Ocala boards impose fines, set permit deadlines in multiple contractor and code-enforcement cases

The City of Ocala Contractors Board of Examiners and Appeals found a leaseholder guilty of unlicensed contracting and performing work without required permits and ordered fines and prosecution costs; the Municipal Code Enforcement Board then reviewed more than a dozen property-compliance cases, directing permits or cleanup by specified dates and approving liens where earlier orders remained unpaid.

The contractors board heard case CON25-22 (City of Ocala v. Ayman Mohammed), presented by staff with photos showing new Romex wiring and conduit and other recently installed electrical work. Staff cited municipal code sections for acting as a contractor without registration and for performing work without permits and asked the board to find the respondent in violation and assess three $100 fines (one per cited violation) plus $136.61 in prosecution costs, with payment due by July 3, 2025. The respondent told the board he was leasing the commercial space, believed he had permission from the landlord and initially thought the work was limited to cleaning and painting; staff presented evidence the electrical work was new and required a licensed contractor and permits. The board voted to adopt staff’s recommendation; staff will provide payment instructions and may file a lien if costs are unpaid.

In a separate contractors-board matter the board moved to file liens on previously ordered fines in case CON205151 (City of Ocala v. PIM Construction Services LLC) after staff reported the $1,500 fine and $383.91 prosecution costs remained unpaid.

The Municipal Code Enforcement Board took detailed action on several property cases. In case CE25-0154 (City of Ocala v. Christopher Case, 612 Southeast 40th Terrace), Officer Jeffrey Gilbo reported debris had largely been removed but that tall grass remained and structural damage from a fallen tree requires a building permit and engineering review. Staff recommended that the owner cut and clean the property and apply for and obtain required permits under the Florida Building Code by Aug. 7, 2025, with repairs completed within 90 days after permit issuance. The property owner described difficulty locating a structural engineer, financing setbacks and an estimated repair cost of about $17,500; he said he had located a contractor and was arranging funds. The board accepted the staff recommendation and set the Aug. 7 compliance/application deadline.

In case CE25-0206 (City of Ocala v. Franco Stracuzzi, 2001 Southeast 10th Court) staff said tarps remained on a roof after a tree fell; staff recommended applying for and obtaining permits by Aug. 7, 2025, and assessing $202.61 in prosecution costs. The board found the violation and accepted the staff recommendation.

The board also reviewed multiple older noncompliance cases where previous orders had not been satisfied. For case 20228711 (2150 NW Martin Luther King Ave.), staff reported the development project is meeting its staged timeline and the board granted another three-month extension. For several other files where fines and prosecution costs remained unpaid, including 202411320, 202411407, 202410714, 20216207, 20217396, 20228624 and 20193332, the board voted to proceed with the prior orders and file liens.

Estate and probate matters prompted different outcomes. In case 202411180 (City of Ocala v. David Vasquez), staff and translation support said the property owner is in probate proceedings and staff recommended the board continue the existing order; the board decided to stand with the existing order but clarified the fines’ effective date and told the respondent he could return to request reduction or waiver when the probate concludes. In case 202411382 (City of Ocala v. Ernestine Estelle Stevenson Estate, 1617 SW Third St.), staff said all but a window permit had been obtained; staff opposed an extension and recommended fines be imposed. The board voted to continue the existing order so fines will accrue; staff noted the owner may petition later for reduction when the work is complete.

Routine code-enforcement cases alleging weeds, trash, vacant commercial structures and dangerous conditions were handled largely by voice votes to adopt staff recommendations. Examples include CE25-0140 (Colesco Partners LLC, 250 SW 22nd Place), CE25-0141 (Liquid Venture Holdings LLC, 540 NW 3rd Ave.), CE25-0204 (Pamela Montgomery Hayes), CE25-0227 (Travis Wingler), and CE25-0114 / CE25-0115–other codes cases listed on the agenda; in each the board either ordered abatement by a date set by staff or moved to file liens when prior orders were not satisfied.

Votes at a glance (case number → action taken): CON25-22 (City v. Ayman Mohammed) → Found in violation; three $100 fines + $136.61 costs; payment due 07/03/2025; motion adopted. CON205151 (PIM Construction Services LLC) → Previously ordered $1,500 fine + $383.91 cost unpaid; board approved filing lien. CE25-0154 (612 SE 40th Terrace / Christopher Case) → Cut and clean; apply for/obtain permits by 08/07/2025; repairs within 90 days of permit; motion adopted. CE25-0206 (2001 SE 10th Court / Franco Stracuzzi) → Apply for/obtain permits by 08/07/2025; $202.61 costs; motion adopted. 20228711 (2150 NW MLK Ave.) → 3-month extension for development timeline; motion adopted. 202411382 (Ernestine Estelle Stevenson Estate) → Existing order continued; fines accrue; owner may petition on compliance. Multiple other CE cases (see transcript): staff recommendations to cut/clean, obtain permits, or file liens were adopted as presented by staff.

The board closed the docket and set a next meeting in July. Staff will notify respondents of payment or permit instructions and will return any cases for follow-up hearings when compliance remains outstanding.