Citrus County special master issues fines and compliance deadlines across dozens of code-enforcement cases

Christian Waugh, a licensed Florida attorney serving as special master for Citrus County, presided over a multi‑hour code compliance hearing in June 2025 that resolved dozens of individual property enforcement matters.

Waugh set deadlines, imposed fines and directed written orders across cases involving alleged site development without permits, accumulation of junk and debris, excessive vegetation, and unpermitted short‑term RV camping. “When your case is called, please come forward. You will be placed under oath,” Waugh told attendees at the start of the hearing. He repeatedly told respondents that written orders would follow: “I’m going to issue a written order,” he said several times as he announced written findings and sanctions.

The hearing combined many routine junk/grass‑overgrowth matters with higher‑impact land‑development rulings. Among notable outcomes recorded on the record:

- Eugene J. Hill Jr.: Waugh accepted a no‑contest resolution and assessed a one‑time $3,000 fine for site‑modification activity (case CE2025246).

- Haines Central Florida Business Services (owner Allen Haynes): two violations were resolved with 60 days to abate and a $100‑per‑day fine thereafter if not corrected (cases CE20205623 and CE20205648). The county noted the owner was working through an eviction process affecting abatement timing.

- Holiday Builders Inc. (Justin Boucher): the parties entered a no‑contest resolution and Waugh imposed a one‑time $2,500 fine for grading/bringing in fill dirt without required permits (case CE2025509).

- Bridal and Shalissa Berry (site modification/tree removal): Waugh found a violation for site development without an approved site plan and assessed a $200 fine, a notably low amount, while explaining he believed the property owner had exceeded what was necessary to remedy nuisance conditions.

- Kenneth Casanova (and related lots): Waugh found site development violations and assessed a $5,000 one‑time fine for the primary lot; a second nearby lot drew a $1,500 fine, together raising the hearing total for that owner (cases CE20250498 and CE20250499).

- Douglas and Leslie Dahlquist (advertised RV camping on residentially zoned land): Waugh ordered the Dalquists to bring the property into compliance within 30 days and warned of a $200‑per‑day fine thereafter; public commenters raised concerns about vetting and neighborhood impacts. County staff explained that LDR zoning does not allow campground/RV rental use and that advertising and renting are not permitted in that district.

- Repeat violation — David A. Braske: Waugh treated this as a repeat home‑occupation violation. He assessed $200 per day for the period from the county’s initial posting (April 4) through June 17 — a total the county calculated at $14,800 — and ordered a $250‑per‑day fine from the hearing day forward until abatement.

Across the hearing many other property owners were given short compliance windows (typically 7–14 days) for junk, debris or overgrown‑vegetation violations, with daily fines ranging from $50 up to $300 for failure to abate.

Why it matters: County code compliance hearings translate land‑use rules into on‑the‑ground outcomes for neighborhoods — from removal of hazardous debris to enforcement of permitting rules for grading and tree removal. Several rulings in this session emphasized limits on property owners’ ability to clear and grade vacant lots without a site development plan or permits, and reaffirmed that short‑term commercial RV rentals are not permitted where not listed in the zoning use table.

Details and procedure: Waugh opened the hearing with an explanation of process, appeal rights and evidence rules; county staff introduced photographic exhibits and inspection histories for each case. When respondents had taken corrective action or negotiated time to abate, Waugh frequently granted limited timelines and issued written orders incorporating the county’s standard provisions, including administrative costs and daily fines when abatement did not occur.

Public comment: A handful of neighbors spoke at the Dalquist RV‑camping case and a Spring Run Property Owners Association representative asked whether tree removal could change neighborhood drainage patterns; Waugh said tree replacement or engineering choices are beyond his immediate remedial authority in such enforcement proceedings but acknowledged community concerns about erosion and runoff.

What’s next: Waugh told property owners that they have appeal rights and that written orders will be mailed. County compliance staff will reinspect properties on the timeframes stated in each order and begin assessing daily fines where abatement deadlines are missed.

Ending: For many of the respondents the hearing was procedural — a short window to correct violations before fines begin — while a smaller set of cases produced larger one‑time fines or back‑dated penalties. Waugh closed the hearing by reminding listeners that orders will be issued in writing and that appeal procedures are available under county law.