Okay. I think we can go ahead with the agenda for today. Mr. Nutella, you want

Thank you. Good morning. Joe Nutella on behalf of Senator Marco Island. Starting on case a as in alpha on your docket, case 250682 for 10 Marco Lake Drive.

And that's, city of Marco Island versus Diane Chestnut. Is Diane Chestnut here? Yes. Diane Chestnut is here.

Good morning, mister magistrate. My name is James Muldoon, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. This case was actually done by officer John Negra. The address of the violation is 10 Marco Lake Drive, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On fourthreetwenty twenty five, officer Negra observed a code enforcement violation of paving work without a permit, which is a violation of Marco Island code one zero five point one and six point one one one. Officer Negra took pictures of the violation, which is our accurate reflection of what he observed.

Mister Muldoon, what is Yes. What are we looking at that's the violation?

This is a parking lot in front of this building. The violation is where where you see the dark the dark part of the pavement. It was paved over without a permit. So

the issue, it looks like it says on at least on the agenda that it's, no building permit is the the alleged violation. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you.

Officer Negra issued a notice of violation for violating work without a permit. Officer Negra gave a compliance date of 06/03/2025 to obtain a permit. Here's the NOV, notice of violation. He issued a stop work order at the time, And that's the posting of the violation. No follow-up inspections were conducted except for the fact that today, I checked with, building our our administrative assistant checked with building to see if a permit has been obtained yet, and it has not been obtained as of today.

Has one been applied for?

It's been applied for. There has been documents, provided, but not enough documents to approve the permit. Here's the notice of violation number.

Hang on just a second. Let me read it, please. Okay. Thank you.

Notice the violation letter, affidavit of violation, Certified mail documents to the location. Notice of hearing. Affidavit of

Go back to the notice of hearing. Is that for today's date? I saw something for the June hearing, and I just wonder. Yes. Okay. That's today's date. Thank you.

After David is posting. Violation posted at the location. There is no previous history of this violation for this, location in within five years, and that's all I have. Okay.

Excuse me. Anything further, mister Nutella, at this time?

I do

have one additional thing. I don't know. I I can provide it right now. Maybe it's best that I do. It's an email from James Reynolds to someone at the location involving this.

Who who is James Reynolds?

James Reynolds is the manager of the building department. Okay. Is answering someone. This was on 06/03/2025. I'll just read it, and then I'll put it down for you to read.

The identified work does require a permit. It is minor, but severity does not necessarily equivocate to a determination or an allowance. Marco Island has required any site work like this, be it commercial or residential, to obtain a site permit since at least 2009. There is also a license requirement, and I have included investigator brought so he is aware of the developing unlicensed repaving. Normally, there are row and accessibility concerns.

However, as I do not have all the facts of the contract and the site details, I can only go off photos. Regardless, material was added and a permit was required. I am unsure how these events came about with the owner and code, but building is here to facilitate. This was on June 3, an email.

And who was that to? I can't see it.

It was sent to rpwitten@rpwittengmail.com. I don't know who that person is. Also, to Stuart McEvoy and Broton Timothy. They are from Marco Island and Collier County. And Keith Richter, supervisor of code at Marco Island.

And that's all I have, sir.

Okay. Thank you. Diane Chestnut, it's your turn.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Diane Chestnut. I am the property owner of 10 Dash 12 Marco Lake Drive, a commercial mixed use property designed and permitted in 1989 with a building footprint of 3,000 square feet across two stories.

Excuse me, ma'am. I'm sorry. Could you just turn the microphone towards you so that I can hear your voice better? Or or move over your speed closer to microphone, please. Thank you.

Do you need me to repeat

right there. No. It's very good, though. Thank you.

Okay. Permitted in 1989 with a total building footprint of approximately 3,000 square feet across two stories. This is my home. I live upstairs. I use the downstairs for personal storage. The property includes a professionally engineered drainage system, which successfully retained water runoff without incident unlike any neighboring properties. And I have brought with me today for your review when the building was built its total drainage retention system. And this is

Excuse me. And what is that document that you unfold? It looks like a It's an architectural

that was approved by Collier County when the building was built. Could I give it to you to look at?

Or I don't

know how to

I I don't know. Just let me know what it is you want me to see on that.

Well, I I do want you to see the total drainage

Could you, help her

Mister Magistrate, if I could. Yes. Not not to be ungrateful, but I'm not quite sure what the drainage schematics have to do with the paving without a permit.

That's okay. I'll hear

it. Yeah.

Thank you. It shows that the retention area

It's upside down here, so we can't Alright.

This is the front of the building and where there is a culvert in this right of way area. Parking spaces. The culvert drains from the rear retention area back here. Can you slide this forward? From the rear retention area under, piped under, and to this culvert in the front. Okay. I'm sorry. That took longer to explain than I No.

That's okay.

Yes. In January 2025, I engaged a paving contractor who was repeatedly visible doing multiple commercial jobs on Marco Island using commercial road grade equipment. I verified the quality of his work beginning in October 2024 through December 2024. On three other jobs, I felt the work was done well. I had him do my work, which was an overlay, in January.

The contractor informed me that no permit was required for minimal asphalt overlay. This was a very thin skim coat to cover cracks that had been rubberized, filled, but left an unsightly pattern in the blacktop. I scheduled the work. He did the work. The overlay did not change the size, shape, function of the parking area, and preserved all existing drainage and retention features.

My intent was purely aesthetic. This asphalt is a total front backsides of 2,000 square feet as originally designed. Nearly three months later, after the work had been done, on April 3, I received a code violation and a stop work order. After all the work had been completed, I immediately contacted code. They referred me to the building department where I encountered further challenges.

Two professional ceiling companies I had out visited my site but refused to move forward after visiting the city to inquire what their requirements were. This strongly suggests the permitting process is either unclear or inconsistently applied. The city's online permitting portal was offline being changed. I requested the names of all asphalt contractors that had been permitted or issued permits by Marco Island for the last three years. I then and what that revealed was basically there was only one company doing asphalt work on Marco Island, None in '25, only one in '24.

That seems kind of unusual to me. The third call to the building department, I was told I could not apply for a permit as property owner. It was recommended I get a general contractor. The building department has not provided a clear scope of work to apply for a corrective permit. My licensed general contractor has made multiple documented attempts to get the permit, which he applies.

The permit is then closed as no scope of work is attached. The city has not provided the scope of work that they want done. I want to be explicitly clear. I did not knowingly violate any city code or attempt to bypass any permit process. I have made every effort to resolve this matter in good faith.

I have invested significant time, resources, professional consultation over the past four months to comply with the city's requirements, but cannot proceed without basic information. I was a victim of a contractor who misrepresented permitting requirements but operated publicly in multiple commercial locations, none of which have been cited. I have also cooperated with Collier County to pursue their action against this contractor for making his misrepresentations to me. I respectfully request the following. It is obvious I am diligently trying to correct this.

A sixty day extension to allow my general contractor to obtain the appropriate permit once he has been provided the required scope of work from the city. The building department should be directed to provide a clear written outline of which permits, as multiple permits have been requested, and what work they want done to resolve this issue. I am requesting that the violation be considered for dismissal or the fine removed given the absence of willful intent, the completion of high quality work with no public or environmental harm, and my continued effort to try to bring the matter into compliance. This entire situation stems from miscommunication and lack of clarity, not negligence. I am seeking only to fix an issue that I did not knowingly create.

