Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Penalty Hearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Penalty hearing for Sancho Panza property continued to Aug. 29 after owner pledges repairs and temporary safety measures
Summary
A penalty-phase hearing for 2817 Sancho Panza Court was continued to the Code Enforcement Board's Aug. 29 meeting after the homeowner said a roof replacement contract was in progress and agreed to temporary pool-cage safety measures; case costs total $52.39.
The Punta Gorda Code Enforcement Board continued a penalty hearing in case 25-87377 concerning 2817 Sancho Panza Court to the board’s next meeting (Aug. 29) after the homeowner, Mary Fleener, said a roof replacement contract was in progress and agreed to take temporary measures to address a safety concern with the pool enclosure. Code Supervisor Nick Faulkner presented the history: an earlier compliance order required roof repair or replacement and pool-enclosure screen repairs within 15 days; re-inspections on June 20 and July 22, 2025 showed the roof remained in disrepair and the pool enclosure still had torn or missing screens. Faulkner documented the case costs as $20.98 (unpaid) plus additional case costs of $31.41 for a total of $52.39. Mary Fleener appeared and told the board she had contracted for a full roof replacement and expected permitting and contractor work to start shortly; she said she wanted to avoid having roof debris damage newly repaired screens and therefore delayed screen replacement until after roof work. She agreed to put up temporary, more substantial barriers than caution tape (staff suggested orange safety netting with stakes) to reduce the immediate safety risk to the pool area. The board discussed permitting timelines, contractor availability and the importance of addressing the pool-cage safety issue quickly. Board attorney Daniel Lewis advised that because a compliance order remains in effect and the matter is at the penalty phase, tabling the penalty hearing does not erase the existing order or stop the noncompliance clock; the board may consider the homeowner’s good-faith efforts and any work completed when it next addresses penalties. Board members then voted to continue the hearing until the next code-enforcement meeting (Friday, Aug. 29). Staff asked the homeowner to provide written updates and photographs of progress to Code Supervisor Nick Faulkner before the next hearing. The board noted no fines were being imposed immediately while the matter is continued, but noncompliance remains on the record and may be considered when the board next meets.
