Code Enforcement - Regular Meeting

because they cited just May 25th, and we had received some notification before that, but I just wanted to note, and I have this.

Sorry. Hang on a second. Oh, the officer's still here. I just want to make sure he's still here.

Because we received a couple of different notifications, but the May 25th in particular, if you look down this list, we received prior notifications, but this was a first notification that applied to that particular residence. So in normal cases that would have been a warning as opposed to a violation, but we don't have any communication directly with code enforcement, they just post the warning. We're there, we're more than willing to cooperate, provide information, provide unit owner information and the residents to have the documentation go directly to the unit owner, but we're not offered that position.

Okay.

Is this a document that you brought? It is but I also sent something on the 25th when this was supposed to be held earlier but the date got moved and I had given all this information to the magistrate prior to that. Do you know what unit was on, had the lights on? On the 25th, yes, unit 1505.

Okay.

Because we can look at the pictures and know which unit number it is, go talk to that unit owner, do whatever we can do, and we've done that for as many years as we can.

So it's your, see if I can understand, it's your position that the condominium association would not be the one responsible. It would be the unit owner, and the unit owner had not been warned prior to May 25th. Do I have that right?

Correct. And the unit owner did not actually violate the turtle ordinance prior to the 25th. This was their first violation. Anything further? No, sir. Thank you.

Mr. Magistrate, if I may, the reason why the association is cited in these matters is primarily, first of all, they're the owners for all intents and purposes of the folio, the property. But secondly, there's no way for the officers to be able to determine what unit the light is coming from. We don't know what the unit numbers are. We would never know who the owner is at the time. The association is who's cited for it, ultimately responsible for the behavior of their own tenants. Not every building has somebody on staff 24 hours. Not every building has provided code enforcement with a 24-hour contact of a person who would be responsive in the middle of the night for the problems to be addressed. Hence, this is why the process is in place the way it is.

If I could bring up the property manager again for a moment. Yes, sir. Yes. In this particular night, was anybody there at the time of the photograph being taken?

There's someone there every evening, sir.

And that someone would be you?

No, we have a manned front desk with a security company that's hired that provides 24-7 support. But they've all been trained and notified to go look for the lights and notify people that they need to turn them off. And in the past, prior to this year or maybe even the year before because I'm relatively new to the building, so I apologize for that. But in the past, we did have cooperation with code enforcement. They would reach out to us. We would provide them with information about the unit owners and or reach out to them immediately once we were notified, but that process has ceased.

Thank you. Documents on both sides have been entered in or have been shown here. Do either of you have objection to all of the documents being submitted and accepted into evidence? Any objection, sir? Any objection, city?

No.

All right. Sir, the document that you did bring in, we would like to make a copy to make sure it's in the record. Before you leave, make sure that they have a copy. They could either take a photograph of it or have the copy. Thank you. Anything further from the city?

Nothing further.

Based upon the testimony and the other evidence presented in this hearing, I do find as a matter of fact that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. Therefore, I conclude that as a matter of law, the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinances of the City of Marco Island, so the finding is guilty. I would like to ask the city as to a recommendation for any penalty.

As a matter of standard practice for these violations, the city is seeking a $250 fine and the fees and costs of $175. And by the way, if I'm correct here, the association, they have no prior cases before you.

Right, I heard that testimony. In determining the amount of the fine, the state statute requires me to consider the gravity of the violation. In other words, how serious is the violation, any attempts to correct the violation, and any previous violations of the same section of the code by the same violator. Two out of three, I think, are kind of in favor of the association. The third, though, is pretty serious. The thing with turtle protection is it doesn't take much to get them confused. And so I'm going to... going to impose a fine of $250 as requested. The $175, that's for costs.

Administrative costs, correct.

Yeah, I'm a little concerned about administrative costs. Cost of prosecution are allowable under the Stratton v. Sarasota County case, which I read and reread after I got a copy of the resolution. I think that the resolution of the which I think is 26-29, fairly recent, uses the word administrative, and that makes it sound like an administrative fine, which is not one of the things that can be imposed. However, that same case, the Stratton case, does say that costs of prosecution, including investigation and things that have to be done, are allowable. So I'm seeing that the 175 would be a cap in a given case, but I think that the 175 cost is justified in this case under cost of prosecution. So it would be $250 fine and 175 cost of prosecution. That would be my order.

Next up is letter C as in Charlie, case 26-1309, 940 Cape Marco Drive.

C. This is Vera Cruz at Cape Marco. Correct.

OK.

You're here for that one also, sir?

Good morning, Mr. Magistrate.

Good morning. Okay.

Mr. Maginot, my name is Ray Lessinger. I'm an officer with the Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 940 Cape Marco Drive, which is in the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island. On May 13th, 2026, I observed the code violation in violation of 54-144, which is a violation of Marco Island Municipal Code. I took pictures of the violation and I don't... Martin, it's not up there. There we go.

That would help, huh?

I usually don't notice a violation for a violation of Ordinance 5-4-144 with a compliance order of immediate because it's irreparable.

All right, there's a photo of the NOV. Martin, can you back it out some? Keep going. A little more.

Thank you.

Yes, I've read it.

Affidavit of posting?

Could you go back to the affidavit of violation for a minute? All right, thank you. Affidavit of posting?

Affidavit of posting? And the five-year history shows two priors in the last five years And that is all sir

So you saw the violation?

Yes, sir.

Now I see two circles. Is that two violations or one?

Three. It's all one. One building. We write it as one violation.

All right.

Anything else?

That's all, sir.

Sir, I think you might be up again.

Thank you, Magistrate. Once again, give your name for the record.

Each of these cases is a separate case. So if something might sound repetitive, it's because each case has its own record. And in case that there's any appeal, a court would be looking at the record of that case only. So that's why it sounds a little repetitive. But let's get everything on the record.

Yes, I'm Michael Taylor, and I'm the property manager for Veracruz Condominium Association. Thank you. again it's the same circumstance the same documentation I provided a full packet for both of them so we received the notifications at the same time we you know had we been notified we would immediately gone to the residence unit we did in fact typically go to the residence unit but we're in an awkward position because The unit owners are the ones violating the circumstance. The building does everything that we can to try to comply with the ordinance and take care of it. The building itself is not in violation in this particular case. It's another unit owner. And under 718 statutes, we're limited in what we can actually do. We're limited in how we can find the owners. We have to provide them 30 days notice. And in fact, we usually have to give them a chance to correct before we can find them. So we're put in an extremely awkward situation, sir. That's interesting.

The document that you just now referred to, let's put that on the viewer here.

And the statement of what I'm saying here was provided on the date mentioned above because I delivered it to the magistrate's office.

Okay. But we need to have it on the record here today. Understood. As a matter of fact, I think the statute says testimony and evidence at the hearing rather than in some office somewhere. So let me take a look at this. It's essentially what you told me, right? Yes, it is. Could you move it up a little bit so that I can read the bottom? Do I want to see the second page? It's up to you what you want to show me. Anything further? No, I believe that's it. All right. Thank you. Anything further from the city? If there's no objection, I will admit all of the documents on both sides into evidence. Any objection? City?

No objections.

Sir? Mr. Taylor, right? All right, so they're admitted into evidence. Based upon the testimony and other evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. As a conclusion of law, I find that the conditions did exist and do constitute a violation under the city code. So the finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation for a penalty?

Yes, sir. The city is just seeking a finding of fact on this one, no fines or fees on this one, due to we already have one in the same building, same date, same.

So it would be zero fine, any cost to prosecution?

No.

None? You're waiving the cost of prosecution?

I'm waiving the cost of prosecution.

Well, it pays to show up, sir. That'll be my order. There'll be a finding of a violation. Always be careful, because there's something called a repeat violation in the statutes. And that's even worse. The penalties are worse, et cetera. So do the very best you can to make sure there are no more violations. OK. And yeah, OK. Well, thank you for coming in. So my order will reflect that the finding is guilty, but in as much as a fine has been paid for a similar case, then no further fine will be imposed and costs of prosecution will be waived. I hope your residents are happy that you showed up today. It was very important you did. Okay, thank you.

Next case. Next case is letter E as an echo, case 261313 for 400 South Collier Boulevard.

This is the JW Marriott. Is anybody here on that case? Okay, good. I'm going to guess that it's similar to the other cases, just looking at the Section that's being cited here in my agenda Mr. Curry I'm sorry Okay, all right Yeah, come on up front if you want because if you want to testify we'll want to hear from you and that way you can hear from him and Thank you. All right, Mr. Curry. Good morning, Mr. Magistrate.