I appreciate your time in considering this request. These are the emails back and forth trying to obtain what I'm supposed to do and by who. I also brought with me a livestream because I feel it is very unfair, the pictures that were shown to you, as they were taken after the street sweeper came by, went down the street, swept everything over to my side, came back down the street, and then covered my whole area. So I think you seeing it today live is most important.

Is there a way of putting that there so we can see it?

Water runs perfectly. There is no look at the sidewalk. Very smooth job. I do wanna have it sealed and striped. And I do understand I need to have a permit for that, which were the two contractors that came to try to obtain that permit and then refused because they didn't wanna work with the city after they went to the building department.

So Okay. That's all I have. If you have any questions, brought with me this also that shows the building on the property with the park parking spaces. This is the retention area.

Okay. Any documents that you want to submit into the record today, we need to identify them and, get, give them to the administrative, staff or the clerk over here. Do you want those emails to go into the record?

I I don't know. Why do I need to have them in the rec I'm I'm sorry. I don't know.

That's that's really up to you as to whether whether or not you think they add anything to your testimony or if your testimony has covered it adequately.

I think I definitely on 07/27 this is an email from my contractor who is RP Witten, General Contracting, who does work on Marco Island. And he's informed me, once again, they have rejected my right of way permit application because there was no scope of work listed. The man has applied for two different types of permits probably six times. The permit goes in. It has no scope of work because he doesn't know what they're looking for.

Gets closed. Oh, you need a different type of permit. Files that. No scope of work attached because he doesn't know. Closed. So I think I have represented my case. And should it be necessary, I have these going forward for I don't wanna take any more time up or I'm just trying to fix.

Okay. Well, thank you very much for your explanation and your testimony. Is there anything in rebuttal from the city?

That's affirmative.

Mister Nutello, I'm I'm interpreting at least part of this as being a request for a continuance to see if this can be resolved. What is the city's position on that? Do you, do you object to that? It it sounds to me like she has been trying to resolve the the issue, but still needs more time and who knows what else in order to get this resolved.

The issue is, I mean the city is more than happy to give them sixty days to obtain and comply to obtain the permit and comply with it by obtaining the permit. Unfortunately, the violation is completed. The work was done without a permit. And so that's not going to change sixty days from now, one hundred days from now. That's true. The goal is for Ms. Chestnut to get a permit and then the case gets closed out. The city is not looking for pretty in fines here and and and we're not looking to to to tack on to we're just looking for the straight standard fine that's given that's issued under the code for occasions when work is done without permit.

Okay. Yes, ma'am.

Can I respond to that?

Yes. You have the right to respond.

I would ask for consideration in the fact that this contractor worked blatantly over four months, multiple commercial jobs on this island without a permit and have not been cited. And that is how I ended up using him, was watching the work being done on Marco. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Anything else from either party? Okay. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today, it appears that the and I find as a as a matter of fact that the conditions as alleged and as testified to by the city did exist and do exist.

This appears to be, the necessity of giving of getting a permit. And I understand perhaps the frustration in getting the permit, but the work was done without a permit. And, whether it's your fault or not, code enforcement violations really don't or are not dependent upon whether or not somebody has an intent to do something. You know, burglary is very important for a consideration as to whether or not somebody intended to do something. But these code enforcement matters are simply did the conditions as alleged exist on the date, time, and place indicated.

And I do find that they did exist, and and and it's without a permit. So, I conclude as a matter of law that, it is a violation. Not having the permit is a violation of the codes of the city of Marco Island. So the finding is guilty. Probably the more important thing now is for us to talk about what to do about it. And, I'd like to hear from mister Nutella. I did hear from him already, but I give you a minute to, recollect your thoughts on that. And, what is your recommendation that we do, that that the outcome should be from here?

The city is just looking for a one time fine. Again, the standard work without a permit fine of $250 and $50 cost for the hearing today. Sixty days to obtain the permit and comply. There's no penalty being attached or requested to not getting it within sixty days. In trying to give Ms. Chestnut as much consideration as we can and yet still have the process.

And if compliance is not achieved within the sixty day period, what happens?

Mean, could put a per diem fine on there, but I think Ms. Chestnut will be able to get that done within sixty days as long as her contractor communicates with it and meets their obligation or providing the the materials that that are requested. If there's if there's any miscommunication, the contractor needs to be clear from the building department what it is they need. This is not a complicated permit. This there should be no misunderstanding as far as what's needed to get this permit for this paper.

But one of the things I think I understand from this is that the that when you go in to get a building permit, you have to have, unless you're doing it yourself, which she cannot do it herself, this type of thing, paving, then she has to get somebody to do it for her. And if she's testified that that that is her a lot of her frustration is she can't get somebody to to do it for her, certainly, has not so far. Ma'am, any anything further? If you if you wanna say anything further, get on the microphone there.

Yes. I immediately when the building department suggested said I couldn't do it, they suggested suggested getting a general contractor. I immediately contacted a general contractor. I think it's important to understand exactly what permits they want. First, it was a permit.

Now I understand it's two permits. But both of those permits and this is as of emails yesterday from the city both of those permits require, upon the application for the permit, the scope of work. Who is going to determine the scope of work? I would like to know who that person is or what department that is. So I'm in constant communication with the contractor who works through the portal, so everything should be

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

In determining the amount of the fine, I'm quoting from the, from the statute, one sixty two zero nine two b, the enforcement board, in this case, magistrate, shall consider the following factors, the gravity of the violation, which means how serious is it, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, and any previous violations committed by the violator. I think that the the gravity of the violation is about average. The actions there have been actions taken by the violator to correct the violation. And we have, I believe, a statement there are no previous violations committed by the violator. Based upon that, I'm not going to impose a $250 fine, a onetime fine.

I'm going to take it down to $100 because of the items two and three. I think there have been diligent efforts to take care of it. Secondly, I will allow sixty days. Sixty days, when is the next code the code enforcement hearing the day before or the two months from now?

That'd September 30.

Okay. Is that close to sixty days from now, John? Yeah. So until September 29 to correct the violation. That's we what we do is we we try to do that up to the day before the neck the hearing that's involved. In this case, it's two months. So so we would I'll allow until September 29 for this to be resolved. I can't tell you how to resolve it. That's not my within my jurisdiction. I think the city has heard you, and and you did a very good presentation, by the way.

So and that will be to obtain the permit. If there's some problem that causes you not to be able to obtain the permit that the city thinks is is is a good reason, they can always extend it, but I can't. Okay? So you need to talk with them and try to get this thing resolved, and I hope they can get it resolved with you. But I do think there should be a fine for each day of noncompliance after the the sixty day period, and I'm going to make that $100 per day for each day of violation.

So we will it's very, very important for you to try to get this resolved before that September on or before that September 29 date. Okay?

My great desire.

Alright. Well, thank you very much for coming in. I think it was very worthwhile.

Thank

you. Did oh, did you get to understand that then? Okay. It was not exactly what was recommended, but I think that it's fair, just and proper under the circumstances. Thank you.

Next case? Ma'am, I forgot to say. There is a $50 cost that's also involved. So it's $100 fine plus $50 in costs. And that's cost of prosecution. It's a very low amount for the amount of work they have to put into it, but that would be included also in the order. Thank you. Okay. So we're going to f? Correct.

Michael Amolo Trust and Pinch a Penny. Is anybody here for either one of those? Sir, you're here for

Pinch a Penny.

Pinch a Penny? Anybody else? Okay. Let's go ahead and proceed.

Good morning, mister magistrate. My name is Patrick Youngkin. I'm assigned to the code enforcement department of Mark Olin Police Department. On 06/18/2025, while en route a routine patrol, I observed an unchlorinated pool being emptied into a storm drain, which is a MS four illicit discharge in violation of code 18 dash two one two. This occurred at 340 West Flamingo Circle, which is within the confines of the city of Zamarkov Island.

