Sarasota magistrate hears dozens of code-enforcement cases; several fines imposed, many hurricane-related repairs spared charges

City of Sarasota Special Magistrate Richard Ellis heard more than three dozen code-compliance matters on Sept. 25, 2025, resolving a mix of outcomes: the magistrate imposed or reduced fines in several long-running cases, granted the city authority to correct certain properties, accepted compliance for multiple hurricane-related repairs and continued numerous files so staff or owners could finish permits or repairs.

The session focused on enforcement under the City Code and the Florida Building Code, with Code Compliance staff — identified in the record as Miss Kennedy — repeatedly recommending either modest costs or no fines where the violations tied to hurricane damage. “We are not going to ask for any fines or costs simply because this was hurricane damage,” Miss Kennedy told the magistrate on multiple cases. Magistrate Ellis frequently accepted that recommendation for properties with completed permits or inspections but imposed larger monetary penalties where violations were longstanding or the property remained out of compliance.

Several orders were among the most consequential. In a pair of related cases against the Bayou Louise Living Trust (LaMarca), Ellis found ongoing violations for accumulation of junk and overgrowth, imposed a running civil fine and costs and granted the City of Sarasota authority to correct the property. For another long-running matter, involving a respondent identified in the record as Martha Pina (case 202200974), Ellis substituted a consolidated civil fine and costs and retained authority to correct after the city had already performed cleanup work.

Across the docket the magistrate took three consistent types of actions: (1) accept compliance and impose no fine when the city documented completed inspections or closed permits (often where damage was hurricane-related); (2) continue cases tied to pending permit reviews or additional inspections so work can proceed before a final monetary decision; and (3) impose or confirm substantial fines and costs when violations were longstanding, multiple previous hearings were missed, or the city had exercised corrective authority.

Votes at a glance (case number — primary violation — ruling / next hearing):

- 2025-00210 & 202501284 (City of Sarasota v. Arlene LaMarca / Bayou Louise Living Trust) — 16-47 accumulation of junk; 16-49(b) overgrowth — Magistrate imposed civil fine to date of $4,200 and costs of $390, started a $100-per-day running fine until corrected, continued both cases to Oct. 30 at 11:45 a.m., and granted the City of Sarasota authority to correct in both cases. (Transcript evidence: first mention s=1455.42; ruling s=1652.07)

- 2025002256 (City v. Schaefer Grama Vincent, Inc.) — FBC 105.1 (interior repairs; hurricane-related) — Inspector showed final passed Aug. 29; city recommended no fines or costs because of hurricane damage; magistrate accepted no fine/no cost and found matter in compliance. (ruling s=1791.62–1825.18)

- 202200974 (City v. Martha Pina) — 16-47 accumulation; various housing-code violations — City reported long-running violations and city cleanup; magistrate vacated prior orders, substituted a consolidated civil fine and costs totaling $240,700 (civil fine) and $2,005 (costs) and retained authority to correct; case to be brought back at request of either party. (affidavit and ruling s=1955.61–2039.42)

- 202500289 (City v. Boulevard of the President's LLC) — FBC 105.1 (hurricane-related interior repairs) — Final inspection passed 9/24; city recommended no fine/no cost due to hurricane damage; magistrate accepted recommendation and found the violation corrected. (ruling s=2213.28–2277.64)

- 2025980 (City v. Josie M. Lee & Silvorene Lee) — 16-47 accumulation; 305.15 housing code (fence/accessory structures) — Property remained out of compliance; magistrate imposed civil fine to date of $9,400, cost $3.90, started $100 per day running fine until corrected, and required the respondents (or representative) to attend Oct. 30 at 11:45 a.m. (ruling s=2883.76–2946.36)

- 202400982 & 202500990 (City v. RCP Lending Fund 1 LLC / Jeffrey Menace) — FBC 105.1 (permit withdrawn; in process of re-submittal) and 16-47 accumulation (tree debris) — Respondent reported contractor engagement and immediate plans to submit permits and remove debris; magistrate continued both cases to Oct. 30 at 2:15 p.m.; violations remain continuing. (discussion and continuance s=3163.68–3406.04)

- 202500837 (City v. Courtyard Modern Builders LLC) — 16-47 and 16-49(b) — City reported violations corrected (7/28 and 9/23); city recommended one-day fine of $100 and costs; magistrate imposed the $100 day fine and ordered costs to be paid to recoup city expenses. (ruling s=3508.68–3574.95)

- 202500289 and 202500706–708 (multiple hurricane-related permit matters; Belmont/361 St. Armands and related) — Several continued cases where permits had been submitted or were pending plan review; magistrate accepted city recommendations to continue matters to November or December to allow applicants time to finish plan review and inspections; several cases closed with no fines where final inspections were recorded. (selected entries s=8149.37–8639.78)