Excuse me. My name is Ed Curry. I'm a code officer with the City of Marco Island Police Department. On May 19, 2026 of this year, Officer Hoffmeister, a police officer with the City of Marco Island, observed a violation of 54-151, paragraph 3, which is items left on the beach after 9 o'clock at night.

And it's under the Sea Turtle Protection Act.

These items included garbage, bottles, that bucket you see right there, and then a table, which was not cleaned up. And then based on Officer Hodgson's hoffmeister's uh... photographs and uh... report we should have noticed a violation there after If they're issuing that, we issued an affidavit of violation. Then we have an affidavit of posting where we issued this affidavit. Subsequent to that, we issued a notice of hearing. We had a certified mailing. And then our five-year just indicated nothing current at this time.

I do see a yes for.

They had received a warning on 5-13.

On the other page, I think that there was a yes for 6-18-2023. OK. Thank you. Anything else?

No, sir. Not at this time.

All right. Let me hear from the respondent, sir. Step to the podium and give your name, and I presume from your shirt you are a representative of JW Marriott.

I am. Good morning, Magistrate. Joe Haas, Director of Engineering, representing the JW Marriott, Marco Island. Thank you. Defense, obviously there's photos, so it took place. All I can say is going forward, we've made sure we're going to increase patrols in the evening time and try to make sure that we're out there before, start keeping schedule in the winter, actually on the beach, making sure that everything's picked up.

Okay. So you're not saying that there was not a violation?

They took place. There's photos. It happened. Unfortunately, you know how it is. With 809 rooms and as many guests and 10.5 acres of beach, it's a lot to keep clean. So we make sure that we try to do it every night and get the patrols out there. But it happened.

Every location for? in the chain has something unique, something that's very unique here is it's Marco Island and it's just surrounded by wildlife and little sea turtle, little critters and so on that need to find their way to the water and so on. All right, anything further from the city?

Joe Hoss. Could you spell that for us? H-O-S-P. Okay. Hospitality. Clever.

All right. Anything further from the city? Nothing further. Mr. Curry, you're standing there? Okay. All right. Based upon the testimony and other evidence submitted today, I find, excuse me, is there any objection to any of the documents being admitted into evidence?

No.

No objection? Okay. They'll be admitted. Based upon the testimony and other evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described do or did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude that as a matter of law this constitutes a violation of the ordinances of the City of Marco Island, so the finding is guilty. Do we have a recommendation from the City as to a potential fine and costs?

The City is seeking a $250 fine and $175 fees and costs for prosecution. $175? Correct.

It's a pretty serious violation, the turtle violation. A lot of times people don't think it's that serious, but from an environmental standpoint, it's very, very serious. And based upon that, I'm going to impose a fine of $250. The cost of prosecution reflects the cost of going out and doing inspections and bringing the case forward. And I think the cost in this case probably exceeds $175. So the cost will be limited to $175. $250 plus $175. That's my order. And thank you for coming in, sir. Okay, next case.

Next case is on page three of your docket, letter R as in Romeo. Case 26, 1884, 846 Rose Court.

This is Fritz, family trust owner and boat lift pros contractor. Is there anybody here on that case? I presume there is. I think the city attorney tends to call cases where there is somebody who's actually here to appear. Thank you for coming in.

Go ahead. Good morning, Mr. Master Chief. Good morning. My name is Patrick Young, and I'm assigned to the Code Enforcement Department of the Markle and Police Department. On June 2nd, while on routine patrol, I observed boat lift pros working on a vacant lot without a permit to do so and illicit discharge violations, dropping multiple items and silt into the canal. This took place at 864 Rose Court, which is in within the confines of the city of Markle Island. Here are some photos of the violation. A photo of the notice of violation. The notice of the court violation. There'll be two copies as this went to both the homeowner and the contractor. This is the second notice that went to the contractor. Affidavit of violation. Again, two copies, one to the homeowner, property owner, I should say, and to the contractor. Affidavit of posting, again to both. Notice of hearing.

Okay, could you go back to the first one, the next one, I'm sorry, the last one? Okay, thank you.

Posted notice of hearing. and certified mail, again, to both. As it was immediately irreparable, there were no follow-up dates, and we didn't find anything in the five-year history as far as a repeat offender.

That is all I have. Was this cited as irreparable? I don't see it.

Ultimately, we're not considering it as irreparable, so.

That could be the biggest break of the day. Yeah.

Yeah. Irreparable as a compliance state. Yes, sir.

See, it says irreparable, but then it has immediately comply. Right. Which are inconsistent. It's either one or the other.

It was just the logs, right?

So it was listed as irreparable because of the illicit discharge. We asked for immediate compliance because they did have stuff on private property. They needed to remove their construction equipment and all of their stuff off of that property. There is two violations here.

Okay, anything else? That is all I have, sir. Sir? Come on up and Let me know what your name is. Good morning. My name is Richard Fritz.

I'm a trustee of the Fritz Family Trust.

So you're the owner of the property? The trust is the owner of the property?

We are of 872 and 864 Rose Court, yes. All right.

Is anybody else here with you? It said dropped poles into canal, and that's the basis for the illicit discharge. Tell me about that. You say somebody dropped a pole and then picked it back up?

Yeah, talking with the guys, it seems like the piling rolled off the barge into the water. From that one picture, it looks like they were trying to get it back on the barge. But we weren't working in that location where that picture was taken, like setting pilings or anything.

Did they get it back on the barge?

I believe so. It wasn't left there? No, no, no, no. Everything was pulled out and properly disposed of. So we moved everything down to the address where the permit was and just hand-loaded everything off in the property and carried it to the front yard and got rid of everything.

I noticed that it was – one of the photographs looked like it was pretty close to an owl's nest. Was he cited for that?

Yes, sir. You also received the citation.

Okay, wait a minute. Let me get you on the mic.

Yes, sir. They also received the citation for the vehicle being parked too close to the alibaba. That is correct.

But that's not one of these violations? No, sir. Okay. So I don't need to deal with that?

No. Okay.

All right. I'm sorry, sir. I didn't mean to butt in. I just wanted to make sure I knew what I was supposed to be, the scope of what I'm supposed to be deciding today. All right. Anything further?

No, that's it.

Does the city have anything further?

Nothing further.

Does anybody have an objection to any of the documents being submitted and accepted into evidence? Sir? Any objection to the documents? No. And the city, do you object to any of their documents? Any objection to their documents being admitted? No. They'll be admitted without objection. OK. Anything further from the city?

Nothing further.

All right. Let me ask the city something. I'm having some qualms about the illicit discharge aspect of this.

Yeah, we're not pursuing illicit discharge.

You're going to waive that?

Yeah, we're not. Okay.

So what I said earlier looks like that's the best thing that could happen today because illicit discharge cases, the maximum fine is $5,000 per violation. They've waived that. So that's the best news you could have today. Now, I will deal with the matter that's in front of me then. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude as a matter of law, the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinances of the City of Marco Island, so the finding is guilty on that count only. Is there a recommendation for a fine or costs?

Yeah, just one point of clarification. You're only finding a violation on one of the

Well, on the parking violation, not on the illicit discharge.

OK. There's illicit discharge. There's construction temporary use permit before you right now.

Wait a minute. I thought I was looking at. Yeah, I'm just looking at the agenda. It says construction temporary use permit and illicit discharges. So I was just going on the construction temporary use permit.

Well, but we also have the illicit discharge, the logs thrown in the water.

Yeah. I thought you just said you waived it.

No, no. We waived irreparable. We're waiving irreparable.

Oh, you're waiving irreparable on it. Correct. OK, not that it didn't happen.

Correct.

All right, so not quite as good, sir. Well, it's still not the. OK, so.

We're not seeking several thousand dollars fines by any means, which is why we're waiving the irreparable.

All right. Well, that did exist. There's a photograph of it, so I find that that did exist also, and that that constitutes a violation. It doesn't constitute a violation of an illicit discharge, though. That's what I'm getting at. They dropped a pole into the water and got it back out of the water.

Yeah, that's fine.

I'm going to stick with my finding, and that is that there was not an illicit discharge by the pole being dropped in the water and being fished back out. I understand the city's position on that. It's a pretty close case, but I'm just going on the temporary use permit. If there had been testimony that a bunch of stuff fell off of that pole and there was creosote in the water and so on and so forth, that might be different. But there wasn't. So what's the recommendation concerning fine and an order.

The fine for a construction temporary use permit is $150 plus $175 in cost for prosecution.

I think that under the circumstances of applying the statutory requirements that the fine is reasonable and that the cost of prosecution You were out there how many times? One time, but you had three that you were looking at. So I think that's within the cost of prosecution of $175. So the fine would be $250 for the violation, $175 for the costs. That'll be my order.

Contractor only. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, yes. Thank you for asking.