I'm sure we have quite a few photos of the violation. These are hoses coming from the pool out to the front directly into the storm drain, which also went into storm drains of neighbors down the block. And their work trailer. I issued a notice of violation.

No testing or dechlorination done, is that what that says?

Yes, sir. That's correct. I I spoke to the person cleaning it Okay. Emptying the pool. And also he had his his foreman call me and I asked those questions and he said no testing has been done. Also, they're supposed to have the testing available if it had been done. They did not. K. This is nurse violation posted at the house. The notice of the code violation that was sent to both the homeowner and pinched penny.

Affidavit of violation also sent to both. Affidavit of posting. The notice of hearing sent to both? Notice a hearing posted at the house. And both sent certified mail.

That's all I have. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I will hear from Pinch a Penny. Hello.

My name is Travis Sharp. I own the Pinch Penny in Bonita Springs. That's, you know, the company that was doing the work.

Okay. Yeah. Also, looks like the owner perhaps it's the owner of Willow Trust. Mhmm. Are you here in their behalf also or just in your own behalf?

I'm here on my own behalf. But regardless of anything that this does, this doesn't when I leave here today, I don't want anything to come back on the homeowner. We'll take responsibility for what it is that happened

Okay.

More than anything.

Go ahead and proceed.

No. I don't really have much to say. This is my first job down here. We neutralized on Monday, but we don't the guys don't have test kits on them when we go to drain a pool. So it's a learning experience for this area,

and that's about all I got.

Well, you do this other places other than Marco Island. Right? Yep. Do the other towns and counties and so on, do they There's parameters basically. What do they have?

The pool water is supposed to end up in the homeowner's yard. And we go out a day or two before and dump in a bottle of chlorine neutralizer, but never have we had guys there with test kits while it's being empty.

Sir, if I could just offer, so what the city will do, the next job you do in Marco Island, before you actually start the job, call the code enforcement division, the supervisor will come out with a test kit. They'll be able to test it for you. If it tests clean, it tests clean.

Okay.

That's fine. There's no violation.

Okay.

And other pool companies have learned that as well. So we offer it to you so that contaminated water does not end up in our groundwater. Okay. So in in future, if you don't have test kits yourself, if you had test kits and you tested it, we show up, say, look, here's test kit I just did. It shows clean.

Okay. Yeah. Moving forward, obviously, we'll do that. So

Yeah. We have about four thirteen cities and 67 counties in Florida. Mhmm. And each one may have its own tolerance for how it's done or procedures for how it's done. So if you're working in more than one jurisdiction, whatever jurisdiction you're working in, it's it's a very good idea to find out what they think is okay.

I live in a different jurisdiction, and nobody thinks anything about taking water out of the pool and and Yeah. And and putting it into drains and so on. But Marco Island does, and and others do too. And and there there's a problem with it because you never heard the testimony. Yep. Okay. Anything else?

That's it.

Alright. Anything further from the city? Okay. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented here today, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as alleged and testified to by the city, did exist, on the dates, times, and at the location indicated. I find as a matter of law that this does constitute a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island. Do we have a recommendation the finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation from the city as to what to do in this case?

Yes, sir. So we're we're seeking a finding of irreparable harm, and as such, the standard $5,000 fine and $50 cost. Mister Richter will speak to you afterwards about the mitigation program the city offers.

Okay. Okay?

So but that's that's what we're we're

And then taking care of this, not as far as the Lulos go, nothing comes back to the homeowner? I take care it.

That's correct. Make sure that it's

contractor only, that the violation is not found on the contract. And thank you for reminding me.

He was anticipating my next question. This the property owner, the city is not going to go?

Not not not asserting any, violation from the the, I'm sorry, the property owner. This is contractor only.

K. Okay. The the request is for a finding that this is irreparable. Dumping things into drains is, in the view of, the city of Marco Island and and other places too, something that's, irreparable but can't be fixed.

Mhmm.

Once it's done, it's done. That's why the fine is, so high. It in the statute, it's up to $5,000. I'll read from the statute. If a code enforcement board, in this case, a magistrate, finds the violation to be irreparable or irreversible in nature, it may impose a fine not to exceed $5,000 per violation.

Based upon the fact that you came in and we had this discussion, this testimony. I'm going to reduce it to $4,000, and and $50 cost, which is a very minimal cost for a prosecution. And so that'll be my it's a onetime fine.

K. Who do I pay? That the reason why we're here?

Well, yeah, what you need to do is get with somebody afterwards as to how you take care of that. But to avoid it in the future, well, I think you got some advice there from the city attorney as to how to avoid, this in the future. And if there's a there is a process for reducing fines once they're paid and taken care of and so on. And but that's that's beyond me. I I have the power to reduce a fine, but not at this point. Okay? So they can you can talk with them about it. But thank you for coming in

Thank you.

And being straight up with us.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Okay. Anything else that we need? We're not going against the property owner. Just against pinch a penny. All right. Thank you, sir.

Next up is letter I as in India, case 20Five-ten36 for 826 Magnolia Court.

This is the Lycos Group Inc. Illicit illegal discharges. Is anybody here on behalf of the Lycos Group Inc?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Good morning, miss Magistrate. Name is Gary Miller.

Good morning.

Yep. Code enforcement officer with City of Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 826 Magnolia Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the City Of Marco Island. On 06/01/2025, I observed a court enforcement violation of a illicit discharge, which is a violation of Marco Island code 18 dash two one two. I took pictures of the violation on that day, which is a accurate reflection of what I observed.

You can see there was a seawall not seawall. There was a silt fence along the back by the seawall that collapsed and sand, dirt, silt, sediment was flowing over the seawall into the canal. Well, I issued a notice of violation for violating eighteen two one twelve, and here's a photo of the NOV. And I wrote it for irreparable and irreversible damage.

Okay.

NOV posting. No follow-up investigations were done because it's irreparable. Here is a affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing to the homeowner.

Notice of hearing to the contractor. Posted notice of hearing. Certified mail doc for the homeowner and certified mail doc to the contractor. And that is all I have.

I'm I'm sorry. This is the which one is this? This is

This this one is for the contractor. That one is for the homeowner.

Okay. Okay. Yeah. I see you've got both of them cited. Alright.

Okay. Sir, you're up.

Good morning, gentlemen.

Good morning.

My name is Patrick

It makes sense what you have on your shirt there.

Yeah. I

couldn't see it. I saw the l, but I couldn't read the rest of

it.

Yep. Yep. Now my name is Patrick Bisser. I'm a project manager with the Lycos Group. Mhmm. I am the project manager for the 826 Magnolia project. As soon as we heard about the violation, we had it corrected within a day or two. And I was on the impression that it was reinspected. I just heard that it was not reinspected. Understandable. But it has been done. This is actually a photo today, but it has looked like this since the day after. You know, it's And the

main difference is that it's clean looking on the

Do you see the black fence that's there?

Yeah.

That's what had collapsed. And it's a was a little bit specific to this job site where there's a dead man that runs from the seawall back. We had to drive helical piles. We had to create the hole for that helical pile. And unfortunately, there's just not a lot of space there. As soon as we, you know, got the project done, we put it back to this the standard.

Okay.

Any other documents you want me to look at?

No. It was it was corrected right away. Again, I kind of inherited the project. But again, as as soon as we were violated, we put it back as, you know, as good as we could.

