Code Compliance Hearings

>> All right. We'll go on record for our code. Find special magistrate hearings. Today's date is September 30,000. 26. The first case on the docket, a city of Sarasota versus Merivale Ingress and Alfie Thomas. >> They're in very junior case. Number 2024, 0, 0, 3, 1, 8, >> And Rosin is here on behalf of someone. On behalf of the landowner land, OK, landowner, both of them. In theory, it was each own 50%. >> Okay. Very good. So, you know, I start with city out there when this Kennedy and walk come right back to some. This can be whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, this is to continue case we've had going on for quite some time as the 2024 case for a violation of the standard Unsafe Building Abatement Co for 3 or 4. 3, 1, 0.4 for demolition of the structures on the property Mr. Ahsan and I have talked and we had agreed on a number. If the structure was demolished within a timely manner and he has done that. So we have agreed to settle at $7500. All right. This roster that your understanding? Yes, that. >> That is our understanding. need to make it in this too. they cut the prior order. And as >> So $7500 civil fine. No additional cost, correct. And find the violations are all corrected as of September. Second is cited. And I guess that results. Okay. So great. then very much. Thank you. Thank for working with us. sure the next time, yes, just make a man out there. >> If you look the case number on it. >> All right. We'll next to City of Sarasota versus James, Murray. It's case number 2025, 0, 0, 8, 7, 2, he's frequently. shows up some guessing. There's a stipulation on this one. >> There that he reached out and said that he was not going to be available to make it today. So we agreed to a continuance. I'm going to find a little day here. To bring him back And I've got knocked over first at 10 o'clock. >> All right. I'll continue October 1, 2026 at 10:00AM by the violations. Continuing the last order. And they'll take us off the record. All right. We're going to go on record for city of Sarasota versus Mrf Holdings. LLC is case number. >> 2026 0, 0, 5, 5, 6, answer for the record. Your name, please. Ruben Troyer. All right, Mr. Choi, are you here for Are AF Holdings Ltd. Okay. I just read on if you've been here with us before procedurally I we start with the city of Sarasota, Ms Kennedy's representing the city of Sarah's today. explain the city's position on the case. Welcome back to get your response. Okay. Okay. Miss County whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, this is a new case today for a violation of Florida building code. One of 5.1 for an interior exterior renovation, enclosed garage without a permit. The permit was issued back on August, the 6 and the final inspection took place on September. The first the property currently in compliance. >> Mr. Ms Kennedy a degree or disagree with her. I agree, OK? All right. Well, then I will find that was a violation, 1, 0, 5, 1, But it was corrected on September. First 2000. 26, which immediately immediately takes us to the issue, fines and cost and as Kennedy City have a recognition on that issue. We do. I would like you to take judicial notice of case number 2025, 0, 0, 5, 9, 6, to establish the repeat violation of all do that. Yes. >> So we have a final affidavit prepare that reflects a potential civil fine of $87,500. This is a repeat. So it was $175 175 days that $500 per day 3 inspections at $390. The city is not asking for all of the civil fine, but we are asking for an $8,500 fine due the fact that it's a repeat and these folks are flipper. So they're doing it frequently and then the city to recoup its costs of $390. So the taxpayer doesn't for the process. >> OK, thank you. All right, Mr. Choi have a response to Miss Kelly's recommendation. Yes. first. We're we're not flippers. We are short-term rentals. You are correct. And first, I want apologize to court for not having done the proper procedure. Was hurt in an accident. Actually. Here in town. Fill in through the light hit me on the bike. So I was hurt in the accident did not. Pay attention to this like I should have at the time. at the after. I got back going again to realize what situation was. usually hired the wrong person. person without a license. And then finally found somebody with a license to do this properly. And my intention is to. Going forward. If we get any house, it's going to be. Totally compliant. I'm not going to do anything that's not compliant to code. In fact. I have a question on that after after this hearing. All right, All right. Well, on the fun, if I really recommend recommend advise 8,500, you have anything specific on the find. You want say to me about that. recommended fine. >> Well, it's a it is a financial hardship at this I had to pay out of pocket for my medical costs. >> Mr. Fell that hit me. Have no insurance and thank you. Get grace from the city on that part. I will guarantee you will never happen on our behalf again. >> Here's I will give you a bit of a break here. The record 8500 ago with a $5,000 fine cost of 3.90. You know, the year in this repeat violators status. So any time that they cite you, it's going find you gonna run of 500 bucks a day. Plus, so have to be careful going forward. that's something the bacon on this. What are known okay. Good luck, sir, on this, which you know, obviously everybody's got to play by the same rules so that there's no economic advantage for 1, 1, versus the other, OK? Thank you. I have good days are taking help you go head one more question here. >> So there is another house that joining our house on the backside that wanted to buy. But then discovered it was done under nothing again. And so I just get scared. I'm like I'm not I'm not touching it, but I like to buy it. But how do >> How do get through these? You I think you have to do your due diligence and you have to make sure that the permits were pulled from They weren't. That's what I'm saying. We're having ball. >> You're going to get the factor that in price because it's I don't want my name on a noncompliant again. Let's push. You're going to have to leave. You want to look up to see if there. >> Code enforcement fines already on that house. You may want check it out. That's to know, you know. So. You know, I'm assuming your tile company would probably find that for you if you purchase it. But >> you know, you may want to be find it. And then, you know, the other thought I have, if you if you purchase the thing and maybe got with the building department and said, I know these violations are here, you know, give my attention is to immediately rectify and pull a permit and all that that might be another strategy here. What would it? >> See, like I this was the second time this happen for me. Then it would show it the 3rd time. That's the last thing I want I don't know. I see your point that I think want I think that would be a reasonable explanation. >> For you But I think what might what I would suggest is before you close on purchase it talk to the building department to come up with a strategy. Maybe they want wouldn't even sites you. I guess if they you said, look, I you know, I'm going immediately immediately pull the permits This is not my but you got to talk to them for stoke him. Good luck to you, OK with pages. >> They can help you right in the And I will let you know how to do that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Take care of the day. All