[{"_1":2,"_76":-5,"_77":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6505818,"mediaKeyId","5546860-725bc4da7bdd38f95c5296e5f8b9a3b7","parentId",5546860,"title","Sarasota code-compliance magistrate hears multiple cases; several properties confirmed in compliance, fines assessed in others","audioSeconds",19172,"startMs",832000,"endMs",20004000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5546860-725bc4da7bdd38f95c5296e5f8b9a3b7&start=832&end=20004","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5546860-725bc4da7bdd38f95c5296e5f8b9a3b7/thumbnail_832000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6505818/Florida/Sarasota-code-compliance-magistrate-hears-multiple-cases-several-properties-confirmed-in-compliance-fines-assessed-in-others","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6505818-c13ced998fab5282dc8dffe67ddcc839/orig.mp4?Expires=1770798193&Signature=gQ-73p6NECOC0hsLG-4kBo6q5mcsyzWNuIjNGKBlUH~IMUVR34ZwxL7Huv1GWEljbqdjbOgPeWqMIGjDUt-a0BLS1dr0ilUl7lbP8EfDoB98G-hGnGsApZy00cx5cmNVNamawhNGVYsfM6HCzgmGPrk6pcKmg2hhnEWCxJpWk~LYvNjX-~Jhkc8Y4sp4XEp171up5EZsENZbstKddaSp81YlBbhUe67oTNpVCB54xV7erQaMMLpRnPNGL8drRwbNRqGuS4IkNzW6MA87vB8Zj4cEgjMzTXY6tY7wj2-TAg5aE0KWcl6QmOoZTIpY~cOVM~OmhK1dBEJ6lVNDKDXtYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Sarasota","date","2025-08-07T08:17:00Z","article","The City of Sarasota’s code compliance special magistrate convened a hearing Aug. 7 to review dozens of enforcement cases involving unpermitted work, overgrowth, debris, inoperable vehicles and short-term rental registration violations. Magistrate Richard Ellis (and, on later matters, Special Magistrate Leslie Telford) opened the session; a city representative identified in the hearing transcript as “Miss Kennedy” presented the city’s findings and recommendations in multiple matters.

Why it matters: the magistrate enforces local property, housing and zoning codes and can impose fines, costs and orders to correct violations. The session resolved several long-running files, imposed nominal one-day fines or administrative costs in a number of cases, and continued others pending final inspections or removal of online vacation‑rental listings.

Magistrate Ellis and Miss Kennedy led the proceedings and repeatedly told respondents that the city’s goal was correction first and that fines or costs were intended to recoup administrative expense when cases remained open. \"We're not asking for all of the civil fine,\" Miss Kennedy said in multiple matters; Magistrate Ellis routinely accepted the city's reduced recommendations or continued files to allow respondents time to finish corrections.

Cases at a glance (case number — respondent — violation(s) — outcome / next date):

- 202500190 — Janice Guimond — Florida Building Code §105.1 (carport / mobile‑home repairs) — City acknowledged an active permit (issued July 24); respondent to call for inspections; continued to Sept. 25, 2025, 2:30 p.m.; violation remains cited as continuing.

- 202301001 & 202301002 — (former respondent Brooke Asbury; buyer Anthony Valentino appeared) — code section 16‑49(b) (overgrowth) and Standard Housing Code sections (porch / decking disrepair) — Magistrate vacated prior orders, found both properties in compliance as of the July 29 inspection; imposed a $5,000 civil fine and $6.90 in costs on 202301001 (first case) and imposed no fine or costs on 202301002.

- 2025659 & 202500694 — Everisto (Lea) Zamudio / Christopher Levia Camacho — city code 16‑47/16‑49(b) (accumulation/overgrowth) and Fla. Bldg. Code §105.1 (unpermitted sheds/car canopy) — inspections showed correction on Aug. 4 (1647/1649b) and Aug. 6 (105.1 removal); magistrate treated 202500694 as a repeat violation and imposed a one‑day repeat fine of $500 plus costs of $3.90.

- 202500695 & 202500593 — 1041 South Tuttle LLC (Emily Barnes/Vaughn on phone) — 202500695 (Fla. Bldg. Code §105.1, unpermitted second kitchen) found corrected (final inspection July 22); magistrate imposed $100 civil fine and $3.90 costs for that case. 202500593 (vacation rental without registration/advertising) remained out of compliance because an advertisement persisted on booking.com; continued to Aug. 14, 2025, 2:15 p.m. for follow‑up.