Okay. I'll admit the documents, from both the city and from, the respondent into evidence unless there's an objection. K.

No objection.

So we'll need to have that. We'll need to keep that.

Absolutely. I mean, I do have another one that looks

the same. Yeah. If you have another one, we'll take that too.

A little bit closer up. Okay. Alright.

I'll admit that into evidence also. Anything else?

No. I mean, not not necessarily. I mean, it's hard to tell from a photo if anything actually ended up into the to the canal itself, you know, without, you know, looking into the canal. It's hard to tell, but, I'm here. Again, build a lot of houses on this island. We're here to correct the issues. We certainly do not wanna cause any issues with the city of Marco Island.

Okay. Thank you. Does the city have anything to add?

Yes. Would like to clarify assessment. There was reinspection done on the silt fence, but it was because I wrote two notices of violation. One violation was for the irreparable damage for illicit discharge. The other violation was for a down silt fence. So for that violation, I did do a reinspection and we closed out that case. On the set on the fence.

The only thing in front of me then is the original

Is the illicit discharge.

The illicit discharge. Okay. Thank you. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as described by the, city, did exist on the dates and times and at the location, indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that this does constitute a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island, and that it is it is irreversible once once it gets into the canal.

It's in the canal. So the finding is guilty. I do need to get, input from both the city and the, violator as to, what the penalty ought to be.

Thank you. So the city is seeking a one time fine of $2,500 and $50 cost as it is seeking the $2,500 based on the fact that it is found to be irreparable.

2,500?

That's correct. So

it's not as bad as some of them, but it's bad. That kind It's of what you're kind of in the middle. 5,000 is the max. And so that's about half.

The other the other factor in in consideration of this is is the fact that it's it is what it the material that was dumped into the canal is dirt.

It's presumably dirt, maybe some stone or something.

Not chemicals. It's not so

Okay. As opposed to chemicals and and things like that, Okay. And is the city proceeding against both the property owner and the contractor?

No. Thank you for asking for clarification. Just the contractor, not the property owner.

Okay. Sir, you have the right to argue about that. But if you wanna say anything concerning that, you have the right to to do so.

I mean, not necessarily. There's no firm evidence showing any dirt in the in the canal itself. I mean, it's on the seawall. Yes. But there's no image of in the canal or there's no standard measurement of depth to determine that anything actually did go into the canal.

Okay. Thank you. I've been doing this for a while, and, I think you got a pretty good deal from the city and on the recommendation. So I I've I'm going to go with the $2,500 onetime fine and $50 in costs. Okay. Alright. And and you were here for the last one. I I think I told the person that they certainly have the right. Once once the fine is paid and all done, if if they wanna come back and ask for a reduction, that's something that you can deal with the staff on. Sometimes they agree to it.

Sometimes they don't. It would come back to me, but it doesn't come back to me yet. I don't have jurisdiction over that over reduction of fines yet in this case. Okay. Thank you.

Director will meet with you afterwards. He'll explain the mitigation process for you if you're interested.

Okay. Great.

Thank you. Next up is letter O as in Oscar. It's on page three. Case 250996 for 1195 Twin Oak Court.

DSI General Contractors Inc and Francis and Jane Murphy. We have somebody here. Okay.

Good morning, mister Madstreet. My name is Gary Miller, code enforcement officer, city of Markle Island Police Department. I'm presenting this case on behalf of officer Sullivan who wrote this notice violation. The address of the violation is 1195 Twin Oak Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On 05/24/2025, officer Sullivan observed a court enforcement violation of storm water pollution prevention and construction, silt fence, which is a violation of Marco Island code eighteen two one three Charlie.

He took pictures of the violation on that day. And you can see along the side rear of the property, there is no silt fence. Here is a photo of the that's the yep. Photo of the NOV.

Large area of sight leaking, is that it, or lacking sod. Is that what it says?

Yes. Sod. And then, yep, lacking sod. Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Photo of the NOV posting. Follow-up investigations were conducted on 05/2018, 07/2017. Here is a picture that I took on July 6 showing that the silt fence still has not been installed. And then here is the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting, notice of hearing to the homeowner, notice of hearing to the contractor, posted notice of hearing, certified mail dock for the homeowner, and certified mail dock for the contractor. And that is all I have.

Okay.

Thank you. Sir, you're up.

Okay. I'm surprised the contractor isn't here.

Oh, yeah. Hang on. Get on the mic there. Go ahead.

Francis Murphy, 1195, Twin Oak Court.

You are the owner or the contractor?

I am the owner.

The owner. That's what

I That's why I came. Okay. I wanted to make sure if the contractor didn't come, that I would.

Is the contractor here?

Apparently not. Which I would thinkwe have a permit and everything else. Did everything with a licensed contractor. And, he has an engineer that is required. I would think between the engineer and the contractor, they would know what the regulations are.

And obviously, they didn't take care of what should have been taken care of. So when I got the violation, I did contact the contractor, Ian Scully, and told him to correct the issue, to put up the fence or whatever was needed for the for the violation to correct it. He neglected to do that. I contacted also Mr. Sullivan. And he told me that, typically, that I would not get fined for that. I did try to take the

I am sorry. Who is Mr. Sullivan?

Your attorney No.

He is

the enforcement. He's the officer. Court enforcement officer.

Oh. Okay.

Okay. I'm sorry. You're talking about the the court enforcement officer.

So I mean, you know, between the contractor and I would think their engineer, they should know what they're supposed to do. I did immediately tell them, go correct the violation so we wouldn't get any fines and so forth. So I I if you do the contractor fine, I don't care. I just wanna make sure that I'm not held responsible for something that he should have done. And I did my due diligence of trying to stop him from doing that.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything further?

I I give you a text of what I sent to

If you want to put that into evidence, I can do so. Yeah.

Can I give it to them?

Well, the way you do this is the city's attorney has the right to look at it or representative if you want to have somebody.

Okay.

You waive it?

I won't object. You can you can submit it to miss Groove him over there. She'll she'll be able to tell you how to get it to her so it can be added to the case file.

Okay. Yeah. We will need to have a copy for the file. So, yeah, just make sure

you Yeah. I just wanna wanna make sure, you know, I I feel that hit it's his sole responsibility to do it, especially where

I Yeah.

Insisted that he correct the problem too. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Else from the city?

Just real quick. Mister Miller, if you could, because I I missed this and on my it's my fault. Can you show the initial notice of violation, sent to the contractor? I wanna see if any priors or previouses are are indicated on it and so that we can assess whether we're going to pursue repeat violations.

Here's the notice of violation that was mailed to the contractor.

Okay.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Have we heard from the contractor?

No. I have not.

Okay. And they have the contractor has how many prior cases of similar nature within the past five years?

And it doesn't look like any of those went to magistrate.

There's one.

I don't know what the staging, yes and no. What does that stand for?

Whether or not it's a magistrate.

Yeah. I don't see any really quick here for silt fence.

For example, the one that you have here just out there, the the second one down there says staging. Yes. So that means that that did go to the magistrate?

Yes. Okay. And it was invoiced for staging without without a permit.

But it's staging. Okay.

It's staging. It's not. I do not see any priors for silt fence.

Okay. Thank you. Okay.

And also the homeowner, of course, had no vial previous violations for soap vents in the previous five years.

Mister mister Murphy, anything further?

No. Okay.

Based upon the testimony and evidence, presented, today at this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact that the conditions as alleged, and shown by the city, did exist, on the dates and times and at the location indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island. So the finding is guilty. I do need to know whether or not the city is proceeding against the property owner.

No. We're gonna just proceed against the contractor.

