The City of Sarasota’s special magistrate spent the Oct. 9 docket hearing a series of continued cases involving work performed without permits under Florida Building Code section 105.1, setting deadlines for permit corrections and follow-up inspections.

Why it matters: After-the-fact permits can require technical plan corrections, third-party engineering documentation and sometimes federal forms (e.g., FEMA paperwork). Until plan review and inspections are complete, violations remain continuing and can trigger fines.

City compliance representative Miss Kennedy opened several matters by saying the municipal files show permit applications have been submitted but are "pending plan corrections" or "pending plan review." On the Tran matter she described a transmittal and noted that FEMA documentation was included but required as part of the application even where a property is not in a floodplain.

Respondents and their representatives described a familiar sequence: a contractor completed work or repairs, the owner later sought an after-the-fact permit, and the city returned plan-review comments. Several owners said they had applied and were awaiting correction lists or engineer-stamped drawings. Respondent Jason Johnson told the magistrate he had asked an architect to provide a Florida-stamped drawing after the manufacturer’s paperwork was rejected by plan review.

Magistrate Richard Ellis repeatedly framed the court’s role as procedural: to give respondents a reasonable opportunity to resolve the permit issues and to continue hearings so staff can confirm permit issuance and inspections. "We'll continue the case out to give you a chance to work with the building department," Ellis told multiple owners.

Typical orders were continuances to mid-November or December. Examples from the docket:

- Dongduk (Dongduk) Tran: continued to Nov. 20 at 9:15 a.m. for further plan corrections and to allow his contractor to engage with the building department.

- Julio Sanchez and co-respondents: continued to Dec. 11 (the transcript shows the parties and city agreed to a morning slot to allow additional time for plan responses and contractor bids).

- Jason Johnson: continued to Dec. 11 at 11:30 a.m. after he engaged an architect to supply a Florida-registered, stamped drawing required by plan review.

In several hearings the magistrate warned that if the next appearance shows no progress the city would consider fines or additional enforcement steps. In other matters where the permit process advanced and inspections were completed, the magistrate recorded compliance.

What respondents said on the record: Mr. Tran said, "I already applied for a permit," while others described contractor delays, the cost of bringing installations up to code and the need to hire engineers or general contractors. A number of respondents asked for contact information for plan-review staff or FEMA-related assistance and the city provided business cards before the hearings ended.

Ending: Most cases were continued 30–60 days to provide time for owners to coordinate with contractors and the building department. The magistrate ordered inspectors and plan reviewers to report compliance at the next scheduled appearance; if work remains incomplete the court signaled it would consider fines or additional remedies then.