- 202500904 — Mary Holder Burkhold Trust (Santiago Antunes appeared) — City zoning code §6102(j)(1) (jet skis stored in front yard/front setback) — corrected Aug. 4; magistrate imposed $100 fine and reduced administrative cost of $200 (magistrate exercised discretion to lower the city’s requested amount).

- 202500771 — Sarah G. Burkhold (trustee) — new case continued to Sept. 25, 2025, 2:45 p.m.; magistrate left violations undetermined pending respondent appearances (respondent absent; city requested continuance because family had newborn twins in hospital).

- 202500712 — Carlos Jones — 16‑47/16‑49(b)/16‑50 (junk, overgrowth, inoperable vehicle) — overgrowth remained out of compliance; continued to Aug. 14, 2025, 2:45 p.m. for final compliance check.

- 202500719 — Glencoe Properties Group Corp. — 16‑47/16‑49(b)/Fla. Bldg. Code §105.1 (fence installed without permit) — property out of compliance; magistrate admitted the city’s affidavit, found continuing violations, assessed civil fines to date ($8,200) and administrative costs ($3.90) and continued the matter to Sept. 25, 2025, 3:00 p.m., instructing the property representative to appear at the next hearing.

- 202500087 — Gregory and Alexandra Band (represented by Christopher McDonough) — Fla. Bldg. Code §105.1 (interior renovation without permit); an after‑the‑fact permit was issued Aug. 4 and the file is pending receipt of the notice of commencement and remaining inspections; continued to Sept. 25, 2025, 3:00 p.m.

- 202500311 — 2 Barbers Inc. / Yummy House China Bistro (James Smith by phone) — zoning code §7‑107 (sign face change without permit) — permit issued July 23 and final passed the morning of the hearing; magistrate accepted the city's reduced recommendation and imposed a $100 fine and administrative cost as stated in the hearing record (city recommended costs recoupment; magistrate stated the cost amount in the order).

- 202400791 — Kalina McDowell & Shirley Robinson — long continued housing and overgrowth case; multiple violations remain; magistrate confirmed prior order and left the case to be rescheduled by city or respondents.

- 202500334 — 950 South Osprey LLC — vacant lot overgrowth/trash — city confirmed compliance (inspection July 29); magistrate imposed $100 civil fine and $4.65 costs per the city's recommendation (matter closed with order).

- Multiple vacation‑rental registration matters (examples): 202500691 (Fabiano & Carla Oliveira), 202500334 (other properties) and others — in several cases the city reported advertisements or listings were removed and inspections passed (Aug. 4–6); magistrates typically accepted the city’s reduced request (commonly a one‑day fine of $100 plus administrative costs) or continued the case so the respondent could demonstrate the listing had been removed. Where respondents showed documentation or removed listings promptly, magistrates reduced penalties or limited the order to administrative costs.

- Permit/inspection matters (selected): 202500577 (1111 S. Allendale Ave.: deck/pergola removed; magistrate imposed $100 fine and $465 in costs total of $565 and closed the case); 202500567 (500 S. Pineapple Ave.: active permit, electrical final scheduled Aug. 8; case continued to Aug. 21 at 9 a.m. so final inspection can be confirmed).

What the magistrate emphasized: repeated advice to respondents to call for required inspections after obtaining permits and to remove or deactivate online vacation‑rental listings promptly. Where respondents demonstrated corrective action and cooperation, magistrates most often limited monetary penalties to a nominal one‑day fine and a charge for the city’s inspection/administrative cost rather than imposing the full statutory daily fines.

Ending: The special magistrate continued several matters to August and September dates for final inspections or proof of corrected conditions and entered fines or costs where longstanding noncompliance or repeat violations were documented. The city will send orders and payment instructions to respondents where fines or costs were imposed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Sarasota - Code Compliance Hearings","oneSentenceSummary","At the City of Sarasota code compliance special magistrate hearing Aug. 7, magistrates and city staff found numerous properties corrected, assessed modest fines or costs in several matters, and continued multiple cases for follow-up inspections or proof of corrected violations.","taxTitle","Sarasota City, Sarasota County, Florida","taxId",58306,"location","Florida","headline","","shortSummary","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Sarasota code-compliance magistrate hears multiple cases; several properties confirmed in compliance, fines assessed in others