Okay. Mister Murphy, lucky lucky you. They're not proceeding against the property owner. They see what happens is they have a right to proceed against the owner of the property always. I mean, if if it's on your property, they they can proceed against the property owner, which is why you probably why you got the notice, of violation in the first place. But they've elected not to proceed against the property owner, probably based upon which is a good thing based upon you coming in here and telling us, what you told us today. So, what is the recommendation of the city, against the contractor?

$250 fine plus $50 cost, fourteen days to comply, compliance being the installation of this proper silt fence, or $100 per day per fine.

Okay. Considering

I just

Sir, you might not want well

No.

No. I just wanna

make make them aware that the that's the job is done now. That's everything's in. Okay. So and I've actually

The salt fences up?

No. No. He didn't put up the

the silt up. Silt fence is put up.

Yeah. But the job is basically done. I'm actually taking care I've taken care of all the irrigation, and we're putting it inside Friday. Okay.

All right. So therefore, time fine of $250 and $50 costs.

I thank you for the clarification. Obviously, there's no use to put up a silt fence now if the job is already done. So I agree with the, recommendation of the, city attorney, and that'll be my order.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Going back to page two on your docket, letter GAs in golf, case 251075 for 1815 Woodbine Court.

Bailey Jenks LLC, Marco Series, and Dunright Pools. Mister Muldoon?

Mister magistrate, my name is James Smallville.

Is anybody here on that case? Are you here on this Yeah. No. Thank you, ma'am.

I don't know that she was sworn in. Were you here when

this Yeah.

She was

sworn in. Yeah.

I'd like to explain how this came about. I was, on room routine patrol going down North Barfield, and I noticed a significant amount of water out on the street of North Barfield. I turned around. I went back. I thought maybe there was a waterline break.

So I turned down this street, went Woodbine Court, and followed the trail to this location. Okay. The address of the violation is 1815 Woodbine Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On 06/03/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of illicit discharge, which is a violation of Marco Island code eighteen dash two one two. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed.

This is the pool. You can see that it's it's empty. The pool has been emptied. There's a line from the water pump going this way, this line here. It comes out in between the buildings and down to the sidewalk.

And here is the discharge into the swale. Significant amount of water was dumped into the swale so much so it it all it went all the way down the street. To North Barfield. This is this house is about two houses away from North Barfield. You can see it's in the street and in the swale here.

It actually went around the corner down North Barfield. And here is the grate. You can't see in this picture, but there was water dripping into this grate at this location, which is on North Barfield. I issued a notice of violation for violating 18 dash two one two with a compliance of irreparable. This is the notice of violation.

Okay. Thank you.

And this is the posting on on the location. Here's the notice of violation letter. That's to the owner. This is to the contractor, Dunright Pools, affidavit of violation, notice of hearing, notice of hearing to Dunmore Dunright Pools, the certified mail docs, the posting of the hearing, the affidavit of posting. And that's all I have.

I I'm sorry. There is no history of previous violations of this kind by Dunright Pools. I just would like to add that this is an email from Dunright to the building department. What happened on this this date is that Dunright Pools was involved with a spa, adding a spa to this location. When it was checked if they had a permit for that, they did not have a permit.

It was still open. It was still in consideration. So I put a stop work order because of the permit request, that was needed. They, in turn, sent this email to the building department. They were referring to the stop order.

They were trying to get the stop order removed, and they were explaining that the reason for the permit request was for a spa addition. What they were talking about in terms of this pool being emptied, we were fixing a leak in the pool, which we do not need a permit for. The spa addition work has not started yet. So they were basically saying we did do that, Dunroy Pools. So we did it, but it wasn't before was for not for the spa addition. It was because a water leak in the pool.

But mister Muldoon, this violation that we're here today on is the is the draining of the pool the illicit discharge into the water system?

That's correct.

Not on not on work without a permit. Okay. Alright.

That's correct. It's not it's not for that. No. Just just trying to explain how this came about. Alright. I have no history of this happening, and I have not received any documentation or I've never been contacted about whether this water was treated before it was discharged into the swale. That's all I have.

Okay. Thank you. Ma'am, it's your turn.

Hi. My name's Alexa from Dunright Pools. When we went to empty this pool out, we did dechlorinate it. We were not under the impression that we had a call code enforcement to let them know that it was dechlorinated. So the day he gave us, the notice, we stopped emptying the pool. The pool was not a 100% empty yet. I called code enforcement's phone number and asked them, you know, who I talked to in this situation and what I do. No one called me back. I called back the next day, and we had a couple phone calls. They put me in touch with Keith, who I believe is the head of, code enforcement.

And him and I spoke a couple times going back and forth of how, you know, what we do in this scenario. He actually went out into the job to meet with Jimmy who works for Dunright Pools. They tested the water together, saw that the pool had no chlorine in it, and we winded up finishing emptying out the pool. So he saw that. And since this has happened, we have now called Keith on every job moving forward to prior of us dumping out a pool. Keith goes to meet with Jimmy. They test the chlorine together, see that the pool is you know, has no chlorine in it, and then we empty it like we are supposed to. So

So it's your testimony that, you indeed did dechlorinate the the pool before that water went out?

Yes. With the dechlorination solution. Yes.

Did you have anything that would indicate that?

There was are there any test strips?

I mean, Keith saw it. I don't have, like, a picture. I hate to say that about throw you under the bus, but he was there and did see it. He didn't see or I guess that's what I should say.

Yeah. We'll just what what I wanna do is just have mister Richter because he's gonna reiterate what what Okay. He just said. But a little bit

Well

a little bit more information is necessary.

Okay. I'll tell you what, though. Hold let's hold that thought so that she can finish anything else she wants to say, and then we'll put him on. You have the right to cross examine him when once he speaks. But I I just wanna make sure I wanna hear from you right now.

I mean, we take responsibility that we empty the pool without checking with code enforcement. Honestly, we had no idea we had to do that. We just thought because the code says you can dump out a dechlorinated pool. We thought if we dechlorinated it ourselves, and it's actually how it's supposed to be, we could empty it. We were not aware that we had to actually show proof to the city, the inspector, whomever that it is dechlorinated.

Okay. Thank you. Mister Richter?

Madam Strach, Keith Richter, Kona Force from Marco Island. Yes. In fact, I did not observe the original violation, which, is this case today. However, I have been in contact, and at this point, I do go out prior to them emptying the pools and and, test it myself so it's dechlorinated. But I cannot testify that this case, that original pool, empty was dechlorinated.

Mister Richter, the day that you went out and tested the the the water, was that on the same day that the original notice of violation?

No. It wasn't.

Okay. Approximately how many days between?

Five. Five. I I was gonna say a week. So, yeah, it was Five days? Five.

I think she said five days, but she was not on the mic. So Yeah. Let's k. Yeah.

I I got the notice on the third, and I talked to Keith on the ninth, and he met us on the job at the ninth. So we stopped emptying out the pool after the first notice. We left it half empty, a quarter empty. And Keith went on the ninth, said it was okay, and we finished emptying the pool.

Okay. Thank you. Mister Ripter, you come back, do they need to get a permit to empty a pool?

No. No permit is required.

So that's kind of the problem. You don't know until later whether or not they have dechlorinated. So now everybody has to go and check with code enforcement before

they take court? We would just write the notice of violation and have, the pool company, prove that it was dechlorinated. I actually try to help them out by testing the water so that we don't have this issue.

And they don't they don't necessarily have to go code enforcement. If if you recall a couple months back, there was a pool company who came, and they actually brought the test kits that they swore under oath were tested the day that they cleaned the pool. We accepted them on their word, and then we dismissed the case.