Were there two contractors or one?

No, there was the owner, the trust representative was here, and the contractor. Okay. So it's not against the trust slash property owner. It's against the contractor only.

Okay, so it's only against the contractor, sir. So... The Fritz Trust is not going to be found to be liable. Thank you. Thank him. Thank them. I mean, technically, the owner of the property is liable for anything, could be liable for anything. But if they choose to only go against the contractor, then that's all I can do, and I'm fine with that. I understand very much.

Next up is a letter, G is in golf, on page 2 of your docket, case 261414, 780 South Collier Boulevard.

And we have somebody here for that one? Somebody here for that one? 780 Somerset of Marco Island condominium.

He's The I don't know that the response here, but we have the officer here.

So, okay. Yeah

John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Markle Island Police Department, addressed the violation at 780 South Collier Boulevard, which is within the city of Markle Island. May 26, 2026, Officer Anaseli observed a code enforcement violation of sea turtle lighting, which is a violation of the Markle Island Municipal Code. The following photo was taken by Officer Anaseli showing the violation. Okay, you can see the two lights that are on in the building after hours at 1127. Okay, based upon the information provided by Officer Ranicelli, I issued a notice of violation for violating Ordinance 54-144-145. The following paperwork was administered to the case. Notice of violation.

Okay.

Posted notice of violation. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing, there are three separate violations, which are different cases, which are all posted there at the same time.

I saw three lights on. Is that why?

No, no, no, no, no. This is for the lights. The two lights are for the one date, which is May 26. The notice of hearings that are posted, there are three separate violations that were posted on the same day for different dates, different violation dates. OK.

Certified mail documents And that is it no more history at this location at this time and Mr. Nagar just to clarify one point for the magistrate all three of those cases Where you see that posted notice are on today's docket, so we'll be getting to the okay So but we know right now.

I'm only dealing with one of them correct. Thank you.

All right Thank you. Thanks for Officer

Good morning.

Good morning, Officer Anasoli. I was on patrol at night on the beach. I observed the violations, took a photograph, and sent it over to code for a notice of a violation.

All right. So you witnessed the violation. And is that in a place where the lights can be seen from the beach? Yes, sir. Assume all of that, but we have to get everything on the record. I just wanted to make sure that it's not somewhere that's interior to the city. Do you have any training and experience? I know you have experience because you've had several violations that you've testified to today, but do you have any previous experience at sea turtle protection and lighting?

No, sir. Okay.

But on the job, that's one of the things you're taught to do, is that right? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody here to respond to that? If not, I'll go ahead. Anything else from the city?

Nothing further from the city.

Based upon the testimony and other evidence presented today, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as described 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 ordinances of the city of Marco Island, so the finding is guilty. What is the recommendation?

$250 fine, $175 fees and costs for prosecution.

And I hate to repeat myself, but every case is a different case, so on the record, I I think that the $250 fine for sea turtle protection is extremely important considering the gravity of the violation, and therefore the fine will be $250. The cost of prosecution requested is $175, and I think that that is fair and reasonable considering what had to be done, the inspections and the follow-up to bring this case to the prosecution. So as a cost of prosecution, 175. That will be my order. MR. Thank you, sir. MR. I'm not sure if the city has any kind of draft orders that it uses on cost of prosecution, but I want to be careful that this is not an administrative fine, that this is a cost of prosecution, and we look at testimony. to justify that, and I find that that's present. I'll watch when I look at the orders.

Yeah, I'll make sure that they have that in the order.

Yeah, the resolution's a little bit, in my opinion, the resolution's a little bit confusing in that it makes it sound like it's cost of running the the department or the division, and that would not be allowed. But if it relates to the cost of prosecuting this case or each case, then that has been approved at least in one case, the Stratton versus Sarasota County case. There are other cases that also talk about that obliquely, the Nichols case versus Miami Beach. has some things in it, too. But I'm satisfied that the cost of prosecution exceeds $175 here, and therefore I would impose $175. Okay, next.

Next up on page two, case letter I is in India, case 26-1556, 780 South Collier Boulevard.

I'm sorry, which letter is that? I is in India. Okay. Somerset of Marco Island. Does the officer want to go first?

Go ahead. John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Markle Island Police Department. Addressed as a violation is 780 South Collier Boulevard, which is within the city of Markle Island. On June 9, 2026, Officer Anaseli observed a code enforcement violation of sea turtle lighting, which is a violation of the Markle Island Municipal Code. Following photo of the violation is an accurate count of what he observed. Multiple lights on in the building at the hour at 1034 and the date 6 9 Based upon the information forwarded to me I've subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 54 dish 144 145 Following paperwork was administered to the case You notice violation Posted notice of violation. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting.

Notice of hearing.

Posted notice of hearing.

One of those three is the...

Correct, sir.

Pertains to this one.

And certified mail documents. And there is no history on this property at this time.

And that is all I have. Thank you, officer.

On that day, I observed sea turtle violations in the building again. I took a photo, sent it over to code in reference for an NOV to issue an NOV.

When you do that, you notify the code enforcement division for that because you don't do code enforcement notices.

Is that right? Correct. In regards to sea turtle violations, correct. Right.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Again, is there anybody here on that case, on this case, hearing and seeing nobody? I'll admit the exhibits into evidence. My finding of fact is that based upon the testimony and the evidence, presented here today at the hearing. I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as described did exist on the dates and times and at the location indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that that constitutes a violation of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. What is the recommendation?

The recommendation is $250 fine, $175 cost for prosecution. $175? Correct.

The gravity of the violation for sea turtle ordinance violations, in my opinion, really carries the day. And I find that the $250 maximum fine is justified and will impose that. And also, the cost of prosecution of 175 is certainly met or exceeded. So I will impose that as cost of prosecution also. That will be my order. Thank you, sir. OK, next case.

Next case is going to be letter J's and Juliet, case 261367 for 58 North Collier Boulevard.

That's Gulf View Apartments of Marco. Do we have anybody here for that case? Good morning. I saw you had a name tag. You must have been here for somebody. I wasn't sure who.

Mr. Curry? Good morning, Mr. Magistrate. My name is Edward Curry. I'm a code enforcement officer with the City of Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 58 North Collier Boulevard. On May 25th of this year, 26, Officer Anicelli observed the code enforcement violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code Ordinance. The following photograph of that violation I will put on display and that represents Johnny, that's yours.

The other documents, those belong to the other case. Yes, sir, they do. I'll get them to him. I'll let him get that so there's no confusion. Thank you.

This is the photograph Officer Anicelli took depicting the violation at the date and time. Based on Officer Anicelli's observations, I issued a notice of violation to the property. Alleging a violation of 54-144-2, interior lighting violation. Okay. It's the second photograph of that violation that I issued. It was served by Officer Barrios that day. There's an affidavit of the violation. There's an affidavit of the posting of that violation. served with a notice of hearing thereafter. It was sent by certified mailing. And the five-year history revealed that just the ones that were preceded this one. Oh, I'm sorry, excuse me, that was the wrong case. It was a no current violations of that property.

Anything further? No, sir, that's it. All right. Officer? I had a hunch it was you again.

Good morning, Officer Inaseli.

I was on patrol on the beach for a sea turtle patrol. I observed the violation at the building, took a picture, sent it over to code for them to issue an NOV.

So that photo was taken by you?

Yes, sir.

Is that a fair and accurate depiction of the seen at the date and time and location that you observed?

Yes, sir.

All right. Anything further from the city?

Nothing further.

Ma'am, would you like to come up and tell us your side of it? Are you Deborah Lansman, by any chance? No. Oh, okay. I saw that this was served on Deborah Lansman.

Good morning, Mr. Magistrate. My name is Dianis Pileira, and I'm the property manager at Gulfview.

I'm sorry, spell your name.

D-A-Y-A-N-Y-S, Dianys.

All right. Move a little closer to the mic or pull it a little closer to you. Okay, thank you.

So I'm the property manager at the condo and we always make sure that this is my first year doing this so I made sure that all the common area lights were changed to turtle lights and we're in compliance and it's my understanding that this violation was for the light at the rooftop and that light at the rooftop is only when we have like an after-hours emergency and it's a sensor light when somebody's at the roof and I didn't realize that it was a very bright white light. And of course, as soon as we knew about the notice, I went ahead and changed it to a soft yellow light at the roof.

So you think you've corrected the violation going forward? Yes. I'm not sure how that can be done or if it can be done, but it wouldn't hurt for you to check with the with the city, if you haven't already, because it's very important not to have lighting out there to confuse those little critters when they come out of the eggs. Yes.

