Code Compliance Hearings

Code Compliance Hearings

AGENDA

CODE COMPLIANCE HEARINGS

October 22, 2026

08:15 a.m.

TO BE HEARD AT 8:30 AM

1.

Annie P McRae, Property: 3011 Gillespie Ave, Case No.: 2025-01495

2.

2115 Bay Street LLC, Inc Authority RA - Registered Agent, Property: 2115 Bay St, Case No.: 2026-01058

TO BE HEARD AT 8:45 AM

3.

340 Jackson LLC, Najmy Thompson PL - Registered Agent, Property: 340 Jackson Dr, Case No.: 2026-00414

4.

Dawid Ludwiszewski, Edyta Ludwiszewski, Property: 2221 Wood St, Case No.: 2026-00525

TO BE HEARD AT 9:00 AM

5.

Daphne Marie White, Property: 2268 Temple St, Case No.: 2026-00516

6.

Vickie T Dunbar, Property: 2518 N Links Ave, Case No.: 2026-01074

TO BE HEARD AT 9:15 AM

7.

Park District Manager LLC, Corporation Creations Network Inc - Registered Agent, Property: 115 East Ave, Case No.: 2026-00736

8.

119 Mckinley LLC, Najmy Thompson PL - Registered Agent, Magnolia Cottages LLC, Kiri Stewart - Registered Agent, Property: 119 Mckinley Dr, Case No.: 2026-01107

TO BE HEARD AT 9:30 AM

9.

Rhino Ventures LLC, Derek Eisemann - Registered Agent, Property: 414 N Lime Ave, Case No.: 2026-01142

TO BE HEARD AT 10:00 AM

10.

James Ian Murrhee, Property: 2526 S East Ave, Case No.: 2025-00872

11.

Prather Helton Properties LLC, Allen Prather II - Registered Agent, Property: 3158 Irving St, Case No.: 2026-01657

TO BE HEARD AT 10:15 AM

12.

Dorothy L Whigham, Keith A Farlin, Property: 3006 Maple Ave, Case No.: 2026-00007

13.

Dorothy L Whigham, Keith A Farlin, Property: 3006 Maple Ave, Case No.: 2026-00421

14.

JBCC Development LLC, David H Rosenberg - Registered Agent, Property: 1200 University Pkwy, Case No.: 2026-00614