right. We'll go on record for city of Sarasota versus Candice Lee and Swan. >> Dark Ozark Bryan Warren. Heritage heard. I'm sure Announced that once of the case. Number 2026 0, 0, 5, 9, 7, sir. you give your name for the record, please. >> Brian show came heritage. >> All right. Sarah procedure that we start with the city of Sarasota, Kennedy's in for the city today and she'll explain the city's position and I'll come back to get your response. Okay. Summit County whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, this is a new case today for a violation of our city Code. Section 16 Dash 50 for an inoperable unlicensed vehicle and then Section 6 wanted 2 J one for a recreational vehicle stored improperly. The correction date for the inoperable vehicle with September first and then the recreational vehicle was April the 23rd. So the property is currently in compliance. Okay. Of >> Mr. Her tubes heard with Kennedy said, you agree with her or what's what's your position? Your? Yes, we got everything up to date and in compliance with the city's code. Okay. I will fight for the record that 16 50 the city could was correct that 9/1/2026 6, 1, 2, J. One corrected it back on April 23rd 2 2026. So. >> That immediately takes us to the issue of fines and costs Kennedy City have questions or just have a recommendation. >> We have a recommendation. This is our first hearing on this. So we are just asking you to find a violation today and explain the repeat violator class, right? So, you know, we would go back to you and ask you for your position, but you can't do any better than that recommendation, which >> For no fine, no cost in this case. The only thing I need say is that there's a repeat violator provision in the city code. So if the same respondent has the same violation within 5 years. The fines can run $500 a day. be careful going forward. But for today's purposes, no final cost. thank you for here. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good day. >> All right. We're going go on record for City of Sarasota vs. Nancy J. Anderson is case number 2026, 0, 0, 9, 2, 0, And for the record, sir, your name, please. >> My name is Thomas Silva. the sales manager Superior Offense. >> And you're here behalf of this, Anderson of day. Yes, alright, procedurally I we start with the city of Sarasota missed Kennedy's in for the city today. explain the city's position on this. Now. Come right back to OK? Alright, MS Kennedy, whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, what was your last name? Again? I'll be okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. >> So this is a new case today for a violation of Florida building code, one of 5.1 for a fence that was installed without a permit. It looks like the permit is pretty pretty much ready to go. Was there not a transmittal this cost? I thought there was a transmittal that came in a 25 that needs to be reviewed. Ending playing corrections. So looks like we need some corrections for zoning to the transmittal that was submitted on a 25. So I just be looking at Mr. Silva to see what the time see where we're at in that process. >> All right. This is similar go to >> My understanding is we're in the last review and we're just waiting on the permit to be issued. >> So you think you responded to the requests for information? And yes, that's on status of 10 September 2nd, I just want just went out so that we haven't received that one. Yeah. So it went out probably by email. From Eric Eastman. So and that's what they're looking for. Please include a comment on this plan that clarifies location of offense mean that sort of thing. So it looks like it's minor, something that you could probably do quickly in. Yeah, I get my candor yeah. All right. Then I guess we should probably pushes out 30 days to let go out. >> Yeah, this is a new The city's requesting that the violation be corrected within next 30 days. And then we will. >> Schedule out a new date. Okay. >> All right. do. We are going to set a date set of data. >> We are. Yeah. We are going to set a date today on some things mutually convenient for you in the city as well. All right. See, I have. October the that's the 15th. Haven't October the 8th. that works for you. We want make sure. That's fine. Okay. I have an 8.45? I have a 10, 15 or 10, 30. What time works better for you. 8. 45 45? Okay. >> All right. That's what I'll do. All it can to out to October 8th that 08:45AM. On the violation continue at this 0.1. 0, 5, 1, of the Florida building code, Mr. Civil. We'll see you then. Thank you, Sir. Thank you. You have a wonderful thank you. Thank you. I want to go next to City of Sarasota versus Thomas seen just the U.S. trustee. The Do vocal trusted 12/15/2025 Jackson, Darlene, as trustee of the steamy. And they vocal trust dated 12/15/2025 case number 2026, 0, 0, 5, to 4. For the record. No one's here on behalf of the risk. that's so the city's position on this case. >> This is a continue case that we have for a violation of our city Code. Section 16 Dash 47 for the accumulation of junk rubbish and trash. And unfortunately, the violation remains out of compliance. Yes, we have a pile of yard waste that's present on the property back on July. The 30th you post a civil fine of $13,700. 3 inspections at $390 in hopes that we would get someone to maybe respond to the to the violation. But we have not had any response. So today we're asking you to increase the daily running. Find it to 50 per day. >> Modify the. order. Increase the daily running 5 to 2.52. To 50 per day get a representative responded acquire doing the next hearing. And what we have available. >> We have October the first at 11 o'clock. >> Into the case out, talk of a one. 11:00AM. And find 60. 47 continuing. That'll take us off the record. I will go next. The city of Sarasota versus Lauren El Miller case number 2026 years here for a 2. For the record, Lord knows not president. here on her behalf. So the city's position on this case. >> continue case that we have for violation of Florida building code one of 5.1 for an interior renovation without a permit. We are making some progress. The permit was issued on August. 26 and it's pending notice of commencement. So I think the city would be comfortable pushing this out an additional 30 45 days to give them some time to complete the permit. We're looking. C. Tobar, the 15th at 8.45? >> To the case to 10/15/2026 08:45AM. Find a violation. Well, 5.1 continuing just come from the last order and that will take us off the record. >> All right. We're going to go on record for our next case, which is styled as a city of Sarasota versus not show. It's case number. With 1025, 0, And search for the wreckage. A name please. Ignacio Ybarra tomorrow is present with us misogyny of Jeanne about Very I perceive before. So, you know, I I we start with the Start with Miss Kennedy and I'll come right back to get your response. Okay. All right. this can be whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, this is a continued case for violation of our Florida building code. One of 5.1 for a carport enclosure. It was converted to a dwelling unit sections 6 to be a varsity zoning code for having 2 units in a single family residence and in Section 7, 602, C C 2.1 C 4, either the accessory to facts originally unit or the main structure not being owner occupied. We do a permit applied for, however, there are stuck corrections that are still needed to the permit application. So I just