I have an image that shows the rooftop. And I just want to confirm, like I said, that light is only on motion based at the roof, and it was changed to a soft yellow to make sure that that doesn't happen again.

Okay. I still see some lights that are on. Of course, I don't know if that's season or not.

Yeah, they're the soft lights.

Okay. Anything else?

That will be all.

All right. We will want to put that into evidence, that photograph that you have up you just had so if you can see them either give them that original and they'll make you a copy or or make a copy for them but they need to have that okay thank you probably they'll want the original because sometimes when you copy it even if the color copier it doesn't come out quite as true so okay thank you anything else from the city Based upon the testimony and other evidence presented in this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described did exist on the date, time, and place indicated. I conclude, as a matter of law, that this constitutes a violation of the ordinance of the city of Marco Island. Therefore, the finding is guilty. I would like to get a recommendation from the city. But hang on one second. I want to make sure she hears. There, OK. So the finding is guilty, as you probably guessed from sitting here with the other cases. But it looks like the lights were on, and maybe the wrong lights at the same time. Also, you might want to check. It looked like there were some other individual lights. And I know it's very, very difficult to get the tenants or the owners, if they're condo owners, to get them to understand that because they come from cities and places that are nowhere near water, et cetera, but they have to be schooled on Marco Island and Southwest Florida and beach areas where we're trying to save as many of the little sea turtles as we possibly can. Okay, so – and you don't need a lesson from me or anything like that, but that's – maybe that's something to pass along. What's the recommendation for a penalty?

A $250 fine, $175 cost of prosecution.

Based upon the statute, one of the considerations is the seriousness of the violation. I think this is a very serious violation, as you probably know by now, so the maximum fine of $250 will be imposed. And I think that the costs of prosecution probably meet or exceed, meet and probably exceed the $175 that's being requested, so the cost of prosecution will also be imposed, $175. Thank you for coming in. I don't know if you picked up anything, learned anything today. from this process, but if you can pass the word along to whomever, especially your tenants, especially during season, that they have to really, really keep those lights out. A lot of people don't think that it really matters that much. Oh, it's just my place and I'm 20 stories high. No, the critters go by the moon, and for all they know, that's the moon there, so leading them to the wrong place. OK, so thank you for coming in.

Next case. Next case is letter L is in Lima, case 261518 for 300 South Collier Boulevard.

Royal Seafarer Condominium Association. Is anybody here? Yes, ma'am. If you'd like, come on up closer so you can be. You can be closer to the circle of what? I don't know. Thank you. We want to make sure you can hear and see everything, too. Looks to me like it might be another sea turtle violation case. Is that what we're looking at, sir?

Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Magistrate. My name is Ray Lessinger. I'm an officer with the Markle Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 300 South Collier Boulevard, which is in the boundaries of the city of Markle Island. On June 3rd, 2026, I was told by Officer Anicelli that he observed the code enforcement violation of 54-144, which is in violation of Marquand Municipal Code. He took pictures of the violations, which is an accurate description, which is right up on the screen. I issued a notice of violation for the officer for Ordinance 54-144 with the compliance state of immediate being that it's irreparable.

This is the photo of the NOV. NOV bidding notice of violation.

Photo of the posting. The affidavit of posting of the violation.

Affidavit of violation.

The notice of hearing. Posted certified mail. And the five-year history reveals one prior case in front of magistrate. And that is all.

OK. Anything further? That's all you say? That's all. I see the officer is here. Good morning. Lucky you, you have two police officers here today.

Officer Anaseli, Marco 1 Police. Again, I was on uniform patrol on the beach, and I noticed a violation in the building, took a photograph, sent it to code via email. for a written NOV. Did you take the photograph? Yes, sir.

Was this a, is the photograph a fair and accurate depiction of the conditions of the premises on the date, time, and at the place you took the photograph?

Yes, sir.

And is that overlooking or near a beach?

Yes, sir. Thank you.

I have nothing further. Anything further on direct examination?

Nothing further.

Ma'am, it's your turn.

Good morning, Mr. Magistrate. My name is Sam Castro. I'm the general manager for the Royal Seafair.

And could you spell your last name for the record?

C-A-S-T-R-O. Okay. Thank you. So I don't disagree with the picture. The violation happened. What I will say is you can see from the rest of the photo that our building is generally in compliance. We encourage our owners every single week in a weekly notification that goes out to comply with the sea turtle requirements. We have retrofitted the entire building from roof to road with the amber bulbs to help prevent a violation like this. The owner of that unit has acknowledged that their guest left the light on. So it's not for a lack of encouragement by the building, but it was a mistake they made.

So is there a situation where they What, they maybe rent out a condo to somebody? Are they allowed to do that?

It was a family member that was there.

I guess it doesn't matter. I was just kind of curious. You said a guest. Yes.

So it was a family member who was visiting. We have signage throughout many locations of the building, as well as handouts that we provide to the owners and encourage them to leave them in the units. As a reminder, in the event that there is a guest there, they left the blinds open.

Yeah, it looks like it's wide open there. wondered if they have blinds, but they do?

I'm not certain. I think most of our units do have blinds, but it was clear that they didn't shade the windows.

Okay. Anything else?

That's it.

Do you object to the exhibits being embedded into evidence? No, not at all. All right. Does the city have anything else?

Nothing further from the city.

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

$250 fine and $175 cost for prosecution.

applying the statutory considerations in 16209B, I think it's B, or 2B, the seriousness of the violation is way up there on the scale. So the maximum fine of $250 will be imposed. I think that the costs – you notice we had two police officers here today in addition to the code enforcement officer. And the reason being is the police officers for this type of a violation go through the code enforcement officers rather than taking people to court and so on. So – but I think that the cost of prosecution certainly meet or exceed the $175. that is requested by the city, so that will be my order, 250 plus 175. And thank you for coming in. I don't know if you can report anybody back. Was it worthwhile coming in? No, he imposed the maximum fine, I suppose. But on the other hand, maybe the message can be clearly made to others. Please, please, please watch out for these little critters. Okay, thank you. OK, next case.

Next case is letter O as in Oscar on page 3, case 26, 1871, 80 South Seas Court.

OK, Ellen O'Rourke. Is Ellen O'Rourke? Probably not Ellen, but come on up.

Good morning. Again. Again. John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Addressed to the violation is 80 South Seas Court, which is within the city of Marco Island. July 15, 2026, Officer Moreno observed a code enforcement violation of excessive noise, noise violation, which is a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code. Officer Moreno documented the incident, and an NOV was administered to the homeowner by myself for Ordinance 18-104. The following paperwork was administered to the case. It's a notice of violation.

Okay.

Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. and the certified mail documents. I have no further history on this at this time.

All right, nothing further? Nothing further, sir. Does the city have anybody else to testify? Is the officer here?

The officer is here.

Good morning.

Good morning.

You might want to take that microphone and put it back toward you. When they testify, quite often they know to have the microphone over there if they're talking while they're putting the documents in. Okay, so if you could give us your name for the record and go ahead and testify as to what you saw or observed or heard.

I was dispatched to a noise complaint. Upon my arrival I parked across the street and I could hear the noise. As I walked up I could see the pool area. I attempted to make contact with the occupants but they couldn't hear me over the noise so I had to shine my flashlight in order to get their attention. and a NOV was issued or a citation was issued to the occupants.

Now, what did you do to make a determination that the noise was too loud?

The fact that I could hear the noise as soon as I arrived on scene and the fact that they couldn't hear me when I attempted to make contact with them. And it was at 10 o'clock, so it's plainly audible.

So it was plainly audible. To you as a trained police officer, is that correct? Correct. Yes. You say this was after 10 o'clock?

Yes.

I think it said 10.30, but is that correct?

I believe I was dispatched at 10.08. I don't know what my arrival time was. All right.

Thank you. Anything else from the city?

Nothing further from the city.

All right. Don't go away. In case you have to come back, let's hear from the respondent. Yes, sir. Excuse me.

Good morning, your magistrate. My name is Jonathan Horgan, and I'm here on behalf of Eleanor Rourke. I manage her short-term rentals at 80 South Seas Court. So we don't dispute any of these. I think this was the second violation. They certainly did happen. I just wanted to be present today and at least show up, also state that we do take this seriously. So we have had... We added signage inside of the property, big bright red letters to make sure guests are seeing and aware of this noise ordinance. We do have noise detection monitors inside the house. We're now going to order outside noise detection monitors to try to help monitor this situation. So we do take it serious. We don't want to be a nuisance because we do have guests that different guests that, you know, come and rent this house. So I wanted to state that. And I just also wanted to state the situation that we kind of have here with the neighbor. We have received complaints from guests as well that the neighbor next door has kind of been harassing them, saying that like this neighborhood is not a motel. yelling at them across the fence from before 10 p.m., even though there hasn't been music on, they've just been talking, things of that nature. So I don't think there's necessarily too much we can do with that. I just wanted to at least present that here and just kind of state it feels like we have a little bit of a target on our backs going forward. So I just want to do what's right to make sure that that isn't continuing to be an issue for either side.

