Citrus County special master orders abatement deadlines and fines in multiple code-enforcement cases

Special Master Christian Waugh presided over a full docket of Citrus County code‑enforcement hearings on Sept. 17, 2025, ordering deadlines and monetary penalties across a long list of properties cited for junk and debris, unpermitted site work, unlicensed vehicles, temporary storage units and other violations.

The hearing combined staff presentations, testimony from property owners and public comment. Waugh reviewed evidence submitted by county code officers and issued written orders that set compliance deadlines and, in some cases, one‑time fines. He also continued several matters that raised legal questions the special master said required additional research.

County case presenters described repeated inspections and attempts to notify property owners before each hearing. Code officers authenticated photo evidence and notices for the record. In several cases the parties agreed negotiated timelines; Waugh then “I'll find for the purposes of the settlement that a violation exists, but grant you 60 days to abate the violation,” ratifying those agreements on the record.

Votes at a glance - Case 2025975 (Wayne A. Wayrauch): no contest; 60 days to abate; $100/day after deadline. - Case 20251281 (Deborah Dallas): no contest; 45 days to abate; $100/day after deadline. - Cases 2025-1300 & 2025-1342 (William Guy; Enrique/Magali Perez Chapman): no contest; 3 months to abate; $100/day each thereafter. - Case 2025252 (Anton Bergenson family): no contest; 3 months to abate; $100/day. - Case 2025950 (Michelle Golley — junk subcase 25-950): no contest; 14 days to abate; $50/day thereafter. - Case CE2025-940 (Michelle Golley — animals/goats): CONTINUED for legal review (see separate article). - Cases 20251238 / 20251239 (Rodney E. & Benjamin R. Spath): Case 20251238 (site development) — one‑time fine $2,000; Case 20251239 (storage/accessory use) — 10 days to abate; $100/day thereafter. - Case 2025806 (Mark & Catherine Riddle): one‑time fine $1,000 (mitigated for rapid cooperation). - Cases 2025802 / 2025803 (Margaret P. Barrett): repeat junk case — $100/day from Aug. 14 to Sept. 15 (33 days = $3,300), $200/day from hearing date forward until abatement; separate portable storage unit case — 10 days; $100/day. - Buena Vista Properties LLC (cases 2025-1033, 1034, 1035, 1037): one‑time fines assessed as follows: $2,000 / $1,500 / $1,000 / $1,000 respectively (site‑clearing without permits). - Case 20251080 (Melissa R. Craddock — unlicensed RV): 10 days to abate; $100/day. - Case 20251071 (Lehi Connell): 15 days; $100/day. - Case 20251199 (Randy W. Guy — deceased owner; widow present): 7 days; $100/day. - Case 202501072 (In Mobile Area Mazal LLC): 14 days to abate; $200/day thereafter (excessive vegetation, vacant lot previously maintained; association complaints recorded). - Case 20250897 (Stephen Todd Walker — site development): one‑time fine $10,000 for irreversible site modification; written order to follow. - Additional junk, trash, vegetation and unlicensed‑vehicle cases were resolved with abatement timelines and daily fines (typical range $50–$200/day) or short grace periods expressly recorded in the written orders.

Why it matters Code‑enforcement hearings set precise deadlines and fines that can become liens on property if not paid. The most significant outcome on this docket was the special master’s finding that a major, unpermitted site alteration had caused irreversible damage, triggering a one‑time $10,000 penalty. The hearing also underscored recurring themes: owners citing confusion about permitting procedures, disputes over mailed notice addresses, and frequent requests for short additional cure periods.

What the panel said County staff authenticated photographs and mailed notices across many cases. Where respondents and staff reached agreements — for example, negotiated cure periods for debris or storage containers — Waugh accepted those stipulations and converted them into orders. In contested matters the special master relied on evidence already admitted and said he would issue written findings with each order.

Public comment and patterns Several neighbors spoke in favor of strict enforcement in individual cases; one member of the public praised out‑of‑state property owners for removing invasive trees in a separate case but acknowledged the need for permits. The hearing record shows repeated instances where county officers posted notices on the property and sent certified mail to addresses listed in the property appraiser’s records; several owners said notices were not received because mailing addresses differed.

What’s next The special master issued written orders for each case and provided appeal instructions in every order. Two matters raising legal interpretation—an animal accommodation claim and a dispute framed under the state’s “Florida‑friendly landscaping” language—were continued for additional legal review and scheduled for the next hearing.

Ending note County code officers and the special master repeatedly urged property owners to contact county permitting and code staff early, to avoid escalating fines and liens. Written orders from the Sept. 17 docket will specify exact effective dates and any appeal procedures.