Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Naples board finds unpermitted work at 1331 Chesapeake, orders permits within 60 days
Summary
The City of Naples Code Enforcement Board found unpermitted work at 1331 Chesapeake (case CEZONE202021), ordered the owner to obtain required multifamily permits by 4 p.m. on March 22, 2026, and approved daily fines up to $200 plus recovery of city costs if the work remains unpermitted.
The City of Naples Code Enforcement Board on Jan. 13 found that work was performed without the required multifamily additions and alterations permit at 1331 Chesapeake and set a compliance deadline of 4 p.m. on March 22, 2026, after hearing testimony from city staff and the property’s attorney.
Bill Quincy, co-compliance manager for the City of Naples, opened the case (CEZONE202021) and told the board that stop work orders had been posted for Units 3 and 4 on Dec. 12, 2024, and that a multifamily additions/alterations permit was required. "This is a violation of city ordinance 16-52(d), additions and alterations permit required at 1331 Chesapeake," Quincy said.
Deputy Building Official Tom Tucker told the board he reviewed photographs and field reports and agreed the work at the address required a multifamily additions/alteration permit: "The work that was being conducted on this address does require a permit." Tucker also explained that, if submittals are complete, typical review times for this scope are short and that 60 days is a reasonable compliance period to permit the work.
John Berger, an attorney representing the property, described delays tied to an unlicensed contractor and the owner’s age: "The owner of the building happens to be in his mid eighties," Berger said, and said he had proposed a contractor to obtain the proper permits. Berger and city staff recommended giving the property 60 days to obtain permits; Quincy told the board his "recommendation is $200" per day in fines if compliance is not met.
Board member Maria moved that the board find the respondent guilty of the charged code violations, adopt the proposed order submitted by city staff, set a compliance date no later than 4 p.m. on March 22, 2026, impose a daily fine not to exceed $200 for continued noncompliance, and recover city costs. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
The order also requires payment of city costs associated with enforcement; Quincy identified those costs as $120 (two inspections) plus $20 for mailings. The board noted that fines begin after the compliance date set by the board; the possibility of retroactive fines was reserved for later imposition only if the city pursues that option in a subsequent hearing.
The board then moved on to the next case.