Okay, thank you. Anything further from the city? Well, based upon the testimony and evidence presented here at this hearing, and I think you're not really saying that it didn't happen, but based upon testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions did exist at the place and on the dates and times indicated after 10 o'clock. I conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the noise ordinance of the city of Marco Island. The plainly audible requirement is actually authorized under case law in the state of Florida. So I find that the finding is guilty. And it's kind of tough dealing with, sometimes you do have sensitive neighbors, but the best way to take care of it is not to violate the ordinance. And so that one's on the respondent. We do have close quarters sometimes, and that's a problem too. But do the best you can. So the finding is guilty. What's the recommendation?

$250 fine and $175 cost of prosecution.

I'm going to impose a fine of $200 in this case, partly because you came in. And the city is very serious about the noise violations. It's supposed to be a quiet island. But the fact that you came in, I'm going to make it $200. This $175 cost of prosecution, I think, has been met or exceeded in this case. So it would be $175. $200 plus $175. That would be my order. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

Next up on page two is letter M as in Mike, case 261565, 1097 Cottonwood Court.

William B., Daniel G., and Jessica, Glenn Denning, noise violation. Is anybody here on that matter, that case? All right. Okay, Mr. Negron.

John Negron, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 1097 Cottonwood Court, which is within the city of Marco Island. On June 13, 2026, Officer Anacelia observed a code enforcement violation of excessive noise, which is a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code. Officer Anselli documented the incident, and an NOV was administered by myself to the homeowner for violating Ordinance 18-104. The following paperwork was administered to the case. This is the notice of violation. At 1.36 a.m.?

Correct, sir.

Okay, go ahead. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Okay. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. And the certified mail documents. Okay. Okay, there is no history at this address for prior violations. That's all I have at this time, sir.

All right, thank you. Officer.

Good morning. Welcome back. Thank you. I'm Officer Anaceli Marco on Police. On June 13th, 2026, I was dispatched to 1097 Cottonwood Court in reference to a noise complaint. As I was approaching the residents that it's on a corner lot. I had my windows down I heard the noise violation as I was approaching the residents as I parked my vehicle across the street from the residents I also heard noise from that angle as well, which is 50 feet away from the property line. The noise violation was at 1.36 in the morning. After 10 o'clock at night, it's plainly audible, so I issued a noise violation. I would like to add after 11 o'clock, it's an automatic citation for plainly audible noise.

Okay. Anything further from the city?

Nothing further from the city.

I'll admit the exhibits into evidence. Once again. Is there anybody here to defend that case? I Saw somebody come in a little later. I just want to make sure that I didn't miss somebody. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Based upon the testimony and evidence Excuse me presented in this hearing. I Do find as a matter of fact that the That the conditions as described by the city did exist at the date, time, and at the location indicated on the date and time and at the location. I conclude as a matter of law that this does violate the noise ordinance of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. What is the recommendation?

$250 fine and $175 cost of prosecution.

Considering the statutory required considerations. I think that this is one of the more serious problem areas for the city and it looked to me like it's a recurring violation. So I'm going to impose a $250 fine. I think the cost of prosecution is met or exceeded. The police officers involved as well as the city code enforcement office So it'll be $250 fine plus $175 cost of prosecution. That'll be my order.

Thank you, sir. Okay.

Next up is letter K's and Kilo, case 261368, 850 South Collier Boulevard.

Santa Piper Condominium Association, is anybody here for it? Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Magistrate.

Hello. My name is Edward Curry. I'm a code enforcement officer with the City of Marco Island Police Department. On May 24th of this year, 26, Officer Hofmeister observed a code enforcement violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code Ordinance. The following photograph depicts this violation.

The photograph was taken by Officer Hoffmeister on this date at 10.41 p.m. Based on that information, I issued a notice of violation to the address.

Charging a violation of 54-144-2, an interior lighting violation of the Sea Turtle Protection Act.

Subsequently, we took a photograph of that violation.

This is an affidavit of the violation. An affidavit of the posting of that violation. We provided a notice of hearing. along with a photograph of the posting of it. Another copy of the Notice of Violation that was sent. A certified mailing of that document. And we have a 10-year violation history. with nothing current showing.

OK. Anything further?

No, sir. That's all I have.

OK. Sir, it's your turn, finally.

I'm Patrick lashing around the building manager at the Sandpiper. Okay. Lash? Lashinger. Lashinger, okay.

L-A-S-H-I-N-G-E-R?

L-A-S-C-H-I-N-G-E-R. Okay, thank you. So basically not arguing that the code took, that the violation took place, but we do have a pretty good record of working with the code enforcement and keeping our building to a minimum. This was done by a guest that's not aware of the regulations and basically left the lights on. I would like to ask for some levity on the fine, a possible reduction in the fine based on our relationship with code enforcement and our past history.

Thank you for coming in. It's always helpful to to know that you're trying. All these kind of names are very large, a lot of units. I do get it. Anything further? No. Any objection to the documents being admitted into evidence? Sir? You don't object? OK, they'll be admitted into evidence. Anything further from the city?

Nothing further from the city.

Based upon the testimony and other evidence presented here today, I do find as a matter of fact that the conditions as described did exist on the date and time and at the location indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that this does constitute a violation of the sea turtle ordinances of the city of Marco Island. So the finding is guilty. What's the recommendation of the city?

The city is seeking a $250 fine and $175 in cost of prosecution.

Applying the gravity of the situation, the gravity of the violation. As you know probably from today, being here all morning, I think that this is – very high on the level of a seriousness violation. So I will impose a $250 fine. The cost of prosecution, I think, is easily met or exceeded by the 175. And so I look at the 175 as being more or less a cap. that will be imposed, $250 fine and $175 in cost of prosecution. Thank you for coming in, sir. All right, next case.

Next case is on page four of your docket. Letter X is an x-ray, case 26, 1783, 2061 Dogwood Drive.

Okay, do we have anybody here for that case? You can come forward if you want. Maybe sit in one of these chairs up here closer to the front.

Let's find out. OK. The city's going to go ahead and just go ahead and close this case as compliant. No fines or fees.

I'm sorry.

X? X is an x-ray.

Oh, yeah. I have something. It's marked off here. So the case is complied, sir? Yes. Does he need to be here? No.

We're done. Can I ask a question?

Oh, he has a question. OK. Yes, step forward, sure.

It's going to cost him $175 and cost the prosecutor. Yeah, be careful.

I've been here for almost two hours, so I mean, it's okay. Okay. Yeah, let me go ahead. Hey, my name is Leonel Baez. I'm with CJ Landscaping. I'm here in regards to my client, Jessica Margosiak, at the violation location of 2061 Dogwood Drive. And basically, I had received a call from him. He's in Chicago, Illinois right now. But I had received a call from him, and he said that there's a violation. He has a camera on his property. And on July 7, he received that violation. And on July 8, I had him want to go cut it. And I have a picture of that here. I don't know if you want to see it. It's not necessary.

We believe you. We threw it out. No fines.

No, just making sure because I got to call them and let them know of this. But no, yeah, that was just it. I just wanted to ask how often you guys come by to come check for compliancy.

We take your word for it. We don't need to. Oh, OK. No, yeah, I just wanted to ask.

This is good. Yeah. All right, great.

Yes. My suggestion is I've I've heard judges say, well, do you want to talk me out of what's already happened?

No, no, no, sir. It's understood. No, no, it's good. It's good.

Yeah, I had to ask him, yeah. But seriously, if you have Questions like that, I would ask somebody in code enforcement to, you know, just chat with them a few minutes and maybe help guide them. We don't want to see you back here with another violation.

All right, great. Thank you, miss.

Okay, so thank you for coming in.

Anytime. Okay. Great, thank you.

Okay, next case.

The next case is on page four.

Oh, let me ask a question. You want to take a 10-minute break? Are we going to be here a while?

We have somebody here for the case.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know you were here for a case. All right. Are we calling her case now? Yes, we are. All right. Come on up.

We have to go first, ma'am.

I apologize.

Case. Are we ready? Yes. On your docket, letter CC, case 26-1534, 1125 Kixambas Drive. Okay. Andrew and Ann Derwin.

Good morning, Mr. Magistrate. My name is Ron Hofstetter. I'm a code officer with the City of Marco Island Police Department. The address of this violation is 1125 Caxambas Drive, which is within the municipal boundaries of the City of Marco Island. On June 6, 2026, I observed a code violation of activities within a protected zone, which is a violation of Marco Island Code 18-1446. I took some pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed. So this is a vehicle that was parked up on a vacant lot, and it's a tortoise-protected zone.