be looking, Mr. Misses the to see what the timeframe is too, to get these things moving. >> All right. We're all gonna go to the city needs some more information from you. What what's that situation as you understand it? >> We talk with me says thing she explained to over there. What is our options do doing the? The correction or keeping the property. So we are talking with our engineering. So to see which one would be the best way to go. >> Okay. >> So is or when are you gonna make that decision? >> I would do. Yeah. Said he would just waiting for the engineers and too. >> I'm not sure if I understand you. you considering renewing a demolition? Is that what emotional >> Probably restoring it to a single family residence. are keeping the accessory dwelling unit. All right, keeping >> So you have a decision to make. And you know, when you're gonna make that decision or >> we just waiting for the engine used to because they did. To show the planning see which one which way would be. We we would like to go. We didn't keep the unity's, but we're looking because we have to pay. I packed into $20,000 to right. And then see if the constructions the quotes? Correct? Right. >> And then you also have to live in one or the other. The property owner has to live in either the accessory dwelling unit or the main house. So they have to be owner occupied. So keep that in mind to if not, then you can't have the accessory dwelling unit. So keep that in mind. It might be that you have to restore it to a single family residence if you're not going to live there. >> to keep it simple if you're not to live their You know, he is not an option for >> Another question of the homestand. >> Like where you raise is where you reside. >> if you live in that case, we have to move into that house yet. And that would be our homes claim Homestead, you have to live there. >> how we do that, you move in there, you move in there and then you change it with the property appraiser. The tax collector. Let them know that it's Homestead. But yeah, that that certainly a part of the process that zoning is going to want to see is that you live there. In order to have that second unit. And if not, then you have to restore it to a single family residence. You can downgrade the kitchen facilities to a wet bar. And then have can access throughout the whole entire property. And that would make it, you know, one single family I guess the decision is yours now. as to what you how you want to forward. >> We've got before about removing one of the contents, Opening a door to connect the If we let. >> If you do that, you. Yeah, you're actually restoring it to a single family residence. If you downgrade the kitchen to a wet bar and you put in a door that gives access to the whole entire structure that was on the project. I think there's we have to move to the to come off. >> Okay. Right. And up in the winning the 2 units. move has tension working on for you this that one? Yeah. >> The red to send this option like tearing down the kitchen okay. Didn't they saying to you this? No, I don't actually work in permitting. So it would be permitting. That's probably not only in for maybe talk with Mister Magnum and he's the one fact. Yeah, only thing he was the the window. I think so when this part is result. So the the the permit and then we can start moving back we cannot do right now. Right now we have to wait. Do they approve Yes, which are the issues are common changes, correct? >> All right. So timetable on this and we have see have a proposal with >> We have a proposal. This is our 8th hearing we're still kind of stuck in this limbo. And I think it's more advantageous to just maybe confirm the prior order and have them reschedule it when they're ready to come back. When permits close to being on fine running on this. There is so would Miss Kennedy saying is rather than me us continue bring you back here. >> I'm just going to confirm the order, which leaves that fine running. But if you decide you know, come into compliance on this and well, you have do is ask for another hearing to them coming into compliance and I can revisit. >> The fines and costs that OK, yes to it that way saw let's go ahead and do that all come from the prior orders. find the violations continuing at this point. This indicate the case will be reset at the request of respond Mister a bar or the city. And when you get there, just I would. Recommend that you you set up another hearing here. So these fines are it some in astronomical level when you go to sell this property, you know, so, okay. How can we find out how much the fines you need to really 2 steps when need to come into compliance. First and then request another hearing in front of me. Okay. And then I can take all these things into consideration. We can. We can come up with a number. Okay for OK? I think with what Ms Kelly's indicating revenues continuing. Have us come back to the 8, 9, >> And here costs the cost doing lost that. >> Just want to put the bog us put the ball in your court. And that's okay. Okay. I We don't see for a while good thing. we're going to go on record for next 2 cases. City of Sarasota versus I Y LLC and we have a case numbers. 2006, 26 0, 0, 6, 1, 2, in 2026, 0, 1, 1, 6, 7, Murray say water is present on behalf of the respondent. And so as you know, it's been a while, but you still remember, I've start with the city. so when Kennedy. >> Now come right back to County. Whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, this is, I guess, technically our first hearing on these cases, we had a big storm, the last go around and it was and was a little frightened to come. So we did a stipulated continuance were stuck in my house. It was a big storm for the first one. I just kind of touch base on each one of them. 2026, 0, 0, 6, 1, 2, is violation of city Code. Section 16 Dash 47 for the accumulation of junk rubbish and trash. The inspector says that there is a large tree looks like it's kind of hanging around. Guessing. That's the case. Yes, right? That's it right there. The tree limb. Okay. The tree limb that's down. So we need Kasey, I'm sorry. Had are part-time rating and then 16 dash. 49 be for overgrowth which remains in compliance as of the inspection on August. The 17th. So we still have the 16 47 out of compliance and then the second case, 2026, 0, 1, 1, 6, 7, That's for violation of city Code. Section 16 dash. 49 be for overgrowth. That remains out of compliance as well. Mr. Yes, he will show you some pictures here. All right. And there's the pictures of the 47 87 David Avenue. So just be looking at Want to see what the timeframe is to bring all both of these properties into compliance. >> OK, and I go to is, you know, thank you so much. 47 to 7 the 10 and tease never able to keep the property which supposed to be. I did talk to him believe it was either Friday Monday. And meaning Iowa. I is going to take over. The maintenance of grounds because obviously has not been able to do 8 and has been a nightmare with Iowa is ticking over. The time frame for that and just have to gather the troops here and I would say I don't have not this Friday, but by next Friday yesterday be done. Okay. It's alright. And then what about the tree limb for the Bradenton Road? >> be honest with you. I didn't see that one. Yes, it's a no ways on the property. Yeah, it's a large ship and it's completely down as Aaron. Okay. Yeah. So at this point it's just considered in a rubbish. I apologize. 