>> All right. We'll go first to our quick first. But this is our code compliance. Special magistrate hearings. Today's date is October 22nd 2026. first case in the docket city of Sarasota. First NDP McRae case number 2025, 0, 1, 4, 9, 5, The record response not present for this. Okay. So city's position. >> This is continue case this morning for a violation of the standard housing code. 3 of 5.1 1.1 for next to your door that was in. That's in disrepair. Also 3 of 5.0, 1, 4 screens in disrepair. That violation was corrected with our inspection on September. 15th. And we also have a city code section 16 Dash 47 for the accumulation of junk rubbish and trash which remains out of compliance. This is our 6th hearing and we really haven't had much participation from anybody. I think that at some point was going through probate and back on April, the 9th, you impose a civil fine of 17,000 and then 390 and costs. So today we're asking you to increase the daily running 5 to 2.50, and then what we fine. >> bring that money back or yes, maybe one more time. Okay. We're looking at. >> December the 3rd at 9.15. >> 39, 15 am. I think it increase required to attend the Submissions live. On the violations are. 5.11. One is continuing be 47 and those continuing. 5, 13.1 was corrected back in September 15. Nothing is off the record for that case. >> David Duke. Yes. Hi. Good morning, Carrie. Richard Ellis as magistrate the City of Sarasota. >> Mr. Do you got if your rate will go on record for your case, which is a city of Sarasota vs 2, 1, 1, 5, a Street LLC case number 2026, year 1, 0, 5, 8, And David, you got is appearing by telephone. >> And should you got to procedurally? I we start with the City of Sarasota, someone to start with Miss Kennedy this morning and the city's Come right back to you. OK? >> Thank you. Regarding this county, whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, this is continue case today for a violation of city code. Section 16 Dash 47 for the Cumulus Jean of junk rubbish and trash. I am pleased to report the violation was corrected with our inspection on October. The 19th. >> Mr. De Gotti Kennedy's indicating the city confirm compliance October DUI. You agree with that? >> I will find 16. 47. The city code was correct or not. On October 19, 2000. >> 26 takes us to the issue, fines and cost and Ms Kennedy. city have a recommendation on >> We do. Martin got you're not here to see this affidavit that that we have a final affidavit prepared that reflects the compliance date. You could have given them 5 days to cure the violations. At our first hearing and the compliance date was set for October. The 6th and compliance was not verified until October. The 19th. So the civil fine ran from October 7th through October. The 18th. That's 12 days at $100 per day for $1200.5, inspections at $540. The city is not going to ask for all of that civil fine. But we are asking for a one-day fine of $100 in the city to recoup its costs. The $540. So the taxpayer doesn't bear the burden for the process. >> All Mr. You got it would get your response. The recommendation is for me. The affidavit 1200. They're asked for one day 5 of 100 and costs of 5.40, for the processes. That's the city's recommendation to someone to get your response. If I could. >> Ari, on total amount is how much 540. >> It would be $100 fine cost of 5.40, for the cost of the process. >> 6, 7, got OK. So the only issue I have with that and I just went back out for a second. I was initially sent a certified know in for lumber that in the backyard. I never received that stirred by now. I live in New York. So I received another letter by certified. United Response to the first letter and that same I called City Sarasota spoke with the appropriate people. And I was informed guidance from inspector informed that there was a pile of lumbar. >> But we in the backyard, I had that removed immediately. is even a move that week. And man, I it was resolved initially complained I knew. But then told I actually didn't buy done We had to me because I we resolve extricate you it? Then I received on about John Robbins. Trash. And I hope that the sector again and it turned out this after the lumber lumber lumber, which removed and so it was very confusing to me. I like everything was resolved and we were good and had pictures. I sent it the instructor. Expect temperatures to smoking the code compliance specialist of the yard that was cleaned out on. But then I was again, I was not aware of these John that exist in and I wasn't all that they jump in of itself means very confusing. And I thought was rectified. It was. it turned out when spoke be infected. Are the here to been more of an issue after the lumber money was removed. So I don't I don't know if very fair that it every time I was notified and that received her head. But I I responded immediately. And even this time to when I received this letter. >> Responded with it. I had all the Trump I fired some major movement on within 72 hours. And there was a lot of junk, including the piano and it was all removes I I don't get the findings verifying. I do think islands, you know, and care I'm doing the best I can possibly do. I think I could have acted any more expeditiously. >> All right. Well, you know, has built into ability for you to respond You know, I personally like the original citation gives you. Compliance deadlines. But additionally, and that with its system is much been modified. When that big cases come to me for the first time I I now give people additional time to to come into compliance. And I did that in this case. So there were 2. There were places where, yeah, the notice was I think was sufficient to you. So the recommendation is not for all the day's but for one single day. So I think it's appropriate. I'm gonna go with that. And I'm I'm also going assess the costs of I think we should with 5.36. Will be ready. 