Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate orders Stuart homeowner to repair fence, sets Oct. 31 compliance deadline
Summary
Martin County Code Enforcement found that a fence at 4906 SE Manatee Terrace had damaged sections and portions replaced without a permit; the magistrate ordered compliance by Oct. 31, 2025, or $100-per-day fines and $575 in investigation costs will be imposed.
The Martin County Code Enforcement Magistrate ordered homeowner Corey Fursky to bring a fence at 4906 Southeast Manatee Terrace in Stuart into compliance by Oct. 31, 2025, after county investigators testified that portions had been replaced without a permit and other sections were damaged.
Maria Espia, a senior code compliance investigator for Martin County, testified she inspected the property on April 9 and again on June 19 and September 16, 2025, and presented photographs and permit-history records to show a damaged fence and a new fence section installed without a permit. "I inspected the property. At that time, I observed a damaged fence," Espia said during testimony, and she introduced the county's exhibits into evidence.
At the hearing, Fursky acknowledged receiving notices and said he had tried to obtain cost estimates but lacked the funds to complete repairs immediately. "I called the fence company trying to figure out how much this is gonna cost ... and I just didn't have the funds," Fursky told the magistrate. The magistrate questioned county staff about when repairs require a permit and was told the typical guideline is replacement of an entire panel or more, which triggers a permit requirement; a few new boards is a repair and typically does not.
Based on the county's evidence and Fursky's testimony, the magistrate found the violations existed and ordered compliance by Oct. 31, 2025. The order states that if the violations are not corrected by that date, a fine of $100 per day will begin to accrue and the county's investigation costs of $575 are to be reimbursed to the county. The magistrate said the county would hand-deliver a copy of the signed order to Fursky before he left the hearing.
The magistrate recorded that counties exhibits 1–12 were accepted into evidence and reiterated that contacting code enforcement early could have avoided some costs.
No appeal or follow-up inspection date was set in the hearing record; the order notes Fursky may appeal the decision to the circuit court.