Mr. Huston, is that car stuck in the sand there?

Yes, sir. This picture you'll see that the vehicle's tires is right next to an active burrow These two pictures show the distance which is about 48 inches and Also, what we believe to be the entrance of that vehicle was found to be a baby tortoise that was deceased. We tried to show it with a stick.

What makes you believe that that was the path that the vehicle took towards its ultimate point of rest?

There were some stakes in other areas of the entranceway at the right of way that were basically, they had stakes and they had a fence, not fencing, but like chain or something across the front of it.

So the item that's at the bottom of the photograph that looks like it's pointing, is that one of the stakes?

That's a stake that we put down to try to show the direction of the vehicle. from the roadway. I have more pictures that I could go through. So this shows it in a little more depth.

So I mean, again, if there's anything in this picture that points, that gives an indication of the route of travel of the vehicle, please point it out.

OK, here's the road. And here's the stake. To the right you'll see other stakes that have a chain or a rope and some signs that say protected zone So those stakes were Knocked down. No, those were still standing. That's why we believe this was the entrance the path there's you can see there's a small fence to the left well the big fence to the left and

is it i don't are you ma'am yeah she's in my background talking okay you'll have your turn please stop talking thank you please stop talking thank you mr hostetter please point to what what are you describing as the fence this is a construction fence from a lot next door okay

Right here where my finger is, there's some stakes, and there's some more stakes that go to the right of this lot. I see. So the direction of travel had to be between that fence and that stake to the right where I'm pointing now.

Got you. Thank you.

In my opinion. This is a bigger picture showing the stake and the signs showing that the gopher tortoise protected lot. Here's the sign. Here's the stake that we were looking at. And you can see over here is the construction fence to the left, which is a vacant lot next to it. Close-up of the tortoise So I issued a notice of violation for activities within the protected zone, which is a A violation of 18-144-6. And here's a copy of the notice of violation.

Could you move that up a little bit? I can see the top here.

I had a compliance state of immediate.

And compliance defined as how, Mr. Hostetler?

To get the vehicle off the protected lot Okay, here's a photo of the notice of violation Posted notice of violation Affidavit of violation Affidavit of posting page two Notice of hearing Posted notice of hearing Certified mail doc And there were no other violations pertaining to this violation on this particular lot. And that is all I have.

Could you turn that, turn the document over here so we can read it? Thank you. Okay. Anything further?

Nothing at this time.

Any other questions? Nothing further to say.

Okay. Ma'am, could you step up to the podium and the microphone and give your name?

I'm Ann Derwin. Okay.

I see the spelling, but go ahead and spell it for the record.

D-E-R-W-I-N. Okay. Guilty of what I've been the violation, but I'd like to know how my husband's been involved in gets top billing on this offense It's alphabetical He wasn't there. He doesn't own the property. He doesn't own my car. Why is he? Involved ma'am.

He's just listed because I Mr. Hostetter. Do we have an answer to this question?

Yeah, she has a right to cross-examine, so.

Does it, you know, I'm.

No, no, hang on a second. You asked a question, so he's going to, he's going to step up there and answer, if he can.

Is that how the owner's listed on the property appraiser's site, Mr. Hostetler?

I believe it was probably listed on the registration of the vehicle, but I don't know. I only have, on the notice of violation, I only have her name.

Okay. Yeah, don't say anything. I can't hear you anyhow, and it won't be on the record. So you're only proceeding against her, not against him. Is that correct?

Correct.

Correct? That's correct. Okay. That's the answer, ma'am. Go ahead. Step back up to the podium and say it.

That doesn't stop a lot of fights at the House, Your Honor.

I'm sorry?

That doesn't stop a lot of fights at the House, Your Honor. I'm guilty, but that carcass of that gopher tortoise was there way before the violation. I'm so upset I can hardly even talk. I'm guilty.

Anything else?

I object to the handwritten violation. The things he said there are not true. They're inaccurate. And he was very, very nice to me when we were walking around and everything. And when I read the violation and I asked him why he wrote those false things, he put the window up and hasn't spoken a word to me since.

Well, talk about the alleged violation itself. How the car got there? Is that your car?

I pulled in because my... If you get on the mic, that would be helpful, too. I pulled in alongside the fence, the construction fence, to see my property across the street. When that settled down, I tried to pull out and got stuck. I didn't run over stakes. There was no fence. There was no rope. There was no chain, which is inaccurate. A few days later, they put them up. Lots of signs, lots of flags, painted the road, but it was not there on the 6th of June.

Anything further?

Okay.

Does the city have anything further?

No, we don't.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as shown and as testified to did exist on the date and time at the location indicated. I do find that this is a violation of the, I conclude as a matter of law, this is a violation of the ordinance of the city of Marco Island. So therefore, the finding is guilty. And let me just say something, ma'am. With code enforcement, it's not necessarily that somebody meant to have a violation or intended to do something that violated the code. It's just that the situation was such, as I have found here, that constitutes a violation of the code. I did violate. Yeah. Yeah, I did have, if you want to say more, come on up and get it on the mic.

I did have a violation, and I told the officer I would be responsible, and then he fabricates more evidence, and it infuriates me.

Mr. Magistrate, I object to allegations of fabrication, and you've ruled, and I object to any more testimony by the respondent. If we could just move on.

Okay, I think she's had her say it. So what is the recommendation by the city?

$150 fine and $175 cost of prosecution.

$150 fine? Correct. Applying the statutory considerations of gravity of the violation, attempts, if any, to correct the violation, any other violations, basically I'm looking at the severity or the gravity of the violation and when we're talking about protecting turtles, we were talking about that in other cases, gopher tortoises, burrowing owls and so on, I think it's very high on the list of being serious violation, however, The recommendation is not for the maximum fine. So showing up today probably saved you $100 because his recommendation is for $150 rather than the $250 maximum. So I want you to know that I probably would have gone with the $250. But you being here today, in my opinion, his recommendation is $150, and I'm going to take that. What about the cost of prosecution?

$175 cost of prosecution.

The cost of prosecution certainly would be the $175. It meets or exceeds that with the cost that they had to go through for that. So my order will be a fine of $150 and cost of prosecution of $175. Thank you for coming in. Sir, are you here for a case? Oh, okay. Can we go ahead and take maybe a 10-minute break? Good enough for everybody? It's 1158, so let's come back at 1210. 12-minute break.

Ready to come back to whatever semblance of order we can muster at this point in the day. We'll start on page one, letter B as in Bravo, case 26-1308. The Apollo Condominium Association.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. You're right.

All righty. Mr. Magidre, my name is Ray Lesinger. I'm an officer with the Markle Island Police Department. The address of this violation is 900 South Collier Boulevard, which is in the municipal boundaries of the city of Markle Island. On May 13, 2026, I observed Code Violation 54-144, which is a violation of the Markle Island Municipal Code. I took pictures of the violation, which are an accurate account of which I observed. Mr. Senior? I hear you should have noticed the violation. We're violating the one that's 54-144 with a compliance date of immediate. This is a photo of the NOV. Okay. This is actually a better copy.

The lights were visible from the beach, I see. Yes. OK, thank you.

Photo of the posting? Affidavit of the violation?

Affidavit of the posting?

Is there notice for the code violation? Notice of hearing? Notice of hearing posted.

Certified mail.

The five-year history reveals one prior magistrate. And that is all.

What was the prior for?

Fit C turtle protection lighting in 2024. Thank you.

23rd, 2026. Follow-up inspections were conducted on July 9th, July 23rd, August 7th, and August 11th, which revealed that the location was still in violation. This is a photo of the location, August 11th, showing it's still in violation.

So is that five times somebody was out there?

uh with the initial violation yes with the initial uh uh issuance of the violation yes okay thank you following paperwork was administered to the case okay posted notice violation Affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting, notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, and the certified mail documents. I do not have any history on this property for the same violation. I do have, I guess you would call it a defense packet, which was emailed to us the other day. Some of the writing on here is a little small. I don't think it's going to translate to the overhead projector. I might want to submit it right to you. But what it is is an application was submitted on August 4th for the fence to the city of Marco Island. Application for a permit to install the fence. I could show you. application okay it's not a permit just an application some other documents from that I'm sorry could you turn that and what's this document this is It's a defense packet that was submitted by Ms. Melissa Trudnack Campbell. She's the executive account manager. It says permit number.

Was there a permit issued then?