That's kind of what I'm getting at here. It sounds to me like maybe they did dechlorinate the pool and sent you something that indicated to them. So if they dechlorinated the pool, then, you know, then we probably shouldn't be here at this point. I'm I'm not blaming anybody because you only knew what you knew when you knew it. But if if they did dechlorinate the pool, in fact, yeah, I'm a little concerned that that we're proceeding. So why why would you not be satisfied that they dechlorinated the pool?

Because there's no evidence that we have that it was dechlorinated.

At the time that it was initially drained. Correct.

No. I'll let him testify. Okay.

Well, no. That's exactly right. Well, I have no evidence that it was dechlorinated on on this date.

Okay. Well, the the testing strip or whatever you saw was was as of the date later on. Is that it?

I I went back. Yeah. It was four days later or five days later where they had their test strips, and, you know, we check that it's dechlorinated.

So their test strips were actually for four from four or five days later. Is that correct?

That's correct. Okay.

Ma'am, could I get you back on there? Yeah. Is that correct? Your test strips were from four or five days later?

Yes. So we don't use normal test strips that you guys are referring to. We use, like, a little, it almost looks like vials that you put the pool water in, and then you put different little solutions in, and it shows you the colors. We would have never had a test strip to bring to show you because we do it all on the job. I mean, he literally scooped the water out in front of Keith, put the little solution in, and did it. So it's not something you can, like, save to show anyone. But

Okay. Unless there were a photograph

Yeah. Of the color and Right. But, honestly, we didn't think we had to, you know, show photographs or keep photographs that a pool has been dechlorinated.

Okay. Alright. Anything further from either side?

Nothing further from the city. Okay.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today at this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as described by the city did exist on the dates, times, at the place indicated. I I I think that maybe the water was dechlorinated, but we can't show the the evidence is is too weak to show that it was done prior to the time of the original dumping of the water. And that's unfortunate. But but based upon that, I find I conclude that this was a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. And now I turn to the finding is guilty.

I turn to the to the city attorney for a recommendation as to where we should go from here on a penalty. And, ma'am, you have the right to also speak before I get done before I decide it.

So I I I'd like a number one, a a finding of irreparable harm.

Yes. My finding is this is irreparable harm.

In the interest of consistency with other violations of similar nature heard over the course of my tenure here in this position, I have to request $5,000 fine, dollars 50 cost, with full recognition of the spirit of teamwork and cooperation that they have demonstrated in stopping, reaching out, talk with Keith, and eventually showing that it was it was clear.

Okay. You know, the interesting thing about the statute, it says under two a, a fine imposed pursuant to this section shall not exceed $250 per day for first violation and so on and so forth. However, if a code enforcement board or special magistrate finds the violation to be irreparable or irreversible in nature, it may impose a fine not to exceed $5,000 per violation. That's what b says. A little lawyer talk here for a minute.

Okay? This is what the statute says. But then it says in determining the determining the amount of the fine, if any, the enforcement board shall consider the following factors, the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, and any previous violations committed by the violator. So if but it doesn't say that that does not apply where it's irreversible. Obviously, it could not, number two could not be, under b, could not be considered any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation because the the finding is that it's cannot be corrected because it's irreparable or irreversible.

But the gravity of the violation and any previous violations still could be considered. So based upon the, ma'am, I wanna hear from you before I make up my my mind on what to do here. Okay?

I mean, I really don't know what else to say. I mean, we'll take responsibility for it. We don't want our homeowner to get in trouble or have any cost to him because it wasn't his fault.

Are we proceeding against the homeowners?

No. We're not.

Okay. It's just unfortunate that we did what we were supposed to do, but we just didn't have a photo to prove that, you know, we were in the right in this scenario.

The onetime fine that I will impose will be $4,000. You came in, and and you made a very good presentation. There's nothing wrong with your presentation. I believe what you said to be the truth, so that counts for something. So it'll be $4,000 and a whopping $50, and I say that in quotes, $50 in cost of prosecution.

Cost of prosecution is very, very low in Markel Island. So that will be my order. Only against the contractor, not against the property owner. Understood over there in the administrative section. Thank you.

Please see Mr. Richter outside. He'll explain to you the mitigation process so you can appeal to the city to have the fine reduced.

Okay. All

right. Thank you.

Okay. You.

Thank you. Can I can I just ask for a brief one I mean, one minute, nobody go anywhere, break so I can just make a phone call? Sure. And and then we're just gonna

Well, I don't know. Does anybody else need a break? I don't.

So if if we can proceed, just starting with letter B. B is off the docket. It's been continued.

DAsInDog?

BAsInBoy.

O, B. Okay.

And As well as CAsInCharlie. That also has been removed from the docket as continued. So we'll go ahead and go to D As In Dog, 250925138 South Bahama Avenue.

Mark and Sheila a Gerrado, and I don't see anybody here to defend the case. Mister Miller, go ahead and proceed.

Morning, mister Magistrate. Name's Gary Miller, code enforcement officer of the city of Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 138 South Bahama Avenue, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city Of Marco Island. On 05/13/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of work without a permit for air con for a pool heater replacement, which a violation of Marco Island code one zero five point one six dash one one one. I took pictures of the violation, which is accurate reflection of what I observed on that date.

I used the notice violating for violation for violating one zero five point one six dash one one one. I gave a compliance date of 07/12/2025, and here's a picture of the notice violate violation.

Okay.

I also issued a stop work order. Here's the picture of the posting for the notice violation and stop work order. Here is the work without a permit that was issued by the building department, the Marco Island building department. Follow-up inspections were conducted on seven seventeen, 07/22, and 07/29, which revealed that the location still does not have a building permit. Building permit was applied for on 06/16.

It's the permit is PoolDash25Dash03986. That permit is still an application hold for insufficient documents. Here is a affidavit of violation. Notice of affidavit of posting, notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, The certified mail document. A five year history revealed no prior violations for work without a permit. And that is all I have.

Okay. The documents will be admitted into evidence without objection because there's nobody here to object. So this is a kind of a straightforward, no permit situation. How can you tell it's a replacement, or does that matter?

Well, it doesn't matter if if either it was

new or a replacement. It doesn't matter. If they had to have a permit for well, I mean, a a simple repair would not need a permit. Right?

A a simple repair would not need a permit, but you can see here the the old the old

I see

it. Is laying on it. It's kinda cocked to the side, and the new one is You went

too fast for me to notice the one on the right hand side. Yeah. Okay. It's it's looks like a replacement. Okay. Based upon the testimony and other evidence presented here at this hearing today, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as described, did exist on the date and time and at the location testified to. My conclusion of law is that this constitutes a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation?

Yes. $250 fine, $50 cost for the on the homeowner. Sixty days to obtain the permit or $100 per day.

How many days? Sixty. Sixty. Oh, sixty. I find that to be fair, just, and reasonable under the circumstances and in compliance with the requirements of the factors in the state statute. So that will be my order.

Next up is letter e as in echo, case twenty five one one six four for 1727 Hummingbird Court. Oh, that's removed? Okay, thank you.

Yes, removed.

Thank you.

Sorry. No,

that's okay. I'll forgive you.

Yeah, mine says removed.

Oh, No one told me. Last to know. Okay. We're gonna go with letter k as in kilo then. Case 25073915O1HoneysuckleAvenue.

City of Marco Island versus Hurricane Tree Service. Landscape certificate. K. K.

I'll I'll need to get to Jay next.

