Citrus County special master gives owners deadlines, fines to secure permits at Sept. 26 hearing

Special Master Christian Wong presiding over the Citrus County Building Division compliance hearing ordered multiple property owners on Sept. 26, 2025, to obtain permits or otherwise bring work into compliance within specified deadlines or face daily fines.

The actions covered interior alterations, installation or relocation of electrical service, and unpermitted placement or modification of structures. The hearing produced a range of deadlines—from two weeks to six months—and fines where owners did not meet compliance dates.

The orders matter because they close out long-running code-enforcement cases, require owners to secure permits or certified inspections, and in several cases attach daily monetary penalties to encourage timely compliance. Several cases involved rental properties or work where occupants, including children, live on-site.

Votes at a glance - Case 202500527, Martin Chambers (represented by contractor Tim Litton): permit application required within 2 weeks; $50 per day fine thereafter. (Special Master order adopted as proposed by county.) - Case 2025977, James Meffert: 90 days to obtain permits and inspections; $50 per day after that. Meffert said he replaced a 7-foot storm-damage window with a 6-foot impact sliding door and is awaiting engineered plans. The owner agreed the resolution was accurate. - Case 202500711, Cody Swinson: 6 months to secure permits for three tiny-home conversions; $50 per day after deadline. Owner said he is working with local engineers and contractors. - Case 202041989 (Cannon Alley Center LLC; owner identified as Skorri Rafnson/Scott Robinson in the record): 60 days to obtain a building permit that covers the unpermitted enclosure work; $200 per day thereafter. The owner and representative Veronica Zupanek said they have flown in and are working with a contractor and have filed paperwork; the county cited a lengthy case history and previous continuances. - Case 202401650, Michael Deganis: continued to the next hearing (Special Master set a continued hearing date and warned no further continuances would be granted without extenuating circumstances). The request to continue followed the reported death of the owner's attorney. - Case CE202501163 / 202501162, Bismuth PropCo Series (5515 E. Live Oak): 30 days to bring relocated exterior electrical panel into compliance with permit documentation; $50 per day after that. The property manager (Heather) was working to locate an electrician to inspect and permit the work.

What the hearing covered and key details Special Master Christian Wong opened the public hearing at 9:00 a.m. and explained procedure, including that parties may cross-examine witnesses and the hearing record would support any appeal.

On several cases the county reported that owners or their representatives agreed to no-contest resolutions before the hearing. Where parties conceded violations, Wong said he would "assume a factual basis for the violation" and enter orders giving the owner a set time to obtain permits or inspections. For the Martin Chambers matter, Wong said, "I'll find that there's a violation. I'll grant 2 weeks to get a permit to abate the violation. And if it's not brought into compliance as ordered, it'll be $50 a day." The transcript shows similar language for other matters when Wong announced deadlines and fines.

Examples from the record - Martin Chambers (Case 202500527): License compliance officer Timothy Williams presented the county's case; contractor Tim Litton said he was hired two weeks earlier to handle permitting and that the project "is in permitting as of Wednesday." Wong adopted the county's proposed order (2 weeks; $50/day).

- James Meffert (Case 2025977): Meffert told the hearing he had replaced a storm window with a sliding impact door and was waiting on engineered drawings from a local firm. The county recommended, and Wong granted, 90 days for permits and inspections with a $50/day fine if not completed.

- Cody Swinson (Case 202500711): The owner said the matter involved two tiny homes in a garage and that he was working with engineers; Wong adopted the parties' agreement and granted six months to cure the violations with a $50/day fine thereafter.

- Cannon Alley Center LLC (Case listed in the record as 202041989): Owner/representative said an existing enclosed glass/screen room had been converted to living space without permits, including drywall, a door and at least one ceiling fan. The county described a case history with prior continuances and recommended a penalty if not abated. Wong said he would grant 60 days for a full permit application that covers the work and set the fine at $200 per day if left unaddressed; the owner asked for a lower fine, which Wong declined because of the case's length.

- Michael Deganis (Case 202401650): The owner requested a continuance; Wong said the owner's attorney had died and, after confirming the circumstances, continued the matter to the next hearing date but warned that no additional continuances would be granted without extenuating circumstances.

- Bismuth PropCo Series (CE202501163 / 202501162; 5515 E. Live Oak): The county presented photos showing a relocated electrical panel and said the tenant filed the complaint. The property's on-site manager (Heather) was working to find an electrician to evaluate the prior work; Wong ordered 30 days to obtain permit documentation and set the fine at $50 per day if not completed.

Discussion vs. decisions The transcript distinguishes between discussion and formal orders. In multiple cases, the county and property representatives agreed to no-contest resolutions before testimony; Wong then entered formal orders based on those agreements. In other matters (notably Cannon Alley), Wong weighed case history and public-safety concerns in setting a shorter compliance window and a higher daily penalty.

Procedural notes and context - Several owners said they or their representatives had filed permit applications or retained contractors, but Building Official Samuel Acosta explained that permitting can require engineered plans or private-provider plan review and that plan preparation—rather than county processing time—was often the pacing factor. - Owners and representatives cited late notice or mail sent to an old address in at least one case as a reason for delay in addressing citations. - Wong repeatedly emphasized that the county's primary goal was compliance and that fines were intended as an incentive to complete permits and inspections.

The hearing adjourned at about 9:45 a.m.