No, no, no. No permit was issued. It's an application for a permit for a fence. The application was not, I'm sorry, the permit was not issued, but when you submit an application, they give it a number. They give it a permit number? Correct. They give it a number, which would translate into the permit number when it is approved. Thank you. All right. This is a time frame of their handling of the case. And with that, there's two other pieces of... that the piece of paper that they sent over in this defense packet it's basically communications from their their location with Matthew Reed of building department if I put these up on the screen you're not gonna be able to read them if you want I can hand them to you personally you can maybe read them a little easier zoom in a little more if you could slide down that's good Martin

Okay, thank you.

There's a second one if you want to read that one. I don't know. Okay, thank you. But that is the correspondence I received, I should say, the code office received from their company. I said they got two answers on that. Do you know what that means? I don't know what they mean on that, on two answers.

But they may be talking about what they can do.

We got two answers and just want to clarify. Yeah, they're going back and forth with Matt Reed from the building department on what was required. So he clarified with them what was required, what is allowable. That's the best I can figure out of this.

OK, thank you.

Anything further? That is all I have, sir.

Anything, any other questions, any comments? I'll admit all of the exhibits from both parties into evidence. Based upon the testimony and other evidence presented here today, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as described and as testified to by the city did exist do they still exist correct sir the and actually still do exist at the location and did exist on the dates and do exist at the location testified to I conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island therefore the finding is guilty what is the recommendation I see that we do have an application that's pending. On the other hand, there were five times that the code enforcement division had to go out or did go out. Anyhow, what's the recommendation of the city?

The city's recommending a $150 fine, $175 cost of prosecution, 60 days to obtain the permit, or $100 per day.

I think that all of those are within the confines of the state statute. And the cost of prosecution, certainly five times out there, certainly was met or exceeded. So the $175 cost of prosecution is also justified. So $150 plus $75, 60 days to obtain the permit, Otherwise a fine in the amount of what?

$100 per day.

$100 per day would be imposed. That's fair, just, and reasonable, and that will be the order.

Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Next up is letter S's in Sierra, case 260567, 741 Holly Court.

Mr. Miller, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Mr. Magistrate. Bear with me here a second. All right. Mr. Magistrate, my name is Gary Miller, code enforcement officer with the City of Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 741 Holly Court, which is within the municipal boundaries of the City of Marco Island. On March 14, 2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of work without a permit, which is a violation of Marco Island Code 105.1 and 6-111. and here are pictures that I took on that day is an accurate reflection of what I observed the work without a permit is for synthetic turf installation without a permit Is that the location of another recent notice of violation We had this case on the docket a couple months ago and now we brought it back and I'll go through some of it as we go on. Look familiar, that's why. Nope, yep, yeah, you remember correctly. I issued a notice of violation for violating 105.1 and 6-111, and I gave a compliance date of May 13, 2026, and here is a picture of the notice of violation. Okay. I also issued a stop work order. need to zoom that out a little bit here's a picture of the posting of the stop work order and the notice of violation hard to see but that is the work without a permit order issued by the building services department Uh follow-up investigations were done on 5 15 and 5 30 20 26 which revealed that the location is still in violation Here's a photo from june 6th Or I mean, sorry june 30th Here's a picture of the mailed notice of violation Affidavit of violation Affidavit of posting notice of hearing posted notice of hearing certified mail document and here is a copy of the florida statute uh... one twenty five point five seven two It talks about the ability of a municipality to regulate the installation of synthetic turf, which goes to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which issues 62-308.100. And I talked to Matthew Reed, supervisor of building services, that says that they do not restrict the installation of synthetic turf on Marco Island. They make them pull a building permit to make sure they were following the minimum requirements of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. um so i think that's why they but they still do require a building permit for the institute or the installation to make sure for permeability and fire safety uh five-year history revealed that there was one prior violation for work without a permit in 2023 there is a copy of the order but the mail document or the mailed notice of violation did not indicate Repeat offender That's all I have mr. Magistrate Okay.

Thank you anything further from the city We had as I recall we had a little discussion on the synthetic turf state law Maybe that's why it was continued to further Check the check out the effect of the 2025 turf synthetic turf legislation. So to be clear, you're not saying that it could not be approved. You're just saying that they need a permit for it.

Correct.

And that's like a lot of things, perfectly legal, but not without a permit. So I just want to make sure that that's the scope of what we're really talking about is not that they can't have it, it's just that maybe they can, maybe they can't, but they need to apply for a permit.

That is correct, and that's why I spoke with Matthew Reed, the supervisor in building services, to verify that they know about the state law and that they are pulling the permit within the requirements of the state law.

Mr. City Attorney, do you concur with that? I do. Okay. All right, based upon, and they're not here to defend themselves, anything from them?

I have received no correspondence with them.

Well, I think it's good you did some due diligence. Anyhow, to make sure that the violation should stand before you went and Did anything else or insisted that I do something? so I Say you but I mean that the city in general So based upon the testimony and other evidence presented here today I find that the Conditions as described That is the lack of a an application for and a building permit that exists on the dates and at the times and at the location indicated. They still haven't applied, is that correct?

I checked this morning before magistrate court and there was still no pending application on the city system. Okay.

And still have not applied. I conclude as a matter of law that this does violate the Ordinances the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island and therefore the finding is guilty. What is the recommendation?

city seeking $250 fine $175 cost of prosecution 60 days to obtain the permit or $100 per day fine.

Not sure that I would concur that the fines are 250 for not getting a permit for something that they may be able to do.

That's no different than if I want to build a dog house or whatever in my backyard. It's allowed to do, but I might still need a permit for it. If I want to pave my driveway, it's allowed to do, but I need a permit for it.

Yeah, but it's a maximum fine for not getting a permit. I don't see an environmental...

That's the standard fine prescribed by the city.

Well, I know that might be standard, but I'm not sure that I agree with it.

To each their own.

Did you say that there was any other similar lack of permit? There was one previous.

Yes, there was one previous in 2023.

Was it found to be?

It did not come before you.

Or it did.

Yeah, it did. It did? OK. Well, based upon that, I'm not convinced that it's a 250 on its own on the gravity issue. But on the previous violation issue, I'll go along with the 250. And I think the 175 cost of prosecution is fair, just, and reasonable. and recognizes, at least at a minimum, the cost of prosecution. Did you say how long to get a permit?

60 days to obtain the permit or $100 per day.

That would be correct. That's a good number. Yeah. So 250, 175, 60 days. or 100 for each day of noncompliance thereafter.

Next up is on page 4, letter W, case 261419, 900 Arawak Avenue.

Good afternoon again, Mr. Magistrate. My name is Gary Miller. I'm a code enforcement officer with the City of Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 900 Arawak Avenue, which is within the municipal boundaries of the City of Marco Island. On May 28, 2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of prohibited noxious plants with a violation of Marco Island Code 1836-3. Took pictures of the violation as an accurate reflection observed just put the pictures up I issued a notice violation for violating 1836 3 and I gave a compliance date of July 27 2026 So, do you know what Brazilian pepper looks like no, yes, I do mr. Magistrate

shyness turns here to defend the case and we have not received anything in the way any indication a defense packet or anything like that based upon the testimony and other evidence presented here today i find as a matter of fact that the conditions as described existed on the dates times and at the location indicated did you say that you have Checked recently?

I checked to see if there was a permit in the system this morning and there was still no permit in the system What about the violation is it still there? The last time I was by the violation the Brazilian peppers were still on the lot Was that fairly recently?

It would have probably been a few weeks ago I conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island and therefore I find The finding is guilty. What's the recommendation?

$150 fine, $175 cost of prosecution, 60 days to obtain the permit and remove, or $100 per day fine.

I find that all of the recommendations are within the confines of the state statute, local cost provision requirements. resolution and I think the time limitation is reasonable and the $100 fine for each day thereafter is also reasonable, so that will be my order. In other words, I'm adopting and accepting the recommendation of the city attorney. Next.

Next up is letter Y is in Yankee. Case 26-1882, 1540, Buccaneer Court.

John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Addressed to the violation is 1540 Buccaneer Court, which is within the city of Marco Island. July 15, 2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of high grass and weeds, which is a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code. The following photos of the violation are an accurate account of what I observed that day. Thank you, Warren. Zoom out a little more. Good. All right. subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 1836 subsection 10 with the compliance date of july 22nd 2026. follow-up inspections were conducted on july 23rd august 6th august 11th and august 15th which revealed that the location was still in violation additional photo was taken at that time see the remaining high grass The following paperwork was administered to the case. The notice of violation. OK. Posted notice of violation. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. And the certified mail documents. Okay, that is all I have, sir. There's no history on this property for the same violation. Was there a defense packet or anything? No, sir.