47 drugs. Yeah, there it It's good picture of it right Said timetable to fit. All right. Okay. Okay. All right. So yes, we're discussing when to bring this back the proposed date for this. >> Let's see. See if I have anything on the 20. Not looking good. Just all right. How about October first, could you do that? I will make it happen. Hey, I have. You would see what I have. I have an 11, 15. I have a one 15 to either those work for you. And make it work and would have preferred as soon as possible. a morning, but against a fist is not possible buy. We don't want to push it to to suppose. I mean, we can push to the 8th if you want use anything, anything we go back finish have 10, 15. Also let's go back to defer back to the first. Okay. That's earliest I've got. Some are gone 11 for 11, 15 you know the first okay effect. >> to you both cases to October. First 11:15AM, and the violation of in won't who is continuing of in a jump trashed the treatments issue there. 60 40 says the 49 be remains compliance is August 17th. Second case, 1, 6, 7, it 49 be heavy that dense rank overgrowth continues. Both cases continue out to October. First at 11:15AM, and we'll see you then. >> Thank Thank you so much. Thank Need to take care. >> good morning. Is this a Freeman Troyer? It is Mr. Troy, this is a Richard Ellis serving as magistrate the City of Sarasota. How are you doing today, sir? >> Good good. Thank But I also want to tell you that Ruben Fisher is here, I believe in play on your behalf here in are hearing room as well. So >> we'll go on record for city of Sarasota versus Levi burgers fusty. The Aiello Hershberger revoke Ultra stated 10/27/2005 regionally. There's frosty by Elders Burger vocal trusted October 27 2000 by this case. Number 2026 EUR, Euros, 501, and Mr. Fischer D-San Mr. >> Mr. Choi will all start with the City of Sarasota. All start with Miss Kennedy. And then I'll come right back to you. OK? >> All right. This could be one of your right. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis this if they continue case that we have for violation of our city Zoning Code section 7, 3, 16 for a 62 inch live oak that was irreparably harmed by pruning and lollipop. And you can see in the photos there and then a 24 inch live oak that was removed without a permit. The permit was secured and then we have the final inspections as April, the first. So that remains in compliance at this time. Then we have section 7, 3, 25 which talks about the fine for the removal of the trees without a permit the civil fine for the dbh removal is $19,326 which still remains on paid in the city is looking to have that fine paid. So I just be looking to Mr. Fisher and Mister Troyer to see what that timeframe look fight. That we can expect a payment. >> If start with you, Mr. Troyer city's looking for $19,300. So that. the tree situations what your response. >> I unfortunately. Yeah, are could be done it for The cost there price everything. Is there negotiation there? >> Obviously. Run from up north here. you know, whereof of committee deals and so forth interest in this guy to to do a clean up the backyard. Get ready for fans so forth or not more than what supposed to do. Of course. and you know, we early January. We got down or your 3 men on house price bear. And did you know, did the paperwork do the papers all signed that closing on February 25th? I get down around. 24. The goal was to have it cleaned up. Turnout stands, Sharon so for So, I'm not open. you know, wanting you know. >> Do it takes get this right? So >> Mr. Fisher to add anything at all this. >> Mr. Troyer said he was up North. >> And he had. Contact get somebody to come in and kind of just clean up the back. Fence row to get ready, which is just like weeds scrubs. Get ready for a permit. For the fence. Then this person went and cut that tree down and trim this tree. And that's why we came to this and behalf of Mister Troyer. This was not his intent and the person that. supposed to do the cleanup. Apparently. Didn't know the codes or didn't know what he anyhow. So it's kinda. Unfortunate that this happened and then. The neighbor. And that other tree that was taken down was like, you know. Kind of on the property line. And that's when I got involved and Kaitlin. He called the city, Kate on its way out. He called me. And they're not. Then we met there and that I got involved. You know, permits then because she direct mean what what needs to be done? We've got permits, took the tree down, planted trees, got inspected. Got it cleared. Now at the end. I guess I don't I don't know if there's negotiation with the finer where we're at with that. >> All right. Well, let's see what the city's dishes on negotiations. I do. just want to put on record that. You can't, you know, as a property owner as a contractor, you have to be responsible and you can't do something and then ask for forgiveness. And so. The city wants to be sure that everybody understands that when you remove a tree, there is a penalty. So. While we stand by the $19,326. We do. We would be opening to little bit of a negotiation and I would leave it up to the special magistrate to kind of determine what that finance. But I mean, we're talking a 62 inch live oak, a 62 inch, which huge. So all right. you know, this. Is the magic formula on this. >> So that the total fine looking for all almost 20 grand. So, you know, I what all do. And this is top other 10,000 bucks on this. Okay. I mean, that's that's a $10,000 benefit that may not make the city happy. But I think it's to do in this case. got with the message I'm getting is the city's now. Very serious about the street cases. So. >> To the extent Mr, Fish, you can get that out into the community. That would be a good thing people to know. >> I'm gonna go with that. It would also like to recoup our costs of 4.65 war. The city cost 4, 6, 7, This up. >> She mentioned I only got involved after Kate and came out and did you know I was and knows, I know, isn't this isn't as right with you. I got okay. I just want to make that clear. I work the cleanup guy. Yeah. Get that. I work with the city a lot. And even if people come from up north, they call me or whatever I know the codes pretty much. And I I I tell them. It missed Mr. Troyer didn't know me too. We got if he would call me, I eliminated all that is saving yeah. I just wanted to clear that no, I I understand that. I hope I did. No, no, no. Anyway, that's what I'll do in this case and 1004, 65 costs by the violation. No devices corrected until. >> Wind is the finest pay all going to continue this out? >> Correct for another Well, it can west of at the request of whenever they decide. Yes, what I'll do is I'll just indicate the 7, 3.25. Is continuing for the fine is paid. I can close this case out when that money is paid. And you would you do is you re set another hearing, an office close it out and figure. The inspections are all clear, correct everything. I think it makes it correct. Except for the The fog. Okay. Got at that needs to be taken to watch this case out. Yeah. But it's going pay. What need to do is scheduled to the city. Another hearing in front of me that I can take. Okay. So if I come in. To close out the >> Mr. Troyer don't need to be involved if he pays the fine. >> I mean, if you're going to make think given his Baptists, you will have to be present. You can just come back. >> the fine is paid, this will just be routine. thank you. I appreciate. Thank you, Mr. Choi, take care of a good day, sir. Take care >> You Mark, thank you, Mr. Fisher appreciated. Thank. Thank you. Have a good You're not here for anything else, correct. number him. >> Were on record for city of Sarasota versus 1, 1, 9 McKinley LLC. Know Ya Colleges. LLC is case number 2026, 0, 1, 1, 0, 7, a council that you identify yourself for the record represent. >> Yes, good morning. My name is Ray near out here and I'm here on behalf of the property owner, one, 19 McKinley, LLC and the management company, Magnolia Cottages, LLC. Very good. Alright, sir. >> All right. all start with you all go to Michelle to Europe after that. whenever you're ready. >> All right. Thank you. This continue case that we have for violation of city Code Section. 