Wellington magistrate orders corrections or daily fines in dozens of code cases; one short extension granted

Special Magistrate Holly Hahn convened the Village of Wellington’s code-enforcement hearings on Dec. 11, 2025, and reviewed roughly two dozen matters ranging from missing foundation plantings and dead swale grass to unpermitted outdoor construction. For most properties, the magistrate ordered owners to correct violations by Jan. 15, 2026, or face daily fines (commonly $25 per day). She entered several five‑year cease‑and‑desist orders and assessed modest administrative costs in each case.

Why it matters: The rulings formalize the village’s timeline for compliance across a broad set of neighborhood and commercial properties, clarifying when fines begin and what follow-up hearings are scheduled. Residents and managers with lingering violations were repeatedly directed to contact the code‑compliance division and planning staff for specific plans or permit guidance.

Most notable outcomes

- Bruce Tooman (752 Lake Wellington Drive) — Code compliance asked the magistrate to confirm that foundation plantings required by the Village’s Land Development Regulation were missing. Tooman said he had placed multiple potted plants but argued planting in the ground would harm utilities, impair a window that serves as a secondary egress and fail because of drainage. He cited NFPA 101 (life‑safety guidance) and his experience as a fire protection engineer. Planning staff (Damien Newell) and code enforcement said they had offered alternatives — including setting plantings back a minimum of 24 inches or placing shrubs elsewhere. The magistrate found the violation remained and assessed a $25/day fine starting 11/21/2025 plus $34.48 in costs, and she encouraged Tooman to work with staff to resolve the matter.

- Mohini (Monee) Persaud (13667 Columbine Avenue) — The homeowner told the magistrate she obtained insurance approval and a roofer contract to replace a stained roof and trim; staff agreed to review the contractor’s signed documents. The magistrate granted a short extension, continuing the fine‑certification process for 60 days with a follow-up hearing set for Feb. 19, 2026 (and a potential fine‑certification date of Mar. 19, 2026 if the work is not completed).

- Multiple properties ordered to correct by Jan. 15, 2026 — For a large group of cases (examples: 1311 Periwinkle Place; 1047 Goldenrod Road D; 1187 Widgeon Road; 15365 Meadowood Drive; 1112 Wild Cherry Lane; 1838 Capeside Circle), staff presented photos and inspection reports showing persistent weeds, dead or diseased grass, missing foundation plants, or other landscape maintenance problems. In each of these matters the magistrate ordered corrections by 01/15/2026; assessed a $25/day fine beginning 01/16/2026 if violations persist; ordered modest administrative costs (typically $12–$14); and entered a five‑year cease‑and‑desist. Fine‑certification hearings were set for Feb. 19, 2026, where required.

- Unpermitted outdoor kitchen (10554 Versailles Boulevard) — In one matter the magistrate assessed a higher potential daily fine. Staff reported an outdoor kitchen installed without a building permit; the gas‑line permit was closed but the outdoor kitchen permit remained expired. The magistrate ordered correction by 01/15/2026 and assessed a $50/day fine beginning 01/16/2026 plus $12.22 in costs; a fine‑certification hearing was set for 02/19/2026.

’Votes at a glance’ (selected cases and outcomes)

- NOHCC2672025, Bruce Tooman, 752 Lake Wellington Drive — Found not in compliance; $25/day fine assessed beginning 11/21/2025; $34.48 costs; directed to work with code compliance. - NOHCC12002025, Mohini Persaud, 13667 Columbine Ave — Not corrected; extension granted (60 days) with continued review and hearings (Feb. 19, 2026; fine‑cert Mar. 19, 2026 if not corrected). - NOHCC3842025, Laura & Danilo Cordova, 1311 Periwinkle Pl — Order to correct by 01/15/2026; $25/day fine beginning 01/16/2026; $13.84 costs; fine‑cert 02/19/2026. - NOHCC33082025, Lakes of Wellington Properties LLC, 1047 Goldenrod Rd D — Correct by 01/15/2026 or $25/day from 01/16/2026; $12.22 costs. - NOHCC43322024, Suzanne Pecula, 10554 Versailles Blvd — Outdoor kitchen without permit; correct by 01/15/2026 or $50/day from 01/16/2026; $12.22 costs. - Remaining docketed matters — Most were ordered to correct by 01/15/2026 with $25/day fines for continued noncompliance and scheduled fine‑certification hearings on Feb. 19, 2026 (or dates noted in individual orders).

Key instructions and next steps

Magistrate Hahn repeatedly directed property owners to coordinate with the code‑compliance division and, when applicable, the planning and zoning office (for replacement‑plant locations or vegetation‑removal permits). Where respondents showed proof of imminent repair (for example, an insurance contract and permit work in progress), staff agreed to consider short extensions; where respondents did not appear, the magistrate entered orders in absentia and set specific correction deadlines and fine start dates.

Representative quote

"I strongly encourage you to work with the code compliance to get this matter resolved," Magistrate Holly Hahn said to one respondent, after explaining her review was limited to whether the earlier order had been complied with.

What to watch next

Most properties were given until Jan. 15, 2026 to cure violations; the village scheduled a series of fine‑certification hearings on Feb. 19, 2026 (and other dates where noted) to review noncompliance and formally begin daily fines. Owners who believe a remedy is imminent were advised to provide contracts, permit applications and other documentation to staff promptly.

Methodology and limits

This article summarizes testimony, staff recommendations, photographic evidence entered into the record, and Magistrate Hahn’s findings as recorded at the Dec. 11, 2025 hearings. Quotations and attributions are limited to speakers who spoke on the record during the session (Magistrate Holly Hahn; code‑compliance officers identified in the record; and respondents who spoke). Where the transcript contained inconsistent spellings for staff or attendees, the article uses the name as stated the first time it appears in the hearing record. The article does not infer repairs or payments beyond the documentary evidence or the time limits cited during the hearing.