Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ocala magistrate orders Rock Hospitality Partners to obtain permits, stop overnight storage by Nov. 20
Summary
A City of Ocala magistrate found multiple code violations at properties operated by Rock Hospitality Partners 22 LLC and ordered permits, site-plan approval and an end to overnight storage and unpermitted uses by Nov. 20; the city will include prosecution costs in the recorded orders.
Ryan Fong, the magistrate appointed by the City of Ocala, ordered Rock Hospitality Partners 22 LLC to obtain required permits and site-plan approvals and to cease using several parcels for overnight storage or other unpermitted business uses by Nov. 20, 2025.
The action follows city testimony that multiple adjacent parcels fenced as a single lot lack building permits, required site plans for property improvements, and in one instance an unpermitted tree removal. Dale Hollingsworth, the city’s chief code official and manager of code enforcement, told the magistrate the parcels are in B-2 zoning and that staff observed barbed wire on the fence, unpermitted overnight storage of vehicles and trailers, and regular overnight storage rather than the daily-only use allowed for mobile vendors.
The magistrate adopted the staff recommendation to require Rock Hospitality Partners to apply for and obtain any required permits and site-plan approvals and to cease use of the property for storage of vehicles, trailers, or other business activity in violation of city code by Nov. 20, 2025. The order also states the city’s prosecution costs will be included in the final orders recorded in Marion County.
Rock Hospitality representatives who spoke at the hearing said they had attempted to coordinate with permitting and zoning staff before the hearing and described inconsistent information from different city offices about whether a site plan or contractor-held permit was required. A company representative said crews had been told at times that certain work was acceptable and at other times that permits were required.
Hollingsworth told the magistrate that staff met with the respondents in late July but that, as of the hearing, no permits or site-plan applications had been submitted. The city also said individual certified notices were mailed and posted on each parcel. The magistrate rejected the respondents’ request for a longer compliance period, noting the city’s timeline and prior meeting, and left the Nov. 20 deadline in place.
The city record, as read into the hearing, lists prosecution costs “$1.96 47” per case; the transcripted figure is ambiguous. The magistrate’s written orders will state the costs exactly as included in the administrative record and will be mailed to the property owner. The order warns that failure to meet the deadline could lead to abatement by the city and additional fines or costs.
The magistrate and city staff said the written order will detail corrective actions and how to confirm compliance once permits and inspections are complete.