Mister Magistrate, my name is James Amaldoon, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation was 1501 Honeysuckle Avenue, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. This landscaping truck was doing work on that, at that address. On 04/12/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of no registration by the landscaper, which is part of the regulated activities, which is a violation of Marco Island code 8.73. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed.

This is the truck. You can see right here they have a ladder up to this palm tree. They were actually cutting the palm tree. This is the company Hurricane Tree Service, the truck, and that was their license plate, which I ran to make sure that they were the actual owners of that truck. I issued a notice violation for violating 8.73.

I gave a compliance date of 05/1225 to obtain a registration. This is the notice of violation. You'll notice the writing down here. What this is is, landscapers on city of Marco Island are required to take an environmental course with the state of Florida. And they then are required to come to city hall and register themselves as landscapers, show the that they passed the test, took the test, took took the class, and they will be issued a decal, which they must show in the, front windshield of their vehicles.

I was going down the road, noticed that they did not have a decal. I pursued what was going along. Well, I mean, this one actually was in a a driveway. I have another one that's similar. But this one was in the driveway. They did not have a decal in their window. So I went up and questioned them about whether they were registered with the city of Marco Island. They said they were not. And I issued the notice of violation here, posted it on their truck. And right here, you'll notice, is a brochure.

We give them a brochure that outlines everything that they are required to do to register, to complete everything that I said to you, a a class, where they have to go for that, how they register for that, and how they register with the city of Marco Island to get registered to do landscaping on this island. At the time of this, there was substantial media about the requirement to get this, to follow these steps, to be doing working landscaping on Marco Island. It was done back in 2023. In fact, we have hundreds of landscapers who complied with this. So the fact that warning was given that this was a requirement on Marco Island was done way back when.

And I submit that as as part of this case. They were given thirty days to they they they committed a violation. They were given thirty days to go and register and complete everything that they had to do to comply with the violation. And this is the notice of violation letter, affidavit of violation, certified dock, and the notice of hearing. There's no previous history of this situation with hurricane tree service.

But as of today, they do not they are not registered. So they they have never complied.

Okay. Anything further?

Nothing further.

Okay. I will admit the documents into evidence, and note for the record that there does not appear to be anybody here to defend the case. Based upon the testimony and other other evidence that has been presented today, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as described, did and do exist, well, did exist at the date and time and at the location indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that, this constitutes a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation from the city?

Yeah. $150 fine one time, and $50 costs.

Now what happens if they don't well, if they don't apply for anything and don't do any more work, then that's you're done with them. Right?

Well, the yeah. Could the the similar to work without a you know, this violation the violation's done. So if we find them again, we'll check them again. Yeah.

Okay. I agree with that. I think that's fair, just, and reasonable, and consistent with the state statute. Okay. Thank you.

Next up letter, J's and Juliet, Case 250921 for 1200 North Collier Boulevard.

Good morning, magistrate. My name is Ron Hofstetter. I'm a code enforcement officer at City of Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 1200 North Collier Boulevard. On 05/09/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of landscape certification registration.

I actually was initially there for another reason. The same landscape truck was parked on the sidewalk in the roadway, which was another violation he was issued, but that was another violation at a different time. But this violation violation of Marco Island code eight dash seven three a. Because when I did stop to see him for the violation over the sidewalk, I checked his truck and he did not have the certification or registration certificate attached to his window. So I again talked with him, he said he was not registered with the city.

I took pictures of the violation, and this is a accurate reflection of what I observed. See, they're parked on the shared path in the walkway, which has dropped me there in the first place. And this shows there's no sticker on the windshield. And, again, I just took the license plate to verify. I issued a notice of violation for violating 8Dash73A, and I gave a compliance date of June 8, which was approximately thirty days to apply and obtain the registration.

K.

This is a photo of the posting of the notice violation. You will see two on there because it was including the other violation.

But one of those is this violation. Is that correct? Correct. Thank you.

There was no reinspections done on this violation, but we do check periodically for registration. And on 06/8623, 07/2224. And then again today, we were checked, there was no registration done. It's an affidavit of violation. Notice of hearing.

The notice of hearing was posted at City hall because this landscape company is out of out of town. And then here's also mailed to them by certified documents. And here's a copy of that. And there were no other violations against this landscape company for this certification. And that's all I have.

Okay. With that, I will admit the documents into evidence. I will note for the record that there does not appear to be anybody here to defend the case. You don't have a defense letter or anything like that, do you?

No, sir.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today, I find that the, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as, testified to, did exist on the dates and times and at the location on the truck, that, has been testified to. I concluded as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation from the city?

Yes. So a one time fine of a $150 plus $50 costs.

A 150 plus $50 cost of prosecution. I find that that that is fair, just, and reasonable and within the factors set out in state statute and that the cost of prosecution is very reasonable. So that will be the order. Thank you.

Next up is letter L as in Lima, case 20Five-ten73 for 225 Dan River Court.

And this looks like it's Grand Star Lawn Service.

That is correct, sir.

Looks like we have a few landscape certification cases today.

Yes.

Kenny, good morning, mister Magistrate. My name is Patrick Young, and I'm assigned to the code enforcement department of Mark Allen Police Department. On 06/03/2025, we're on a routine patrol. I observed Grand Star Landscapers performing work, and they are not registered with Markle Island as per ordinance eight dash one three alpha, and I gave him thirty days to obtain a registration. This was at 225 Dan River Court, is within the confines of the city of Markle Island.

Here are photos of the violation. That was their vehicle. This is their vehicle without the sticker. So I issued them a notice of violation and I gave them a compliance date of 07/03/2025 which is thirty days or a month later. Okay.

I placed a notice of violation on their windshield. Okay, we sent a notice of the code violation. Is the affidavit a violation? And a notice of hearing. There was also a notice of hearing posted at City Hall being that this location is off of Markle Island.

But they were sent at certified mail. We did follow ups on 07/07, 07/15, and 07/22, all of which are after the compliance date. They were still not registered. And then we also checked this morning to make sure for today. And as of this morning, they are still not registered with the Morocco Island City. And that's all I have, sir.

Okay. The documents will be admitted into evidence. And I'll note for the record that there does not appear to be anybody here to defend the case. Have you received a defense packet or anything from the No. Alleged violator?

Nothing, sir.

Nothing. K. Thank you. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today at this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as described did occur or or did exist on the dates, times, and at the place indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that this does constitute a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation for a penalty?

Yes. A onetime fine of $150 and $50 cost.

Based upon the factors that are set out in the state statute, I find that that amount is fair, just, and reasonable and consistent with the statute. So that will be my order.

Thank you, mister Menifee.

Next up is letter m as in Mike, case 250922 for 921 Montego Court.

Mister magistrate, my name is James Muldoon, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 921 Montego Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island on 05/13/2025. I observed a code enforcement violation of no registration by landscaper regulated activities, which was a violation of Marco Island code 8.73. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed. There's no sticker.

Sticker is usually put here on the the sticker is usually here on these trucks so that we can see them when we are patrol. There is none there. Oh, as you see, there's no sticker. And I ran the tag to make sure that they that was the company. I issued a notice of violation for violating 8.73.

I gave a compliance date of 06/13/2025 to obtain a registration. That's the posting of the violation on the truck. Here's the notice of violation letter, affidavit of violation, notice of hearing, certified mail documentation. There's no history for this company in this violation, this code, and they are not registered as of today. That's all I have.

