Ocala magistrate orders compliance, fines and costs in code-enforcement hearing covering 14 properties

Ocala Special Magistrate Ryan Fong on Wednesday found code violations at multiple properties across the city and adopted staff recommendations that set compliance deadlines, prosecution-cost awards and potential per‑day fines for noncompliance.

The hearing, convened at 10:31 a.m. on July 30, covered a docket of cases brought by the City of Ocala’s code enforcement division alleging property‑maintenance, permit and signage violations. Fong repeatedly adopted staff recommendations to require corrective action, include prosecution costs in orders and, where warranted, classify repeat violations and authorize abatement and recording of liens in Marion County public records.

The matters were largely routine enforcement actions: findings that properties had unlawful accumulations of trash or weeds, work completed without required building permits, noncompliant signage and other maintenance or zoning infractions. In most cases the magistrate set a deadline for compliance and added the city’s prosecution cost to the order; several matters were designated repeat violations under the city code.

Votes at a glance (case number, property, violation(s), order summary): - CE25-0475 (2045 NW First St.): Violations of city code sections 122-3-32 (permitted uses in R‑2) and 34-95 (weeds/trash). Magistrate adopted staff recommendations, ordered corrective action and included city prosecution costs of $237.66; repeat‑violation language noted for future offenses.

- ENV25-0082 (415 SE 30th St.; Top Notch Corners LLC / Robert C. Albright): Violation of section 34-95 (weeds/trash). Magistrate adopted staff recommendations, set compliance deadline (staff requested Aug. 21), and included prosecution costs of $280.57. Robert C. Albright, representing Top Notch Corners LLC, told the magistrate work was nearly complete and that the remaining area was expected to be finished the next day.

- 202410908 (1307 NW 8th St.; Johnny Mae Vereen Estate / David Ralph Fareen): Violations of section 1-22-51 (building permit required) and section 82-1-51 (standard housing code). Magistrate adopted staff recommendations: require application and issuance of required building permits by Sept. 18, require completion of non‑permit work (paint, clean up) by that date, and include prosecution costs of $454.37.

- 202411185 (804 NE 9th Ave.): Violation of section 1-22-51 (building permit required). Magistrate adopted staff recommendations and included prosecution costs of $218.11.

- CE25-0366 (923 N Magnolia Ave.; Florida Food Fun Leisure LLC / Oaks of Ocala LLC): Violation of section 1-10-133 (general construction and maintenance standards; signage). Magistrate adopted staff recommendations and included prosecution costs of $274.32.

- CE25-0403 (1021 NE 12th St.; Mark A. Quirk & Catherine L. Quirk): Violation of section 34-95. Magistrate adopted staff recommendations and included prosecution costs of $250.71; city may enter to abate and charge a $100 service fee if abatement occurs.

- CE25-0419 (400 block SW 3rd St.; Eula B. Miller estate): Violation of section 34-95 (vacant lot). Magistrate adopted staff recommendations and included prosecution costs of $196.91; abatement and $100 service fee authorized if city abates.

- CE25-0461 (2410 SW College Rd.; George N. Snelling LLC / Reuse Clothing and Shoes): Violation of section 122-12-23 (supplementary; donation boxes cited). Magistrate adopted staff recommendations and included prosecution costs of $206.60.

- CE25-0474 (2000 block NW First St.; Delaford Ava Thompson estate / Betty F. Tanner): Violations of section 34-95 and section 122-3-32 (repeat violations) and section 82-3 (new violation for barbed/razor wire, fences). Magistrate adopted staff recommendations, treated the 34-95 and 122-3-32 counts as repeat violations, awarded prosecution costs of $237.66, and preserved recording/repeat‑violation remedies.

- CE25-0494 (3435 N Pine Ave.; Ocala North Property, LLC): Violation of section 122-12-23 (donation boxes). Magistrate adopted staff recommendations and included prosecution costs of $245.48.

- CE25-0535 (2601 NE 28th Ave.; Susan Mead): Violations included section 34-95 (weeds/trash) and section 122-12-17 (chicken ordinance); section 82-5-17 (abandoned/neglected pools) remained in violation. Magistrate found some items brought into compliance, left the pool violation active, adopted staff recommendations and included prosecution costs of $190.11.

- CE25-0563 (905 NW 4th St.; Kenny Mae Woods Sears): Repeat violation of section 34-95. Magistrate adopted staff recommendations and included prosecution costs of $218.11.

- CE25-0656 (1206 NE 42nd Ave.): Repeat violation of section 34-95. Magistrate adopted staff recommendations; prosecution cost amount not specified on the record.

- ENV25-0108 (506 NE 22nd Ave.; Anthony Jay Dimonte): Violation of section 34-95. Magistrate adopted staff recommendations; prosecution cost amount not specified on the record.

Old business and noncompliance: - CE25-0482 (1665 SW 3rd St.; Prime Vester’s Inc.): This matter was previously prosecuted and the property remained noncompliant. Magistrate Fong found a continuing violation of section 82-1-51, imposed a $100 per-violation-per-day fine beginning July 26, 2025, and authorized the city to abate if necessary. The city reported unpaid costs of $219.29; a certified copy of the order will be recorded as a lien if enforcement proceeds.

Magistrate Fong repeatedly told respondents that the city would include prosecution costs in its orders and that repeat violations could lead to certified orders recorded in Marion County records. Several respondents told the magistrate they were coordinating contractors or awaiting estate paperwork; David Ralph Fareen said he had just received ownership paperwork and expected delays while permits were obtained. Christopher W. Curtis told the magistrate he planned surgery in mid‑August and said he intended to finish corrective work before that date.

The magistrate closed the hearing at 11:23 a.m. and ordered respondents to notify code enforcement when work was complete so staff could confirm compliance. If respondents fail to comply by the deadlines in each order, the magistrate’s rulings preserve daily fines, abatement authority and placement of certified orders in county records.

Ending: The city will proceed with enforcement steps described in individual orders and respondents must notify code enforcement when violations are cured; where the city elects to abate, owners may be charged abatement costs and $100 service fees as stated in the orders.