34.5. Dash 15 D for a designated a responsible party change without notifying the city. That remains in compliance. As of our inspection on August 31st. Section 2, 3 of 4 be one of our city zoning code which defines household living as periods of Tennessee greater than one week. Section 6 to be for permitted, use anything less than the 7 night minimum is transient in nature and not a permitted use in the single-family zone district. We also have 34.5 dash 18 be for not having the certificate number displayed on all advertisements that was corrected with our inspection on August 31st. And then 34.5 dash 18 C which talks about the 7 day 7 night minimum and your advertisements, those those violations remain out of compliance to the only thing that we have in compliance is the designated responsible party change. And the certificate number being displayed on the advertisements. The inspector has advised that it's the property is now at a 2 night minimum. So it needs to be at a 7 night minimum. So just be looking to mister here to how much time we're going to need to bring it into compliance. >> All right. Also believe at this point. Yeah, we can certainly fix the 2 might. Tonight minimum. That's the easy correction. I think we're also pending an inspection on this one. So that's right with We can have a couple weeks get the inspection completed. I think the application itself with otherwise prove so if we could have just a continuance to do both the inspection and I think we'll get the 2 night minimum result quickly and our wills forward. Alright, confirmation to the city. >> All right. 3 or 4 weeks out of woods of what's below on. We have October. First of thing, it's not gonna work for you. 3 of its 5 K. So we have. >> 11, 15 or one. 15. See what else we have or a one, 30. can go to the 8. If you like. Let's do. You had a morning appointment. I have a an 11, 15. Yeah. Let's do 11. 15. Okay. >> All right. We'll go with Can to the case out to October first 11:15AM, and on the violations. All just adopt this committee's findings of the violations and we'll see you then on the on this case. And so do want to try to take a of some more of his cases. Now 2 more. we can wait if you want or if what your preference. >> And we have yet that you have your spectrum on the his this yes. just come get you out of yourself. Number 19 1920, 1920. All right. We'll go to. Number 19 next. That All right. So when we're going record, when you're record, next city of Sarasota versus 1, 3, 5 Grant LLC, McMillian Cottages, LLC, case number 2026, 0, 0, 6, 6, 4, And for the record Mr. Out here is here on this case as Something for the both respondents in the case, OK, all start with this candidate. Come right back to council. So as county, whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, the first one, 2026, 0, 0, 6, 6, 4 violation of our City Code section. 34.5 Dash 19, a one and 2 operation advertisement without a certificate was just an and that was corrected. The certificate was issued back on August. The 31st. At 34.5 Dash 18 c for the 7 day, 7 night minimum, advertisement and then section 2, 3 of 4 be one of our city zoning code which talks about the 7 day 7 night minimum and then the 6 to be for permitted. Use anything less is transient nature. those were in compliance. But they fell back out of compliance. We're now at a 2 night minimum. So I just be looking to Mr. Out here to see what kind of time frame he needs to correct that fight. Those violations. >> Comes out to you. Do you agree with this Kennedy's findings here? Yeah, yeah, I do. We can certainly fix quickly. She wants. So the certificate is pending issuance. My apologies. opt those findings for the order. So now >> to come into compliance. What we need here timetable was for. >> This is a pretty simple facts. We can do this quickly. You want to come back the same time on the turn Yeah, on October one that everyone it 11, 15. Yes. Okay. >> With that, continue out to October. 1st at 11, 15, am again of adopted this committee's findings on this one. So that'll take us off the record on this particular case. I guess we pick up the next one. Yes, number 20, which Style, the city of Sarasota verse 204, Coolish Drive LLC, Magnolia Colleges, LLC, case number 2026, 0, 0, 7, 1, 5, 2 years office, obviously here on this case is with these cases. Well, this case as well. And an All-Star Eunice Kennedy on go back council there after them. OK, thank you. >> This is a continue cases. Well, for a violation of city Code section. 34.5 Dash 19, a one in 2 for the operation advertisement that is pending certificate. Issue correctness. Anne, thank you. And then 34.5 dash 18 C which talks about the 7 day 7 night minimum advertisement, section 2, 3, 4, be one of our city zoning code which defines the household living seven-day 7 night minimum. Section 6 to be for permitted. anything less is transient nature, those 2 violations are those 3. I'm sorry. Had been in compliance, but fallen back out of compliance. And we're now at a 2 night minimum and in section 34.5 dash 18 be for not displaying the certificate number on all advertisements. That remains in compliance as of our inspection July. The 8th Look, again, I'd be looking in a straw here to see what kind of time frame he needs to bring that property fully into compliance. >> All right. get your response. Your we can resolve this issue as well. If I may ask which services this is this. >> VRBO are. Okay. be all right. Yes, we will certainly fix that. All right. With that, we're talking about October first 11:15AM, on the 7 minutes Yes network's to that as well. And for the violations continuing as outlined Kennedy. all right. So we'll see you then pay to take care. Thank >> Good morning, sir, Sir. Daniel, I 6. >> Yet? There? >> This is our Richard Ellis serving as magistrate the city of Sarasota. How are you doing, sir? >> Great thing. Probably doing very well. Thank you. If you're ready, we'll go on record for your case, which is. >> Stabbed city of Sarasota versus Isaac, Real Realty Trust. LLC, Isaacs Realty Trust LLC. Case number 2026 0, 0, 3, 7, 3, And for the record annual Isaacs appearing on behalf of the responded by telephone, Mr. Isaacs as usual. start with the city of Sarasota Ms Kennedy today. >> And I'll come right back to OK? >> Great. Thank you This can be whatever you read. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, this is a continued case that we have for violation of our city Code section 16 dash. 49 see for overgrowth on an undeveloped plot. That rent that violation remains in compliance. As of our inspection on August. 