Marco Island magistrate finds multiple code violations, issues fines and compliance deadlines

Robert Pretz, a special magistrate serving as hearing officer, opened the City of Marco Island’s May 26, 2026 code‑enforcement docket and swore in witnesses before taking testimony on a series of property‑related violations.

The most contested items included a hotel‑adjacent trimming job that removed dune vegetation beyond the city and state standards; a string of condominium mini‑split air‑conditioning installations done without an approved permit; a contractor pumping pool water and sediment into a canal; and a re‑decking job that left composite decking fragments in the water.

Amber Stone, the city’s environmental planner, told the hearing that for sea grapes the trimming standard is no more than one‑third of the plant’s height. She said an environmental survey submitted by the property showed sea grapes at about 14–16 feet before the work and photos taken after the trimming showed them at roughly 6 feet, “which is the absolute lowest you are allowed to cut sea grapes of that height.” The city charged the property with violating ordinance 30‑4‑34(a). The magistrate found the violation proved and ordered a one‑time $250 fine and $50 in prosecution costs, assessed jointly against the property and contractor.

David Pfister, owner of Coastline Tree Service and a certified arborist, said many plants were hurricane‑damaged and that the crew used a reduction cut to encourage new lateral buds and regrowth. “It didn’t die,” Pfister said of the sea grapes, noting he had inspected the site prior to the hearing and found regrowth occurring.

On multiple condominium cases at 850 Palm Street (Units C7 and C9), code enforcement officer John Negra testified that mini‑split HVAC units were found installed at ground level without approved permits; inspection records showed permit applications under review but not approved. Stephen Muns of Mag Air said his company was assisting owners with resubmittals and that the applications were pending. The magistrate treated each unit as a separate case, found the ordinance violations established (citing Ordinance 105.1 and 6‑111), and ordered a one‑time $250 fine and $50 costs per unit, with 60 days to obtain the permit or a $100‑per‑day fine thereafter.

A noise complaint at 180 Bonita Court prompted testimony from Officer O’Brien, who said he heard party noise plainly audible from about 100 feet at 2:44 a.m. He issued a citation and the party dispersed. Property owner Zamila Hamath said her property manager was overseas and disputed the characterization as harassment by a single neighbor; the magistrate found the officer’s testimony persuasive and entered a guilty finding with a one‑time $250 fine and $50 costs.

In a case involving discharge of pool water into a canal at 686 Pelican Court, contractor Theodore Ferguson of Finish It by Theodore said he placed dechlorinator in the pool before draining but acknowledged he did not perform a water test prior to pumping. The city produced photos it said showed pumps running and visible sediment in the pool that reached the canal. The city sought a higher, irreparable finding and recommended a $2,500 fine; the magistrate found a violation but, citing mitigating facts (including the owner’s absence and the contractor’s long service record), reduced the penalty to a one‑time $2,000 fine and $50 costs, and assessed the order against the contractor only (ordinance 18‑2‑12).

The magistrate imposed the hearing’s largest sanction in a re‑decking case where the city’s photos showed white chunks and shavings of composite decking in the canal. The contractor, Imperial Marine Construction, had prior illicit‑discharge violations in 2023 and 2024. The magistrate found the conduct irreparable and repeat, and imposed the maximum one‑time $5,000 fine plus $50 costs against the contractor.

Several solid‑waste enclosure and dumpster cases (including Coquina Gardens, Sunrise Bay/227 N. Collier Blvd, and 10 Tampa Place) were presented with evidence that enclosures were missing after roadwork removed previous screening vegetation. Property managers said contractors and fire‑department coordination were underway; the magistrate admitted exhibits, encouraged coordination with the city, and continued some matters 30 days to the June 30 docket so permits and contractor plans could be finalized.

Other orders included fines and compliance timelines for a dilapidated dock (one‑time $150 fine, $50 costs; permits to be obtained and replacement or removal within the ordered period) and a weeds/encroachment matter (one‑time $250 fine and $50 costs with 14 days to comply or $100/day thereafter).

The magistrate approved several certification orders for unpaid fines, accepted a joint stipulation mitigation that had been paid in full, and rescinded one administrative order the city acknowledged had been issued in error. The docket closed after the magistrate entered the various written orders and adjourned the hearing.

What happens next: most penalties include short compliance windows; the mini‑split cases required permits within 60 days or escalating daily fines, several dumpster/enclosure matters were continued to June 30 to allow permit processing, and the dock/decking and illicit‑discharge fines are final orders subject to the city’s enforcement and collection processes.

Reported authorities and ordinances referenced in the hearing included: Marco Island Municipal Code sections cited in notices of violation (e.g., "30‑4‑34(a)" for vegetation trimming; "105.1 and 6‑111" for work without a permit; "18‑2‑12" for illicit discharge; and "30‑10‑12" for dumpster enclosure requirements). The transcript contains the full citations used by code officers and city staff during testimony.

The magistrate’s orders are entered in the city record; parties were directed to coordinate with code enforcement officers (including John Negra) and the building department for permit follow‑up. Matters continued were set for the June 30 special magistrate docket.