Sarasota magistrate continues most cases, imposes fines in unresolved permit and vacation-rental matters

A City of Sarasota special magistrate hearing on Aug. 28, 2025, addressed more than two dozen code-enforcement cases, wrapping up several matters as corrected, imposing modest fines in a handful of long‑running files and continuing most other cases to September and October for follow-up inspections or permit activity.

The hearing, conducted by Magistrate Richard Ellis with City of Sarasota staff represented by Miss Kennedy, covered cases ranging from hurricane repair and unpermitted interior work to overgrowth, accumulation of junk and multiple complaints about short‑term vacation rentals being advertised or operated without a registration. Magistrate Ellis routinely found violations continuing where permits or inspections remained outstanding, continued cases to give respondents a chance to obtain permits or complete repairs, and in several cases imposed limited fines or costs intended to recover the city’s enforcement expense.

City staff told the magistrate that some properties had corrected the cited problems before the hearing and therefore required no assessment of civil fines. Those cases included: Anna Ruby (case 202500690), where the pergola and fence violations were closed with a final inspection on Aug. 12 and the city recommended no fine or costs; Vince Franco’s Crown Castle matter (202500261), found in compliance on Aug. 22 and assessed a single‑day fine of $100 plus $7.65 in costs after the city reduced prior larger fines; and Ellison Jean Cole (202500950), whose carport repair passed final inspection on Aug. 21 and for whom the city recommended only inspection costs (waived by the magistrate in that matter).

Other matters produced starker outcomes. Natural Comfort Footwear / Saint Armands LLC (202500259) drew a civil fine of $16,200 to date and $3.90 in costs after the city’s affidavit documented 162 days of a $100 daily running fine for unpermitted hurricane repairs; the magistrate directed a representative to appear at the next hearing and continued the case to Oct. 16, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. Several other unpermitted interior‑work cases (hurricane repairs or conversions) were continued with specific deadlines to either finalize permits or show progress: Ringling Properties LLC (202500262) and several others were continued to Oct. 2 or Sept. 18 depending on the property and the scope of outstanding inspections.

On short‑term rental matters, the magistrate repeatedly noted that zoning code corrections (where the property had been brought into compliance for permanent occupancy limits) did not resolve outstanding City code offenses for operation or advertisement without a registration. The magistrate admitted city affidavits and, where the respondent had not completed registration or removed advertisements, left daily fines running and set return dates in September or October for further review. Examples included cases listed under 202500489, 202500607 and others where zoning corrections were sometimes complete but registration and advertising violations remained outstanding.

Several respondents told the magistrate they were trying to secure contractors, wait for delayed materials, or finalize insurance or FEMA‑related demolition/repair decisions. Magistrate Ellis repeatedly urged respondents to secure licensed contractors and to call inspections once work was complete; where the city had already issued permits and only final inspections remained, he directed respondents to arrange those inspections and returned matters in 30 days or less.

Votes at a glance: - City of Sarasota v. DMI Group LLC (202500586): Continued to Aug. 18, 2025, 1:45 p.m.; respondent (David Thompson) to call for final fence inspection. (Violation: Florida Building Code 105.1; status: after‑the‑fact permit submitted; outcome: continued.) - City of Sarasota v. Steven Robert Windsor & Christine Windsor (202500330): Continued to Oct. 2, 2025, 8:45 a.m.; city awaiting landscape corrections to clear site visibility (code 16‑49(d)). - City of Sarasota v. Anna Ruby (202500690): Violation of FBC 105.1 corrected on Aug. 12, 2025; magistrate imposed no fines or costs; warned about repeat‑violator penalties within five years. - City of Sarasota v. Natural Comfort Footwear / Saint Armands LLC (202500259): Civil fine to date of $16,200 plus $3.90 in costs imposed; daily $100 running fine continues until compliance; continued to Oct. 16, 2025, 8:30 a.m.; no representative present at initial hearing; city’s affidavit admitted as evidence. - City of Sarasota v. Crown Castle GT Company LLC / Vince Franco (202500261): Property in compliance as of Aug. 22; magistrate imposed a one‑day fine of $100 and $7.65 in costs (vacated prior larger fines) and closed the matter pending payment. - City of Sarasota v. Natural Comfort (follow‑up, James Walsh / store) (202500259 reappearance): Case continued to Sept. 18, 2025, 1:45 p.m.; respondent to obtain contractor bids and begin permitting; magistrate noted earlier $16,000 fine that was being held in abeyance while respondent pursues repairs. - City of Sarasota v. Ringling Properties LLC (202500262): Permit issued July 18, inspections pending; case continued to Oct. 2, 2025, 1:15 p.m.; respondent (contractors George Miller, Jeff Handler) expects final work within 3–4 weeks. - City of Sarasota v. Joseph Gugliaza (202500788 & 202500747): Overgrowth matter (202500747) found corrected Aug. 26; magistrate fined $100 plus $3.90 costs; interior demolition/permit matter (202500788) continued to Sept. 25, 2025, 11:30 a.m., with affidavit and fines noted. - City of Sarasota v. LMD Group Investments Corp. (202500503): Multiple violations (junk/rubbish; trees; roof/wall disrepair); magistrate imposed $15,900 in civil fines to date, $43.15 in costs and left daily $100 running fine until corrected; continued for compliance per affidavit. - City of Sarasota v. FTF Lending LLC (202401086): Continued to Oct. 9, 2025, 8:45 a.m.; property in foreclosure and city asked for more time while sale is pending; violations include yard debris, overgrowth and a fence in disrepair. - Multiple vacation‑rental matters (examples: 202500489, 202500607, 202500447 and others): City admitted affidavits documenting running fines (examples in the record show assessed fines ranging to mid‑five figures for long‑standing noncompliance); magistrate continued most cases to Sept./Oct. hearing dates and required respondents to attend next hearing or face further fines and costs.

Context and next steps City staff repeatedly told the magistrate they favor limited fines where respondents show good‑faith efforts to obtain permits or contract work; when properties were demonstrably brought into compliance (final inspection passed) the city recommended either no fine or only recovery of inspection costs. Magistrate Ellis emphasized the city’s repeat‑violator rule: a second citation for the same violation within five years exposes a respondent to substantially higher daily fines (the magistrate noted fines “in excess of $500 a day” for repeat offenses). Most continued matters carry specific return dates in September or October, at which point the magistrate will consider final inspections, permit closures and the city’s recommendations on fines and costs.

Ending The magistrate closed the Aug. 28 session after setting return dates and instructing respondents and their contractors to call building inspections when work is complete. Where city staff reported that permits had been issued and only final inspections remained, the magistrate urged respondents to schedule those inspections promptly to stop daily fines from accruing.