Charlotte County board suspends local permitting privileges for contractor Rafael Martinez, forwards case to state regulators
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up FreeSummary
The Charlotte County Construction Industry Licensing Board voted to suspend contractor Rafael Martinez’s county permitting privileges for alleged permit noncompliance and failure to satisfy a civil judgment, and to forward the case to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and the Department of Business and Professional Regulation for possible state action.
The Charlotte County Construction Industry Licensing Board voted to suspend contractor Rafael Martinez’s ability to pull permits in the county and to forward the case to state regulators after staff said Martinez failed to satisfy a civil judgment and did not maintain required permits and inspections.
Ken Garcia, a code compliance officer and contractor-licensing investigator, presented the case and said notices and a hearing were mailed in accordance with Florida statute and county ordinance. "It is the recommendation of the Charlotte County licensing division that Rafael Martinez' permitting privileges and right to work as a contractor in Charlotte County be suspended due to failure to satisfy a civil judgment related to contracting and failure to maintain compliance with permitting requirements," Garcia told the board.
Garcia told the board he conducted a final permit review on Feb. 4, 2026 and found expired permits remaining; he also said the county previously sent Martinez a notice on Aug. 21, 2025 advising him of expired permits. Garcia recommended the board forward the case and its order to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board "with the recommendation that the FCILB order Mr. Martinez to satisfy the civil judgment, renew the permits, and obtain all required inspections, including final inspections as mandated by the Florida Building Code," and that if Martinez fails to comply the state should consider revoking his state-certified general contractor license.
Board members questioned whether listed balances on two permits — $11,804 and $7,919 as shown on the county permit record — included impact or mitigation fees and discussed the difference between permits that were issued (now expired/abandoned) and permits that were listed in the system but never issued. Garcia said the amounts were included to inform the contractor that balances exist and that the board's primary concern was the issued, expired permits.
Members also debated whether to delay action to seek broader enforcement options. County counsel told the board that delaying would restart service and notification procedures and could leave the contractor able to pull permits in the interim; counsel also said the board’s local licensing action can place the matter on the state’s radar for additional action. Several board members urged stronger local authority and requested a memorandum from county counsel outlining other disciplinary options; counsel agreed to prepare and circulate such a memo.
Ultimately the board voted to adopt the county staff recommendation. The motion to adopt the staff recommendation carried by voice vote and the board ordered suspension of Martinez’s Charlotte County permitting privileges and forwarding of the case to state regulators for possible further action.
The board recorded two different internal case identifiers in the record (a staff presentation referenced KCIODash25Dash00056 and the final motion referenced CIL25-00058). The transcript also contains two different counts for expired permits (Garcia cited 18 in an earlier notice and a later final review recorded 16 expired permits). Those discrepancies were noted during discussion and appear in the county record; the board accepted staff’s recommendation based on the evidence presented at the hearing.
Next steps: the county will forward the board’s order to state regulators and county counsel will circulate a memorandum to the board outlining additional enforcement options and any changes that would require petitioning the county commission.