Okay. Anything further? Nothing further? I'll admit the documents and evidence. I'll note for the record that there's not appear to be anybody here to defend. Did you receive anything back? I did not. Or anything like that for defense? Received nothing. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today at this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as described did exist on the dates, times, and at the locations indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island, that the finding is therefore guilty. Do we have a recommendation?

Yes. Onetime fine of a $150 and $50 cost.

Onetime fine of a $150 is fair, just, and reasonable, and is consistent with the state statute. And $50 cost is extremely low and therefore fair. So that will be my order. Next case.

So letter n is in November and letter o in Oscar are removed from the docket. Which brings us

Oh, o is removed?

O is removed as well. N in as in November and o as in Oscar.

Okay. I didn't have that as being o as being removed.

What's that? We did o. I'm sorry. We did o. Did we do o? We did o. I have a line to it. That's all that matters. Let letter p case 251182 for 1787 Hummingbird Court. Removed. Removed.

That would just happen this morning.

All right. Well, has been removed. Yes.

Man. So I'm showing the next one is being Q.

Q, yes. Again, I went on the record last to know.

We we kinda learned those earlier in our career and grade school, but Yes. P then q. Mind your P's and Q's.

Letter Q. Page 20 five-ten 82 for eighteen eighteen Menorca Court.

Right. Miss Majdi Construction. Yeah. Inc.

Alright, miss Majdi. Name Gary Miller, code enforcement officer of the city of Markel Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 1818 Menorca Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the City Of Markel Island. On 06/08/2025, I observed a code enforcement violation of tall grass and weeds, silt fence and sidewalk encroachments, which is a violation of Marco Island code 183618213 Charlie, forty two thirty six echo. I took pictures of the violation, which is the accurate reflection I observed at that time.

Here you can see some of the tall grass and weeds and sand going onto the sidewalk. More pictures of the tall grass and weeds. And silt fence isn't so good in that one, but here's a better picture of the down silt fence. More more pictures of the sidewalk. Issued a notice of violation for violating 18361018213 Charlie 4236 echo, and I gave a compliance date of 06/13/2025.

And here's a photo of the NOV. There is an additional violation on there for sediment in the roadway, but that was corrected and we are not proceeding with that case here today. Okay. Photo of the NOV posting. Follow-up inspection were conducted on 06/14, 07/06, and 07/15, which revealed that the location is still in violation and additional photographs were taken.

Pictures of the tall grass and weeds in the down silt fence. No silt fence on that side of the house. Still the same sediment on the sidewalk and tall grass and weeds. Here is a photo of the mailed notice of violation to the homeowner. Mailed notice of violation to the contractor.

Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing to the homeowner. Notice of hearing to the contractor, posted notice of hearing, a certified mail doc to the homeowner, Certified mail document to the contractor. A five year history revealed one prior violation for silt fence and sidewalk encroachment to the homeowner.

Two prior violations for silt fence, and one prior violation for encroachments for the contractor. And that is all I have.

Okay. I'll admit the documents into evidence. I'll note for the record that there does not appear to be anybody, here to defend the case. Have you received anything from either party?

No. I have not, mister magistrate.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented today, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as, testified to and, and as shown, did exist on the dates, times, and at the locations, location indicated. I find as, and conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the code of ordinances in the city of Marco Island. Therefore, the finding is guilty. Mister city attorney, what what do you have recommendation is a recommendation for a fine?

So I just have one question for mister Miller for clarification. So, ultimately, we're going forward on just one of the violations or two?

No. For I wrote the original original notice violation for four violations. One was corrected. So this is to go after for Gotcha. Three, the tall grass and weed, silt fence, and sidewalk encroachments.

That that's what though. Okay. Just wanna make sure. So the city is looking for $200 fine per case. So $600 in aggregate aggregate one our fines. $50 cost, fourteen days to comply, or $100 per day contractor only.

Oh, this is contractor only? All of this? $100 per day per per violation

per violation.

So that's 300 per day total if they're not corrected. I think is fair, just, and equitable, considering the circumstances. And I think it's consistent with the statute, so I'll go along with that, and that'll be my order.

Susan, you get all

that? Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Mister magistrate, I have on utmost authority and updated authority that letters r and s are both removed from the docket as well.

Yes, and mine shows that it's removed. See, I got mine this morning.

I did too.

All right. Well, are we down to oh, that's why you're standing there.

We're down to sir. We have

Mr. Certification order is right here and ready to go. All right. Have have we caught all of those? We just wanna make sure. Did we do everything up to this number now? We didn't miss anything, did we? We we're jumping around just a little bit, and I just wanna make sure that we got everything. I think we did.

Yeah.

Okay. Thanks. Case Okay.

We'll start with letter TAsInTom, Case231548CAsInCharlie. Okay.

Magistrate Keith Richter, code enforcement Marco Island is certification of fines. The address is 201 South Bahama Avenue. May I have, first, the your original order?

K.

Notice of hearing. Certified mail.

Now this is up for today's hearing?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Posting. Affidavit of posting. And the certifier amount is $2,400.

And that's based upon how much per day and how many days?

Yes, sir.

I don't see anybody here to contest that. So they have been notified of today's date or today's

Yes, sir.

Hearing. Okay. Yes. Okay. So I so you're asking for an order the amount of how much was it again?

2,400.

2,400. Okay. So ordered. Okay.

It says case 233315 certification of fines. Address, 1170 North Collier Boulevard. Original order. Notice of hearing. Certified mail. And he'll be posting notice of hearing person, you should say. Affidavit of posting. And the certified amount is $3,525.

30,500 no. I'm sorry.

3,000.

Oh, 3,000. Okay. 3525.

Yes,

sir. And that's I'm I'm I'm looking at number 12 there. 25 times the number of days. Right?

So it's not it's

there's nobody here to defend on that. I will concur with that, and that will be my order.

This is case 233339 certification. Address is 1315 White Hart, original magistrate order. Notice of hearing. Certified mail. Notice a hearing posting. Affidavit of posting. And the certified amount is $4,395.

And that's based upon the calculation set out in number seven and number nine. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. $43.95. Okay. I concur with that. It's kinda simple math, but that'll be my order.

This is case 240504. Address, 25 Covewood Court, Marco Island. Show you the original magistrate order. Notice of hearing. Certified mail.

Notice the hearing posting. Affidavit of posting. And the certified amount, $7,560.

Again, I'll note for the record that there's nobody here to contest this, and it looks like the, numbers are, the calculations are on item 13, line 13, grand total of $7.05 $6.00, 7,560.

Is that correct? Is that correct?

Right. Yes.

It's all included. Yep.

The the the amount is correct? Yes. The calculation is correct. Okay. Thank you.

Next case is 24.

Don't that will be my order on that one. Thank you. Sorry. Go ahead.

Next case is 24Dash0585. It's a certification order, the original, magistrate order. Notice of hearing. Certified mail. Notice of hearing posted.

Affidavit of posting. And the certified amount requested is $2,100.

That amount is shown on line 12. Oh, I'm yeah. Line twelve, $2,100. And there's nobody here to, defend. So, calculation appears to be correct, and that will be my order, $2,100.

Good. Next case, 24Dash0695, Certification of fines. Original magistrate order. Notice of hearing. Certified mail, affidavit of posting, and the certified amount, $4,960.

$4,960 as set out in line 12. Correct. I concur with that. That'll be my order.

Next case, 24Dash1020. Certification order. Original magistrate order. Notice of hearing. Certified mail. Notice the hearing posted. Affidavit of posting. And the certified amount is $5,300.

And, again, I'll note that nobody is here to defend. This is on line 18. The calculations are done with a grand total of $5,300. That's correct. That is correct, and I will that will be my order. Yes.