Citrus County special master hears dozens of code-enforcement cases, levies fines and sets compliance deadlines

Christian Wah, the special master presiding over Citrus County's code-compliance hearing on April 15, opened the session with procedural instructions and a reminder that a verbatim record is required for any appeal. The hearing, which ran from 9:11 a.m. to 1:33 p.m., covered more than 50 docketed matters ranging from one-time site-modification fines to repeat junk-and-debris enforcement actions.

The most immediate outcomes were a mix of consent resolutions and contested rulings. Several respondents entered no-contest pleas and accepted agreed fines, including a $3,000 onetime fine for Michael Gerard Cartz Jr. for site modification without a permit and a $2,500 onetime fine agreed by Adams Homes of Northwest Florida. The special master entered those orders after the county presented evidence and the respondents confirmed the resolutions.

Other cases involved contested facts or procedural objections. In a widely discussed contested matter, property owner Rex Blake objected to what he described as late service and limited access to photos used by the county in a junk/debris case. Blake argued that he had only recently received certified mail and that some material may have been posted rather than personally served. County code officers pointed to posting and certified-mail records; after reviewing the statutory standard for notice, Wah continued the case to the next hearing to preserve Blake's procedural objections while noting there was evidence of an on-going violation.

Another multi-item matter involved property owner Karen Clayber, who had three related cases tied to two adjoining parcels. Clayber told the special master she had purchased multiple mobile homes and hired others to set them in place while she was out of state tending to an ill spouse. The county sought larger fines but the special master, citing cleanup efforts and mitigation, granted a 30-day period to obtain a mobile-home permit and reduced fines on two site-modification matters (examples: one case reduced to $1,500; another assessed at $500) with daily penalties to follow if the property is not brought into compliance.

The hearing also included an appeal of an order to demolish a fire-damaged residence by Keith and Jennifer Buyers. The Buyers advanced a jurisdictional argument invoking a federal land-patent theory; the special master reviewed the cited authority, denied the federal-patent argument, and found the county had authority under the local code to pursue an unsafe-structure demolition. The special master admitted county inspection photos and related records and denied the appeal after concluding the county's determinations were supported by the record.

Repeat violations drew elevated daily fines in several cases. Power Sports of Minnesota, a parcel with a prior enforcement history, drew neighbor testimony about repeated right-of-way obstruction and hookups to temporary power. The county requested a $250-per-day fine for the repeat posting; the special master found a repeat violation and assessed $400 per day for the documented 20-day period in the record.

In other matters, several builders and new-property owners said they relied on contractors or permit processors who failed to secure permits before clearing or grading. The bench repeatedly reminded owners that permit responsibility rests with the property owner; in multiple cases the special master imposed fines in the mid-thousands but sometimes reduced amounts where evidence showed prompt remedial steps or genuine miscommunication between owners and contractors (example: two adjacent lots cleared and graded without permits resulted in $2,500 and $2,500 consolidating mitigation in one matter).

Procedural and notice questions were a recurring theme. Several respondents asked for continuances or argued they did not receive adequate time after certified mailing; the special master referenced Florida Statute 162.12 and county posting rules in ruling on when posting may serve as constructive notice. When the statutory timeline or the sufficiency of service was unclear, the bench continued cases to avoid depriving respondents of appeal rights while preserving the county's right to enforce standards.

Wah stressed civil process and the opportunity to cure: "When your case is called, please come forward and you will be placed under oath," he told attendees, and later added, "If you bring your property back into compliance during the time that I allow, that cost will remain minimal." He repeatedly balanced deterrence against mitigation, saying he would reduce customary top-end fines when owners showed remediation and good faith but would impose higher fines if noncompliance recurred.

The hearing produced a range of outcomes: agreed one-time fines, daily fines tied to continuing violations, granted cure periods (commonly 14—5 days depending on urgency and complexity), several continuances to the next hearing where notice or procedural facts required further review, and at least one denied appeal in an unsafe-structure demolition matter. The special master closed the hearing at 1:33 p.m.; parties were reminded they may appeal his orders under the applicable code and statutes.

What happens next: Many matters were set for follow-up on the next scheduled hearing; owners who were ordered to abate were instructed to contact Code Compliance to request reinspection once work is complete. Several owners said they would seek counsel or pursue contractual remedies with builders or agents who handled permitting or site work on their behalf. The county will proceed with administrative collection for fines that remain unpaid and may record liens where permitted by county code.

Quotes from the hearing that summarize its tenor include the bench's procedural overview: "My name is Christian Wah...I'm a licensed Florida attorney acting as what is called a special master," and respondents expressing mitigation or hardship: "I have 18 donkeys...I do it all out of my own pocket," (Karen Clayber) as she asked for leniency while obtaining permits and completing cleanup.

The hearing reflected the tension that usually follows code compliance dockets: owners who say they meant to comply or relied on third parties to handle permits, neighbors insisting on enforcement to protect safety and property values, and the special master balancing statutory notice, fairness, and the county's interest in deterrence and remediation. The record shows the county will continue active enforcement and that many cases could return to the bench if abatement is not completed within ordered timeframes.