Citrus County special master grants extensions, imposes fines and orders permit compliance across May code-compliance docket

Citrus County Special Master Christian Waugh opened the May 2025 code compliance hearing by calling the session to order and proceeding through a long docket of property cases, issuing time-to-comply orders, one-time fines and daily penalties in a mix of abandoned construction, unpermitted site work, junk-accumulation and temporary-occupancy matters.

The hearing came after the county submitted dozens of violation reports and photographs; Waugh repeatedly emphasized the hearing’s purpose was compliance. “I hereby call this Citrus County code compliance hearing for May 2025 to order,” Special Master Christian Waugh said at the start of the session. In several contested and uncontested matters he either granted additional time to bring properties into compliance or assessed fines where the county recommended penalties.

Why it matters: the rulings clarify limits on unpermitted site work in Citrus County and reinforce the county’s enforcement approach: when property uses exceed what permits allow, the special master either requires removal, orders the owner to secure proper permits or imposes fines intended to prompt remediation.

Major rulings and outcomes

- Data Holdings LLC: Waugh admitted defense exhibits and granted the respondent’s motion for an extension to obtain a site improvement plan. The county noted additional state and regional approvals (FDOT, South Florida Water Management District/“Swiftmud”) may be required before full compliance is possible; the special master granted the extension as requested.

- Michael Novich (right-of-way dispute): Waugh found that the disputed parcel was owned in fee by the county and explained the Land Development Code presumption of notice; the special master concluded the county’s ownership meant the county had different rights over the land and ruled for the respondent in that factual context. County counsel said they may appeal the legal interpretation.

- Unlicensed/inoperable vehicles and junk accumulations: multiple homeowners who did not contest violations were given compliance deadlines with daily fines if they failed to act. Examples: Shawna (Baumgartner) Magaha received 60 days to remove inoperable vehicles and accumulated junk and a warning of a $100-per-day fine if not abated; Rebecca Marsh was given 15 days and a $100-per-day fine; several Beverly Hills and Crystal River property owners received 10–30 day windows with $100–$150 per-day fines depending on case severity.

- Site development without permit / expired permits: the special master repeatedly declined to accept after‑the‑fact justification in lieu of permitting. Where structures or building work had been started without a permit or where permits expired and no certificate of occupancy was issued, Waugh ordered either permit pursuit or removal. Notable examples: WJHFL LLC and a set of Fifth 7 Construction / Nona Vision properties were assessed one-time fines (WJHFL: $5,000) or given 30 days to obtain lawful approvals or face a daily fine (typically $100/day).

- Fines and mitigation: In cases where the respondents offered mitigating facts (for example, tree removal after storm damage), Waugh sometimes reduced the fine below county recommendation. For example, Michael J. Stites was assessed a $3,000 one-time fine after the special master credited mitigating testimony and expert input about tree condition and replanting proposals.

- Industrial/commercial storage and laydown yards: Southern Tree Service LLC — a visible, nonresidential site along U.S. 41 where heavy equipment and debris were stored — had recently applied for a site permit and an after‑the‑fact pole‑barn application. Waugh granted 90 days for permitting activity to progress, warning of a $200-per-day fine if the violations were not resolved.

Standard orders and process notes

Waugh repeatedly told property owners that the county’s objective is compliance rather than punishment, and that fines are used to incentivize remedial action. For many uncontested cases the master accepted county photographs and officer testimony as evidence, issued written orders on the record, and set discrete compliance windows (commonly 10, 15, 30 or 60 days) with daily fines to begin after those periods.

What the decisions do not do

The special master did not make broader policy changes; he decided case-by-case, often deferring legal questions (and any county appeals) to the formal court process. Where ownership or statutory interpretation was complicated, Waugh explained the legal basis for his findings and noted the county’s right to appeal.

Looking ahead

Property owners with unresolved matters were directed to coordinate with county staff to obtain permits, apply for after‑the‑fact approvals when appropriate, or remove nonconforming structures or materials. Waugh said he will issue written orders for each case and reminded attendees of the right to appeal his orders if they disagree with the findings.

The hearing ran through nearly all scheduled items; Waugh closed the session after issuing the remaining orders.