11th 16 Dash 47 for the accumulation of junk rubbish and trash. That violation remains out of compliance at this time. Section 7, 9, 0, 3, 7, of our city zoning code for having a shed on a vacant lot was corrected with our inspection on August. The 11th Section 6 to be for permitted use having shed on a vacant lot. remains in compliance as of the inspection on August. The 11th and then 16 Dash 40, 90 for overgrowth encroaching onto the city's right of way. That remains in compliance as of the inspection on February. The 11. So all we have left is the John trash rubbish. There's very, very large pile of tree debris by the curb. That needs to be removed. just be looking to Mister Isaacs to see what his plan is to get that removed. >> I just try see that. We talked about this the last hearing. I'll get your response like that. >> I yeah, that that have removed. I'm not sure when they did action I got a photograph of it all cleared and moved like 3 or 4 days ago. I think they did either made last week or early this week, but it had been removed. The looking as date is September. 1st. >> At 11:44AM. >> Okay. A September first being. >> 11 level before Tuesday at noon. >> Yeah, I'm not sure if they came that day. I do have a photograph. removed. OK, it has had been done. >> All right. Well, listen, they'll have to go back the city will have to back out and re-inspect. So they'll do that. I guess at this point. >> talking about. Yeah, I apologize. sorry to interrupt. Acknowledge eyes for that. I they had done it last week. But I checked with I guess yesterday. I did Tuesday or E yesterday check with and they said it was dining and they sent me a picture of it. it OK, let's good news it. All right. Let's let's reset this and get them shut up. >> What's with what's available? >> Worse. The next available date that we have is October. The first and I have a one 15. If that works for you, Mr. Isaacs. >> and that'll be fine. Okay. This continue October first that she does. 26 at 11. Why? Sorry? One, 15 pm on the via violation of >> 16. 47 continuing as outlined by end of meeting violations record as outlined by this candidate. that will close out for today. And hopefully we can wrap this up when you come back. Thank you, Sir. Thank Thank you. >> And day >> All right. gonna go on record for city of Sarasota versus an AMI, Sarasota LLC doing this is. And a me too. She cocktails and grill his case number 2026, 0, 1, 1, 0, 3, and search for the wreckage. Your name please facing Clemson Koam o N. And one more time forgive me. The K O K S o N. Son Oks or art? Alright, Sarah. Procedurally out. I'll start with the city of Sarasota and Chimes Kennedy's here for the city. on the city's Come right back to you. All right. So Kennedy, whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, this isn't case today for a violation of our city Code. Section 6.19, dash for operating a business without a local business tax receipt it my understanding is that the business is still currently out of compliance at this time. So I just be looking to Mr. Clemson to see what the timeframe is to get his local business tax. >> Some of these paid a fee basically, correct? Yes. All right. So I'll go to you. Well, its my understanding that was submitted, I'm not sure I don't have any proof of that or anything. >> What would be involved getting out talk about a 150 bucks or less. yeah, I mean, you can they can pay online directory online or he can walk over to the 3rd floor. >> I want to do it now. You can walk over there and kidnap. yes, yes, they the just come. just go to pay it. Now recessed the hearing and come on back Will wrap. Okay. thank you very much because it would business tax receipt. >> Business tax receipt across the street in the white building on the 3rd floor. His know when you get when you pick. Come on back, though, so I can you can just bring your receipt and we'll take absolute Thank Thank you. Thank you. >> I will go next to City of Sarasota verse Angel Delgado senior as trustee of the Do got to revoke Ultra stated. >> 10 October 2016, Sanjay Delgado, as trustee of of a couple trusted 10 October 2016 case number 2026 0, 0, 4, 7, 5, for the record. No one's here on behalf of the respondents. So go to the city in with city's position on this case. >> Well, this continue case we have today for violation of our city Zoning Code section 7 dash 107 for signs that were installed without a permit. Today. We currently do not have any, but you can see they didn't like a face change. There. We do not have any permit in our database. And then on August, 13th, you impose a civil fine of $16,000.3, inspections of 3.90, and hopes that we would get some response to the notice of violation. However, that has not happened. So today we're asking you to increase the daily running fine to $250 per day. So that we get some some action. All right. I'll do for the prior order. Increase the daily running. Find it to 50 per day. Find violations. 7. >> 107 is oneco. Continuing indicator. Representative the response required to attend the next hearing and what's available. >> We have August shoot October, the first at one, 30. >> All right. Up into out October, 1st at one, 30 PM. >> Lows strap Bush. >> You have to do All right. So this is a Richard Ellis serving his magistrate, the City of Sarasota. How are you doing today? >> I'm doing great advice. You very well. Thank you. If you're ready, we'll go record for your case, which is. >> Style. The city of Sarasota versus charities JR case number doesn't. 26 0, 0, 1, 6, 0, >> It procedurally all start with the City of Sarasota. All start with Miss Kennedy. Who's your city this morning? And then come right back to OK? >> county, whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, this is a continue case that we have for violation of Florida building code one of 5.1 for a kitchen renovation without a permit. We do have one that was issued on January, the 14th and then the final inspection took place on September. The first. So the property is currently in compliance. >> All here do great with Kennedy's outlined there. >> I'm not sure, but just the wording different. But far I know, that final inspection done. >> Everything the yet, she indicated that final inspection was done and as of September years and that you're now in compliance. Up get out. >> I agree with that. >> Okay now and I will find that that one of 5, one was corrected. >> 9/1/2026. >> So that that immediately takes us to the issue of fines and cost and this can. And does the city have a recommendation on the issue of finds a call? We do your honor. We do have a final affidavit prepare that reflects. