Sarasota magistrate continues dozens of code-enforcement cases, imposes running fines in several matters

Magistrate Richard Ellis presided over a City of Sarasota code-compliance special-magistrate hearing on Oct. 2, 2025, where the city’s enforcement attorney reported progress or continuing violations across more than two dozen property cases. The magistrate continued multiple matters to later dates, ordered running civil fines in a handful of cases and noted several properties had come into compliance.

Why it matters: These hearings set the timetable for owners or tenants to obtain permits, remove overgrowth, correct unsafe conditions and, when required, to pay fines. Many cases involved hurricane-related repairs, expired permits or alleged vacation-rental operations without required registration; outcomes included continuances to allow permitting work to finish, imposition of daily fines to compel compliance, or findings that properties were now compliant.

Case outcomes and next dates (selected items from Oct. 2 docket): - City of Sarasota v. Linda R. Brenner (Case 202500139): Continued to Dec. 4, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.; magistrate found the violation continuing while owner reported most interior work complete and tile and kitchen work pending. - City of Sarasota v. MRF Holdings LLC (Case 202500596): Continued to Dec. 4 at 11:30 a.m.; magistrate started a $100-per-day running fine until the porch enclosure permit/inspection issues are resolved. - City of Sarasota v. Robert L. Jackson (Case 202500819): Continued to Oct. 30 at 3:15 p.m.; owner described cutting overgrowth to ground level but said some small trees are entwined in a fence and may require removing a fence section; magistrate recommended meeting with the inspector and set the earlier date at the owner’s request. - City of Sarasota v. Stephen R. Windsor & Christine D. Windsor (Case 202500330): Continued to next week at 9 a.m. for reinspection after the property owner said landscaping work was completed; magistrate said the case would be wrapped up if the inspector confirms compliance. - City of Sarasota v. 1532/1536 Main St. (1532 Maine LLC; Cases 202500806 and 202500969): Continued to Dec. 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.; permits active, inspections pending; magistrate noted triple-fee questions are a separate building-department matter. - City of Sarasota v. Philippe J. Colon (multiple cases, including 202500960): Magistrate admitted the city’s affidavit, found multiple violations continuing and imposed an assessed civil fine to date of $6,600 with $390 in costs and a $100-per-day running fine; respondent told the magistrate he would attempt to sell the property and agreed to appear Nov. 6 at 1:30 p.m. to seek reconsideration of fines. - City of Sarasota v. Robert G. Stouten Jr. & Gay M. Stouten (Case 202501148): Magistrate found an enclosure and electrical/HVAC work without final inspections; permit issued 9/25/2025; civil fine assessed to date $8,700 plus costs and a $100-per-day running fine; continued to Dec. 4 at 11:45 a.m. - City of Sarasota v. Ace Home Builders LLC (Case 202500705): Continued to Nov. 20, 2025, at 11:00 a.m.; the respondent said plans were being resubmitted and the property’s junk/overgrowth compliance had been corrected on Aug. 20. - City of Sarasota v. Ringling Properties LLC (Case 202500262): Building final scheduled; property manager said permit inspections were complete or imminent; continued to Oct. 16, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. to confirm completion and address fines/costs if needed. - Multiple vacation-rental cases (various owners): Several owners (including Kyfous Rentals LLC, Jun Bong Cho, Taylor Tershey, Ashton Kirsch, and others) were told they must register with the city’s vacation-rental division, correct minimum-stay advertisements (7-night minimum in single-family zones), schedule required inspections and return to the magistrate; many were continued to November or December dockets for compliance checks.

Context and supporting details: Magistrate Ellis repeatedly distinguished matters that had been corrected on inspection dates (and therefore were largely administrative for closure) from cases where structural, permitting or zoning questions remained. The city’s enforcement representative (identified in the record as Ms. Kennedy) repeatedly told the magistrate when permits had been issued, when final inspections remained outstanding, and when civil fines had already begun accruing. In several cases involving work performed without permits — commonly cited under Florida Building Code §105.1 or City Code §16-47 (accumulation of junk, rubbish and trash) — the magistrate ordered running daily fines intended to motivate owners to complete permits, inspections, or property cleanup.

What the magistrate ordered and asked of respondents: Across the docket the magistrate most often: (1) found violations continuing where inspections, permits or required corrections remained incomplete; (2) continued cases to specified dates to allow owners to secure plans, permits or inspections; (3) started or increased daily running fines (examples above include $100/day and $2.50/day for repeat or long-running matters); and (4) in some instances accepted evidence that a violation was corrected and asked staff to confirm by reinspection before formally closing a file.

Next steps: Property owners and listed respondents were ordered to appear on their new hearing dates or provide evidence of completed permits and inspections to the city’s code-enforcement or permitting divisions. Several owners were advised to meet the assigned city inspector on site to resolve factual disputes (for example, whether vegetation removal required temporary fence removal) and to follow up with the city’s building department when triple-fee or permit-fee issues were raised.

Ending note: The hearing docket illustrated how hurricane recovery work, unpermitted repairs, overgrowth and unregistered short-term rentals continue to drive code enforcement in Sarasota. The magistrate repeatedly emphasized that formal fines and running civil penalties would remain until the city’s inspection records showed compliance or until owners produced the required signed plans, permits and final inspections.