5.46. Now think it is appropriate for the taxpayer to bear the burden for that and nothing to vacate Careful going forward You got it because there's a repeat violator provision in the city code. Same same responded within 5 years. Same violation. Fines can start running at $500 a day or more. So be careful >> for today's purposes, $100 fine, one day, find $100 cost of 5.40, and they'll take us off the record and Mr. got to have a good Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. bye. >> All right. We're going to go next City of Sarasota. First 3.40, Jackson LLC case number 2026 0, 0, 4, 1, 4, soldier identify yourself for the record in. will be representing in this case morning. My name is Ray near out here and I represent the owner, 3.40, Jackson LLC. >> All right. Mr. Out here. You know the process well, so start with this Kennedy come right back to Summit County. Whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, this is a new case today for violation of standard Housing could won a 1.6 for some that was on the structures that was corrected with our inspection on October. The 20th and then we have 3 a 7 point for the standard housing code for care premises. That was that violation was corrected back in July on July. 2nd. So the property is currently in compliance at this time. >> Okay, Miss you. I'll tell you, agree with those compliance. fun 1, 6, of state House of Co was corrected. An 10/20/2026 through some point for the state house in July. 2nd. >> Thanks to the issue, fines and cost and this can whenever you're ready. >> Well, that since this is a new case, they complied with and, you know, before the first hearing. So we're not asking for any fines or cautious to find a violation and maybe explain the repeat violator class. >> wave of so the recognitions for no final cost because would typically now give compliance days and complied before that hearing. So there will no find no cost. But you're aware the repeat violator provision. So your client passed that along to And they'll take care because, well, when there's a repeat violation, there are no time did given compliance. So. Very good. Thank you. Excellent says a ordinance. You're you're outside. You're ordinance. >> We're going next to City of now was was used >> a I'm if you have to correct you on your pronunciation there. Case number 2026, 0, 0, 5, 2, 5, recommend your day. >> Kristin Cup. >> You're not helping me because that's you don't have that many. >> Exactly. going to try hide how you spell your last. I we've got it on the record yesterday. >> Mr. Ross, Incorrect Ross and the Very good. All right. You've been here for us. You know, the process start with this Kennedy on the city's position come right back to you. So this can be whenever you're ready. >> Thank you. This this has a ttle bit of backstory. Some kind of frame it here. This is our second hearing today for a violation of city of City, Zoning Code section 7, 3, 16 for a 22 inch slash pine that was removed without a permit. And a 28 inch slash pine that was removed without a permit and section 7, 3, 25 for diameter press tight removal. Find for the removal without a permit which came to $11,250. Both of the teacher out of the 2 trees, only one of the trees could have been permitted to be removed. So it's actually the 22 inch slash pine and that permit. I think the permits pulled for both. But at 7.13, July, the 13th was the compliance date for the permit. So then we went back and we calculated the dbh fine. That would be do for the 28 inch. Slash pine. That was not would not have been removed. eligible for removal. Yes. So that do that amount do would be $6,300. And here at the we have this set for 45 days out. city leadership wanted it a little bit closer. So we moved it back up. But they still they have actually 45 days to correct the violation. And that time has not run yet. But I wanted to give an idea of what the affidavit looks like for the daily running fine, which would have been the permit case and then the dbh find, which is the probable harm. >> And really the only way they can come into compliance by paying paying the $6,300. >> $300. Yes. And then we can talk about the daily running fine at the next hearing. All right. Understand what to wear your confusing. >> I mean, say have left to come >> I I'm willing to push it out another. I think it's at least probably. 3 weeks. So I'm willing to put out 30 or more to give them some additional time. All right. So who's the responding here? >> And the little gob smacked on this dollars. have a cold >> we relied on this is the case or refresh your memory relied on certified arborist. It got a treat assessment letter, which is part of the record. >> And we we went on that. >> Yeah, right there. Part of the record. >> And we would add that. >> Arborists. Letter to take down the 2 trees, according to the current law. Our what what the arborist told us was the current law. So we relied on that out of the 2 trees. One tree is our. was not permit double. So. We then paid over $3,000 in. Permit fees. to the tree fund. So already paid $3,000 for something that was honest mistake on our part. Tony, I would say also that the >> the point of the CD was that actually. That was not easy Bayshore bar. So because you know that we could do with that arbery's certificate. That was we can cut the tree on the Rays in a show site. And they say older occupied, right? You? >> Well, there's no structures on the site. That's the problem. And so this Florida statues, no structure on this, right. So that's the problem with the arborist letter yet