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Strokosch are not here. reflects a potential civil fine of $24,500 fix inspections at $615. It's my understanding from the inspector that this was hurricane related. So the city is not asking for any civil fine today. We're only asking for the original costs of $390 just so the taxpayer doesn't bear the burden for this code compliance process. >> OK, how did you understand this committee's recognition that potential fine with $24,600? But because this is as hurricane related, this is not asking for any asking for. a cost of 3.90. So the experience and sport process. So when you get your response to that recommendation. >> I'm glad there's no binding bout. I was first told that think that was part kitchen because temporary. Thanks workers. Because of that. But stick with put back a secure location. But they said that you do it for Putin. should have part it. And I spoke with plumber that's really move the pikes. Get permit for those pipes back at it. He said don't need a permit for. Are temporary. But think that the construction. so I just went through the process remove part to be able to redo the kitchen. So I understand you're saying there, but I. And as they didn't think it should have been a anything should been noted that. When I spoke to a plumber about what but I was the that number about, they that not penalty Florida. I'm just leaving my back. And you I don't >> I there. know it was a violation, but the city's taking into account all the >> extenuating circumstance. It correct Monday. Shuns a good one for you. gonna go 3.90. Cost. Only no fine. Nothing to vacate this case over on other Perect in a September first 2026 go. >> that will resolve this matter. And now they'll still, you know, your copy of my order. >> Okay. Want made by traveling White House and you instructions on how to pay Okay. There's. >> There's no absolute deadline. But, you know, obviously crews interest of the legal be for the better, but they'll go center. In addition, ordinance in some instructions on okay. >> thank you very much. Think infection. >> If you record your name and reason for calling. I think this person is available. >> Richard Ellis, code enforcement hearing the City of Sarasota. >> Richard Ellis, please stay on the line. ? ? ? >> I Kevin, how? >> Its our cases. We just want be right back. 30 seconds. to go to college, OK, back just 5 months. Yes, Okay. world record us Sarasota vs. >> Jean part phase 3 LLC case number 2026, 0, 0, or 9 items. Start with Miss Kennedy for or a social outlet. city's position. And then I'll come right back to you, Mr. Howard K? >> all. whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, if you think in case that we have for violation of city Code Section 13 Dash 47 for the accumulation of junk rubbish and trash. Also 16 dash. 49 see forever growth on an undeveloped lot. The overgrowth violation remains in compliance as of our inspection July 5th. >> be. >> Jon Trash. Rubbish remains out of compliance. And I understand from the inspector that Mr. How is making some good progress? But there's quite a bit of material, too. move on that lot. So I just be looking to Mr. How much time he's going to get that to >> a >> Yes, we have. We finish work clearing how we decide hole up. 53 with a check. And to come out great degree we need to hold at all. What inspector said was we could maybe just go to the next meeting. How far away is the next time you think could do He said thought would be 2 or 3 weeks. >> I think October first, maybe our next hearing. >> right now talk to our next I would until October 8 to do it. decision or no, that's right. Yeah, no, absolutely. But if you can just put me on the agenda for the next will have a and that's what we'll do. We'll continue to out to what's available. >> 10 15 does that work for you, sir? >> ma'am. fit on build to the case out the 10/8/2026 to 10:15AM, by the violence. >> It's being 47 city code continues the point. Nice. He remains compliance, July. 15th in death. So we'll see proxy on that wrap the case. Upton. >> thank you so much. Thank you. Thank Thank you. My. >> All >> right. We're going to go on record for city of Sarasota versus Martha. E Nichols is case number 2026, 0, 0, 1, 7, 0, For the record. Your name, please. Angela. Way right. Wainwright is present with us this win, right? I think you were here before. So you know the all start with Miss Kennedy for the city and come right back to you. I miss Kelly. Whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, this is a continue case 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 August 20th. So the property is currently in compliance. >> Okay. Miss Wright went right to be in agreement with that. Khalfan the violation 16. 47 of the city code was in August 22,026. And that immediately takes us to the issue, fines and costs candidates city have a recommendation on that issue. >> We do your honor back lets see back in July due to nobody showing you imposed large civil fine. The $20,600 and then the additional day 34 days brings it to $24,000. And then 7 total inspections at $690. The city is not going to I understand this Wainwright's position. She did not know about it and there was a tenant there in place. So the city is not asking for any of the civil fine, but we are asking that the city recoup its costs of 6.90. So the taxpayer doesn't bear the burden for the process. >> Okay. >> That's when right cities recommendation. I'm used to impose no fine. >> Just assess cost for this process of 6.90, someone get your response to that. That recommendation. >> I just have to. And then my sister's Yeah. I think it's you know, it's a fair recommendations. Are gonna go with that? No fine. I'm gonna vacate. >> The previous order I entered which established the big funds that will get rid of the fine. That was accumulating. And also the cost of 6 nights of the taxpayers and where the bird for this process. You accept payments and that kind of thing. So and they'll send you a copy of this order and with instructions on how to pay it. Okay. Thank you have today. Thanks for coming today. Appreciate it. Thank you. I will go next to City of Sarasota versus Jeffrey Key. case number 2026, 0, 0, 3, 3, 1, for the record, is a neck is not present. No one's here on his the half. So city's position on this case. >> Well, this is a continue case that we have for violation of City Code section. 34.5 Dash 19, a one and 2 for the operation. Advertisement of the vacation rental without a certificate. Those that violation well, they removed their ads. So that corrected the violation. As of July. The 8th and then we have section 2, 3, of 4 be one of our city zoning code for household living here's a tenancy greater than one week and then Section 6 to be for permitted. Use anything scream. Consider transient both of those violations remain in compliance as of February. The 23rd, this was actual actually a monitoring period for the for the property and they have remained in compliance with the removal of the ads. So we're ready to close us out about the findings this committee as she outlined >> order. And so what's the recommendation on the issue? Fines and costs? >> Well, we do have a final affidavit prepared that reflects a potential civil fine of $18,250, 6 inspections at $615. The city is not asking for all of that civil fine, but we are asking for one find of $100 and the city to recoup its costs of 6.15. So the taxpayer doesn't bear the burden for the process dot impose civil fine of $100 cost 6.15, nothing to bake it. And yes, they cut the prior order. >> And think it's off the record. Occurred. I believe for a city of Sarasota versus an obvious or so they'll see due VA the sushi cocktails and grill case number 2026, 0, 1, 1, 0, 3, to come to his back. And I believe company of taking care of the the business tax, yes, filled out the form and paid excellent. Thank you all. Find it to violation was corrected on September 3rd, 2000, 26 19 Dash the city code go to the issue of fines and cost city have a recommendation on that issue. >> We do. We appreciate Mr. Clemson taken care of that. The city's not going to ask for any fines or costs today, but we would like you to explain the repeat violator provisioning bacon on this one. No, your honor. >> Well, you can't do any better than that's all I want ask for will impose no find no cost. Just an explanation. Same find. Same responded within 5 years. The fines can run is there is a repeat violator 500 bucks a day. So be careful going forward for next year. The years to come. But for today's purposes, no find no cost. Thank you for taking care of that and you very much a good day. Thank Thank you. Thank you. Take care. Go on record for city of Sarasota versus Rl or Jan. >> case number 2023, 0, 0, 5, 3, 6 2024, 0, 0, 88. The record respond is not president was here on his behalf. >> So cities position on these 2 cases. >> Well, these are continue cases all take them separately. The first one, 2023, 0, 0, 5, 3, 6, And we'll go through the violations. 