Magistrate orders compliance in multiple Martin County code cases; carport dispute continued to March

Martin County’s code magistrate ordered owners of multiple properties to come into compliance with county code by specified dates after a hearing on Jan. 15, 2025, and set fines and costs for failures to comply.

The hearing covered more than a dozen enforcement cases brought by Martin County code investigators. The magistrate accepted the county’s evidence in most matters and entered orders requiring respondents to correct violations such as unpermitted structures, expired permits, nuisance trash and vegetation, and operation by unlicensed contractors.

In one of the opening matters, code investigator Chris Counselor said, “What I observed was that a carport had already been completed without a permit,” describing the property at 3364 S.E. Ellendale Street in Stuart. The magistrate said he had sufficient evidence to find a violation but paused that case to allow county staff and the respondent more time to resolve pending zoning and alternative-compliance review. “I’m gonna move this to the March hearing,” the magistrate told the parties.

Deputy Growth Management Director Peter Walden explained the county’s process for the neighborhood/CRA alternative-compliance route and told the magistrate that the growth-management director “does have that ability for everything other than building height and that type of thing,” meaning staff can grant alternative compliance in some circumstances but, in this case, had not approved the carport.

Among other rulings, the magistrate upheld a citation for an unlicensed contractor at 5273 S.E. Tall Pines Way and sustained citations or issued compliance deadlines in cases involving trailers or pilings left on lots, high grass on vacant parcels, expired or unissued building permits, and unpermitted accessory structures. Where respondents had entered stipulated agreements, the magistrate recorded the agreed compliance dates and administrative fees.

The magistrate set compliance deadlines and penalties that were consistent across many cases: correction by Feb. 28, 2025 (or other specified dates), a civil fine of $100 per day if the violation continues after that date, and reimbursement of county investigation costs (typically $575). Stipulated agreements recorded administrative fees (commonly $350) and later compliance dates where the owner and county agreed to a plan.

Votes at a glance

- ENF2024-010023 (Lawrence H. Grubb, Dana Collins, Teresa Collins) — Alleged unpermitted carport; continued to March hearing for resolution of alternative-compliance/zoning review; magistrate said evidence supports a violation but continued the case to allow growth-management decision to be finalized.

- ENF2024-120-123 (Sergio Casamento / Martin Silva) — Citation for acting as an unlicensed contractor upheld; magistrate found a violation based on payment to an unlicensed worker and sustained the citation; fine and costs to follow under standard schedule.

- ENF2024-09-0453 (Lisa Copeland) — Pilings, dock material and an RV/trailer on private property; magistrate ordered compliance by Feb. 28, 2025 and assessed $100/day thereafter and $575 in investigation costs; magistrate dismissed the inoperable-vehicle charge (91.34a) during the hearing.

- KCNF2024-0606-15 (Evelyn R. Comstock) — Trash and weeds; magistrate continued the case to April 16, 2025 (parties agreed to a continuance) and withheld the $575 investigation cost pending adjudication; inoperable-vehicle charge later dismissed.

- ENF2024-040736 (Black Cane Rum / Ignacio and Joan Rodriguez) — Commercial structure built without a permit; magistrate found a violation and ordered compliance by April 30, 2025; $100/day fines and $575 costs if not corrected.

- ENF2024-060573 (Steven Stanley) — Expired building permit for deck/concrete; magistrate ordered compliance by Feb. 28, 2025 and awarded $575 in county costs.

- CNF2024100213 (Sergio V. Nativi Living Trust) — Windows/doors installed without permit; magistrate ordered compliance by Feb. 28, 2025 and $575 costs if not corrected.

- ENF2024101169 (Scott Richards) — Vacant lot with trash and overgrowth; magistrate ordered compliance by Feb. 28, 2025, $100/day after that date, and $575 costs.

- ENF2024110285 (Stuart K. Archer & Penny Lynn Bergen Archer) — Trailer and debris on vacant lot; magistrate ordered compliance by Feb. 28, 2025 and $575 costs if not corrected.

- ENF2024-110-436 (BellSouth Telecommunications LLC) — High grass at a vacant BellSouth parcel; magistrate ordered compliance by Feb. 28, 2025 and $575 costs if not corrected.

- Fee/lien matters (18397 S.E. Heritage Drive) — Staff recommended lien-reduction stipulations for fines originally assessed against prior owners; county accepted stipulated settlements with current owner Aaron Gordon to resolve long-standing fines with reduced payments (requests documented in hearing exhibits). Specifics: a historic $519,500 alleged accrued fine with a proposed $51,950 payment offered by current owner; another matter reduced from $80,100 to $8,010 under a separate agreed payment plan; magistrate signed recommended agreed orders.

- Stipulated agreements entered: Maria Norelli (AC mini-split) — compliance by April 30, 2025 and $350 administrative fee; Aaron & Jennifer Wojciech (unpermitted wooden structure) — compliance by May 30, 2025 and $350 fee.

What happened and why it matters

The magistrate’s rulings reflect routine enforcement of Martin County’s adoption of the Florida Building Code and county nuisance and permitting ordinances. Code staff presented photographic evidence and permit records in each matter; magistrate orders either require removal or retroactive permitting, set deadlines for compliance and set a daily fine ($100) and a standard investigation-cost reimbursement (commonly $575) if deadlines are missed. Several respondents entered into stipulated agreements, which set later compliance dates and administrative fees rather than immediate fines.

County staff and respondents sometimes noted technical or procedural complexities — for example, the Stuart carport matter involved a pending Neighborhood Advisory Council/CRA alternative-compliance referral and a growth-management review. Peter Walden, deputy growth-management director, told the magistrate that staff can grant alternative compliance for many site-specific design exceptions, “for everything other than building height,” but that the carport had not met the criteria in the staff review.

The magistrate signaled a practical approach: where final administrative decisions remained pending, he continued matters (the Grubb carport was continued to March). Where evidence showed an unpermitted or expired permit condition with no outstanding procedural barrier, the magistrate entered compliance deadlines and assessed costs and potential fines.

What comes next

Respondents who were ordered to comply must either remove unpermitted structures or secure the required permits by the deadlines listed in the magistrate’s orders. If respondents fail to comply, the orders specify civil fines of $100 per day and award county investigation costs (typically $575). Several cases will return to the magistrate’s docket for follow-up hearings (the magistrate set dates or continuances where appropriate). For the Grubb carport, the magistrate explicitly left the matter open while staff and the Neighborhood Advisory Council/Growth Management resolve alternative-compliance and zoning questions.

The hearing transcript and the magistrate’s signed orders provide the details and dates for each case and are the authoritative record for next steps, appeals and any payment or removal requirements.