- 202500065 (City v. Oracle MBL Company LLC) — FBC 105.1 (multiple permit items) — Parts of work closed (AC closed 6/5); magistrate continued remaining items to Oct. 16 at 9:15 a.m. for follow-up. (continuance s=18056.14–18270.30)

- 202500706–708 (City v. Coconut Arts SW LLC) — New demo-related matters; owner abroad; magistrate continued the three new cases to Oct. 30 at 2:30 p.m.; violations left undetermined while permits are processed. (s=10100.48–10127.77)

- 202500194 & related (City v. Walk the Plank Lido LLC) — Work in the right-of-way; sign and right-of-way permits and a vacation-rental registration issue tied to pool safety — Parties reported ongoing permit submittals and a plan to address pool-safety items; magistrate continued vacation-rental and right-of-way items to Nov. 20 at 11:45 a.m. to allow reinspection and follow-up. (discussion and continuance s=11680.92–12861.32)

- 202500788 (City v. Joseph Guvili Uza Family Trust) — FBC 105.1 interior renovations without a permit — No active permit; magistrate imposed civil fine to date of $13,100 and costs of $465, started $100/day and continued the case to Oct. 30 at 10:45 a.m. for follow-up. (ruling s=12949.21–13031.37)

- 202500566 (City v. Jason Johnson) — Stipulated continuance to Oct. 9 at 1:00 p.m. at respondent's request. (s=17334.80–17364.12)

- 202500986 (City v. Kwang Pham) — Zoning 72-14(b) (prohibited vehicle) — City inspected and found the tow truck removed; magistrate found the matter corrected 9/3 and imposed no fine or costs per city recommendation. (ruling s=17436.33–17511.30)

- 202500933 (City v. Ellen E. Christman) — FBC 105.1 (outdoor shower, shed conversion) — Respondent reported difficulty securing a contractor and navigating permitting; magistrate continued matter to Nov. 20 at 1:45 p.m. to allow time to locate a contractor and submit permits. (discussion and continuance s=17610.14–17970.88)

- 202500065 (Oracle MBL) and other building-permit files — Multiple continuances to Oct. 16 and Oct. 23 for final inspections and plan-review steps; magistrate emphasized calling inspections to close permits. (examples s=18054.21–18278.06)

- 202500145 / 202500949 (Jovan West) — Mixed outcomes: some violations corrected (inspections passed) while roof and fence matters remain out of compliance; magistrate continued both matters to Nov. 20 at 2:00 p.m. pending sale negotiations referenced by the respondent. (continuance s=18330.46–18528.21)

- Several additional matters (Sunbelt Investors / Sun City, Glencoe Properties, Gulfstream Estates, Coastal Laqueen, Sandbar Corp., others) were continued to October or November dates or closed when inspections were completed; where the city documented completed inspections for hurricane-related repairs the magistrate typically accepted the city recommendation to assess no fines and to close the file. (selected references s=21790.38–25500.17)

Magistrate Ellis emphasized the court’s limited role in constitutional challenges, noting that any selective-enforcement or equal-protection arguments typically require circuit-court review and evidentiary development beyond the magistrate’s ordinance-enforcement remit. At least one respondent advanced an argument alleging selective enforcement on the basis of right-of-way encroachments and insurance requirements; Ellis said he would coordinate with the city attorney’s office and staff to determine whether further evidentiary proceedings or a specially set hearing were necessary. (discussion s=12217.63–12562.70)

Context and next steps

Most continuances were scheduled for late October or mid-to-late November to give property owners, contractors and city plan reviewers time to finish permits and inspections. Where the city had already taken corrective action (cleanups) the magistrate in a few cases substituted consolidated fines and retained the city’s authority to correct ongoing violations. Owners who were able to demonstrate completed permits or final inspections — often for hurricane-related repairs — were routinely found in compliance and escaped further fines. The magistrate repeatedly told owners that final inspections must be called in to close files and avoid further penalties.

Ending

The magistrate’s calendar remains heavy with permit-related continuances; several matters will return to the bench in October and November for status checks or final orders. Cases involving alleged selective enforcement or constitutional defenses are likely to require additional briefing or an evidentiary hearing and possible referral to the city attorney’s office for guidance.

Direct quotes in the hearing included the city’s compliance officer: “We are not going to ask for any fines or costs simply because this was hurricane damage,” and Magistrate Ellis’s order in the LaMarca matters: “I will grant the City of Sarasota the authority to correct in both cases.”