16 dash. 49 be of the city code for overgrowth which remains out of compliance at this time. 16 Dash 47 for the accumulation of junk rubbish and trash corrected with the Wilhelm and voice June 5th 2026. section 7, 3.13, for trees. Overhanging the street right of way or sidewalk corrected with our inspection on March 6, 2024. And we have one of 5.1 of the 4 building code for fence installed without a permit. And then 3 of 5.1, 5 of the standard housing code for offense in disrepair. Both of those violations remain out of compliance. You did give us the authority to correct the violations that we could. So we've been keeping up with the property and like was we had we request to pull him go out and clean up the overgrowth in any trash or that remains. So with that, we do have an affidavit prepared. That reflects an assessment to date of 100,112 $1600. The civil to find continue to run since we do have some outstanding violations from July, the 10th through September, the first that's 54 days at $100 per day for $5,400 for a total civil fine of $118,000. Assessed inspections in costs and hearing Prep 19 at $4,585. We have one additional inspection of 75 for a total of 4,000. $660. And then we had an invoice from Wilhelm for $150 for total inspections costs and hearing prep $4,810. The city is asking that you enter the Wilhelm invoice as exhibit 13 and the affidavit as exhibit 14 and to impose the fines and costs shown they're in. All right. admit exhibits 13 14 as proposed their own adopt the findings and as outlined by. >> Kennedy in terms of the violation, all pose a civil fine of $118,000 today, the affidavit impose cost today to $44,810 pursuant to the affidavit on the this is going to be an ongoing fight in the case. just one note >> Reverse the exhibit. So the affidavit is 13 and invoices 14. I'm sorry. My apologies. And then we would like the case to be that can be brought by either party. And we would like to retain the authority to correct. >> Okay. do adopt exhibit as Allen 13, 14 is committee proposes. Grant the city authority to current ongoing authority to correct. And the case will be, said at the request of the city or the respondent. >> Okay. In next one. Yet 2024, 0, 0, 8, 8, 8 for a violation of city code. Section 16 Dash 50. For an inoperable unlicensed vehicle. That violation is back out of compliance at this time. today we're just asking to to confirm the prior order and that the case can be reset at the at the request of either party. >> come from the prior order from the violations continue in 16, 50 indicate the case numbers said at request of responded to the city. Okay. We'll go next. The city of Sarasota versus Aaron. >> Excuse me, mellow Gonzales, Maria Angelica Hernandez says case number 2026 0, 0, 4, 9, 0, For the record. No one's here on behalf of the respondents response or not. President. So with the city's position on this case today. >> Mister telephoned in this morning and said that she she was having car issues and asked for a continuance. So we have granite or that we're okay with that. So we would be willing to pushed out to October the 8th at 10, 30. >> All right. don't get you out to October. The 8th at tickets off the record. All right. We're gonna go next to City of Sarasota. MERS is Fairway Subdivision Owners Association incorporated case number 2016, 0, 0, 7, 9, And for the record, no one's here on behalf of the respondents, the city's position on this case. >> Now, this is a very long continue cases. You can see 2016, 0, 0, 7, 9, We've been maintaining this property for some time and it gotten out of control again. So we sent our city's contractor out to take care of the overgrowth. So with that, we do have an updated invoice. Invoice, I'm sorry and updated affidavit. That reflects and assess. Find a date of $1100. The total civil fine of $100 and c'est inspections. Coffin. Hearing prep for $3,046.61 one additional inspection of 75. For 3,001. 21. 61, then 2 lot knows. We had 2 invoices to enter and so for a total of $250 for a grand total of $3,371 and $0.61 cities asking that you enter this affidavit into evidence as exhibit number 12 and then the invoice, one invoice as exhibit 13 and then the second boys as exhibit 14 and to impose the fines and caution. >> OK, admit exhibits 11, 12 13. vacate the prior order and then establish the new. Total. Of the $1100 and terms fun and can to cost of $3,371.61. the city would like to retain the authority it continue authority to correct. That ticks off the road. >> All right. We're going to get next case, which is a city of Sarasota, versatility Chrisman. >> It's case number 2025, 0, 0, 9, 3, 3, And for the record, a plea on Christmas with us. Kristen, as you know, I we start with the city's health. Don't Miss Kennedy not come right back So this can whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Mr. Ellis, this is a continued case that we have for violation of Florida building code one of 5.1 for an outdoor shower, which understand has been removed. Also converting a shed to an office. Plus expansion of that shed the violation remains out of compliance at this time. So I'm just wondering, just need to know from Christman, what we can expect as far as permits go where she planning to move. Okay. Christmas. >> So >> I. >> Have done some of the things on on the list from the building department. I had a license electrical contractor come out. >> He did about $1000 worth of work. He updated the electrical panel that was existing that was already in shed in that >> area where had at one point had an office which I'm actually not using that for an office space anymore. >> So I went and met with Kevin because there were some specifics in there. I I, you know, was doing some research online that sometimes >> a drawing will be ex. provided a drying already a cad drawing of of the addition to the shed. But it wasn't stamps by a licensed person. So if you want just break it down into a nutshell, I met with Kevin. There was no budging on anything. I have to have a survey. I have to have. >> The >> elect the drawings. I have mechanical contractor. I have to meet with an arborist and identify all the trees on my property. I decided after the last time I was here that I am completely overwhelmed. There's no way I can get through this process on my own. And I actively looking for a contractor who will take my job have several phone calls out. And a couple of So I've asked if there are any lists of people that have been through this before, perhaps through code compliance, do they provide like maybe a list of referrals? Perhaps. So I have the funding. My family's helping me. It's going to. A year ago I had 2 contractors. Look at it. It was $8,000. I assume it's going to be the same if not more. So. That's where I am. can't piecemeal this and make