Nothing from the... No contact from the property owner. From the property owner. And there's nobody here to defend the case. I'll admit the exhibits into evidence. Based upon the testimony and other evidence presented at this hearing I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as described Did exist and They still exist. Correct sir and still exist at the other date time and at the location indicated I Conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island Therefore the finding is guilty. What is a recommendation? City recommends $150 fine $175 cost prosecution Excuse me, do they need to get a permit?

No, it's just cutting of the grass need to get it cleaned up How long to get it cleaned up 14 days from the date of the execution of the order or $100 fine we make that 21 days because the males are

slower than it used to be. Let's make it 21 days. Or a $100 fine. I find that all of those numbers are fair, just, and reasonable, and within the confines of the state law or the local ordinance and resolution. How many times, specifically, how many times did you go out there or have somebody go out there? With the issuance of the notice of violation.

I think I counted three at least, maybe four. I'm sorry. With the issuance of the notice of violation, five in total.

Five total? Yes. So that $175 cost of prosecution was clearly met or exceeded, so... that's fair and reasonable under the circumstances. So I'll go along with the recommendation of the city attorney.

Thanks, sir.

Thank you.

Next up is letter Z is in Zulu, case 261840. I'm sorry, what page are we on?

Same page.

Same page. Z is in Zulu. Okay. 261840. Okay.

Good afternoon, Mr. Magistrate. My name is Gary Miller, Code Enforcement Officer with the City of Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 2052 Shetfield Avenue, which is within the municipal boundaries of the City of Marco Island. On July 13, 2026, I observed a Code Enforcement violation of right-of-way obstruction, which is a violation of Marco Island Code 1836.5. Here's a picture of the right-of-way with grasses and weeds on that are taller than the ordinance i took pictures of violation which is actual reflection of what i observed on that day and here is a photo of the notice of violation uh it was issued for 18365 and i gave a compliance date of july 20th 2026. here is a photo of the nov posting Follow-up inspections were conducted on 7 21 and 8 5 20 26 that the reveal that the location is still in violation Here's a photo taken by officer Yunkin on 7 21 Here's the affidavit of violation affidavit of posting Notice of hearing Posted notice of hearing certified mail document and five-year history real no prior violations for right-of-way obstruction and that is all I have have you received any defense packet or anything from the We have received no defense packet and I have had no contact with the property owner And I do not see anybody here to defend The exhibits will be admitted into evidence

Based upon the testimony and other evidence provided here at the hearing today, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as described did exist and do exist at the location indicated on the dates, the times, and at that location. I conclude, as a matter of law, that this constitutes a violation of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Marco Island. and therefore the finding is guilty. How many times did you go out or did somebody go out?

I have downed that someone was there twice. Okay.

What is the recommendation?

$150 fine, $175 cost of prosecution, 21 days to correct or $100 per day. I find that those recommendations are correct

fair within the confines of the state law, the city ordinances and resolution. And that will be my order. I do have a question, though. Maybe this applied to another one. But if they do not correct, does the city want to have the option of going on and making the correction

If we wanted, I'd ask for it.

Okay. Well, I wasn't sure. It's up to the city whether or not it wants to have that option, and so I just wanted to raise it. Okay. My order will be consistent with the city attorney's recommendation. You can sit down now, Mr. Miller.

No.

I think I'm up next. Oh, you wish you could. I have a feeling you have another case. Okay.

Next up is letter AA, case 261852 for 2015 Sheffield Avenue. Okay.

Good afternoon, Mr. Magistrate. My name is Gary Miller, Code Enforcement Officer with the City of Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 2015 Sheffield Avenue, which is within the municipal boundaries of the City of Marco Island. On July 14, 2026, I observed a Code Enforcement violation of right-of-way obstruction, which is a violation of the Marco Island Code 1836.5. I took pictures of the violation. It was an accurate reflection of what I observed on that day. Once again, you can see the tall grass and weeds in the public right-of-way. I issued a notice of violation for violating 1836 5 and gave a compliance date of July 21st 2026 and here's a picture of the notice of violation All right, here is the notice of violation posting Follow-up inspections were conducted on 722, 730, and 814, which reveal that the location is still in violation. Here are photos taken by Officer Ron Hofstetter on August 14th, showing that the grass and weeds have still not been cut. Here's the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. Certified mail document. Five-year history revealed no prior violations, and we have not received a defense packet, and I have not been contacted by the property owner. And that is all I have.

And nobody's here to respond or defend. I think I heard you say four times.

Three that I know of.

Oh, three? Okay, I thought it was four. Okay. I'll admit the exhibits into evidence. I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions as described at the hearing here today did exist and do exist at the location indicated and at all the dates and times, including today. I conclude, as a matter of law, that this constitutes a violation of the code of ordinances of the city of Marco Island. Therefore, the finding is guilty. What is the recommendation?

$150 fine, $175 cost of prosecution, 21 days to comply, or $100 per day?

I think that the recommendations are within the confines of the state statute, the local ordinance and resolution, and especially given the cost of prosecution at least three times out for inspections, among other things. $100 fine after 21 days. Is that right? That's correct. Yes.

I think that's reasonable, too So that'll be my order Next up is letter B B case 26 1 8 7 8 8 20 North Barfield Drive

Good afternoon, Mr. Magistrate. My name is Gary Miller, code enforcement officer of the City of Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 820 North Barfield Drive, which is within the municipal boundaries of the City of Marco Island. On July 15, 2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of site distance triangles, which is a violation of Marco Island Code 30-438, subsection alpha. I took pictures of the violation, which is an accurate reflection of what I observed on that day. Once again, you can see here's the site distance. It's 30 feet back from the intersection of the sidewalk. The bushes are taller than code, obstructing the vision of motorists or pedestrians on the sidewalk.

I also gave them a picture of the code.

Is this an intersection? The last picture I saw the sign there.

Yeah, it is at the intersection.

So it's not just the pedestrian problem, it's a sight distance for drivers also?

That is correct. Okay, thank you. I gave them the pictorial actually out of the code when I posted the notice violation. I issued the notice of violation for violating 30-438 alpha and I gave a compliance date of August 5th of 2026 and there is a picture of the notice of violation that I issued.

Okay.

Posting of the notice of violation. Follow-up inspections were conducted on 86821 which revealed that location is still in violation and here's a picture that was taken on 86 by Officer Negra. here is the affidavit of violation affidavit of posting notice of hearing posted notice of hearing certified mail document Five-year history revealed no prior violations a defense packet wasn't submitted Approximately a week after I issued the notice of violation. I did Get a call from the property owner who is out of state He was wanting to know who turned the violation in and I explained to him that it was on discovered on a routine patrol he didn't really agree with the violation and Hung up the phone on me And I noticed I just got an email from the code enforcement's office that he tried to contact me yesterday and I have to give him a call back to see what He wants but he did contact me probably about a week or so maybe two weeks after the initial violation where I explained to him the ordinance and explained to him that I actually left a pictorial on the notice of violation. And that is all I have.

Okay. I'll admit the exhibits into evidence. I'll note also on the record, I do not see anybody here to defend the case. Based upon the testimony and other evidence submitted today at the hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions as described did exist and do exist at the location indicated. I conclude as a matter of law that this constitutes a violation of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Marco Island. Therefore, the finding is guilty. What is the recommendation?

$150 fine, $175 cost of prosecution, 21 days to comply, or $100 per day?

I find that the – I'm sorry?

I was repeating for – Okay.

I think the recommendation of the city attorney is within the confines of the state statute and the local ordinance and resolution. I note – I think you said that there were at least three inspections –

Two that I know of for sure.

Two? Yeah. Officer Negra came back on one.

And then I know there was another officer that just did it on the 21st.

Okay. Anyway, I think that the costs of prosecution have been met or exceeded. Therefore, the recommendation of the city attorney will be my order.

Okay, now we're into the certifications part of the program. Starting with letter DD, case 251520, 25 Marco Lake Drive.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

I thought I was going to say good evening there for a while.

Not yet. Magistrate Keith Richter, Code Enforcement, Marco Island. This is a certification of fines. I'll show you your original order.

Okay, it's a one-time fine of $150 and then 30 days to correct or $100 per day until corrected. That's the notice of hearing for today's case?

Correct.

Okay.

And then I have a breakdown on the fines.

If you get closer to the mic. Thank you.

So it's $150,000 fine, $50,000 cost of prosecution, and then the remainder lays out the per diem fines for a total of $20,500.

So that's just a calculation of what was not paid, which was... 150 and 50 that's 200 and then the days thereafter up until when today or 25th of August I guess yes sir all right today okay and that has not been none of that has been received is that correct correct all right nothing received okay therefore it will be my order

Next will be letter E, E, case 241342 for 910 ship court.