North Port Code Enforcement board imposes fines, hears public complaint over unpermitted driveway work

The City of North Port Code Enforcement Board opened its hearing at 9:04 a.m. and heard a public comment from Paul Holmstrom, who said he filed a complaint (Case 2600907) alleging a neighbor expanded a driveway in a city utility/drainage easement without a permit and damaged an underground cable service to his home.

“The complaint is about a driveway expansion without a permit and a survey and damage to the underground cable service to my home,” Paul Holmstrom said, noting the case had been set for hearing, was not added to the agenda and subsequently closed; he asked the board to explain why additional stone had been added and warned the matter could set a citywide precedent for work in easements.

The hearing followed standard procedures: city staff presented prima facie cases, witnesses were sworn and property owners were allowed to respond and request time for compliance. The board read three cases into the record as already in compliance and then proceeded through the docket.

On CECase2600951 (property owners Kesner and Marie Vilima), city inspector Anthony Bridal presented tree-protection evidence and the city’s arborist reviewed aerial imagery and historical photos. The arborist advised that about half of the removed trees appeared to be hurricane damage; the Chair imposed a reduced fine of $7,500, approximately half the $15,000 statutory maximum for lots in the 10,000–20,000 square-foot range where the number of trees removed was undetermined. Inspector Anthony Bridal said the case had been inspected multiple times and presented photos to support the city’s case.

In CECase2600341 (owner Sandra Cooper), city staff presented a pole-barn/structure that lacked a required building permit. Cooper and an associate discussed whether the structure was a mobile or prefab building and the owner said she was working to obtain permits; the city indicated a permit for the barn was needed. The Chair found a violation and set a daily fine of $550 with a $5,000 maximum to commence on Aug. 11, 2026, if the structure is not brought into compliance, and the city set a compliance timeline and future hearing dates.

Several property owners requested continuances or additional time to bring properties into compliance; in one notable case (CECase2600717), John McCall asked for time to clear debris after regaining possession of property he said had been disturbed by law-enforcement activity. The board and city staff discussed fence rules, the code’s “average grade” method for measuring fence height, and the procedural step of combining adjacent lots through the county property appraiser to treat a vacant lot as part of an improved parcel. For that case the Chair found violations for accumulation of debris and prohibited parking (fines of $10 per day, $1,000 maximum, commencing June 22, 2026, unless the property is brought into compliance) and found a permit violation for an unpermitted fence (a separate fine structure for that violation; the board explained the process to combine lots and adjust the fence material/height to comply).

Across the hearing the board found violations and set fines for multiple properties for issues including accumulation of debris, prohibited parking (vehicles without tags), expired or missing permits for structures or window replacements, and fences in disrepair. Typical penalties the Chair announced were $10 per day (maximum $1,000) for debris and parking violations and higher daily fines (for example $25–$50 per day) with larger maximums for building-code or permit-related violations. The board also signed orders assessing fines in several second-hearing matters where violations had previously been found and no changes had been reported.

The Chair repeatedly urged property owners to maintain contact with the assigned code-enforcement officer and to show progress before the next hearing; the board generally gave short compliance windows (commonly 30 days) for routine cleanups and permitted longer timelines when owners demonstrated a plan to obtain required permits or to combine parcels with the county property appraiser. The hearing concluded after the board signed multiple orders and confirmed there were no other public comment cards.

The meeting adjourned at 10:29 a.m. The board set specific compliance deadlines and fine commencement dates within orders for each case; property owners were told that successful compliance would remove the need to return on the cited hearing dates.