Sarasota magistrate continues multiple code-enforcement cases, grants demolition authority and issues fines

Richard Ellis, serving as magistrate for the City of Sarasota, heard a full docket of code-enforcement matters on March 19, 2026, continuing many cases for further action, imposing several one‑day fines to recoup costs, and granting the city authority to demolish an unsafe structure. The hearing addressed unpermitted construction, accumulation of junk and overgrowth, vacation-rental registration violations, and a high‑priority unsafe-building removal.

City representatives, primarily identified in the record as Miss Kennedy, presented the city's position in each matter, describing inspection histories, outstanding violations under local code sections (for example, 16‑47 for accumulation of trash and 16‑49 for overgrowth) and Florida Building Code 105.1 for unpermitted work. In many cases the city introduced affidavits showing inspection dates, mailed notices and accumulated daily fines; magistrate Ellis admitted those exhibits and scheduled follow-up dates or imposed fines and costs as documented below.

Among the more consequential actions, Ellis granted the city authority to demolish structures at the property involved in City of Sarasota v. Queen Major (case 202600080), citing unsafe-building abatement concerns and the property's condition as an ‘‘attractive nuisance.’' The magistrate set the demolition matter for further processing and continued the file to May 14 for the demo process.

Several other outcomes were either continuances to allow respondents to obtain permits or short, remedial fines where the city reported that violations had been corrected: City of Sarasota v. Thomas R. Noble (202501520) — magistrate imposed a one‑day fine of $100 and assessed $540 in costs after the city reported compliance on certain items but sought cost recovery; City of Sarasota v. Giro Agabalanes and Carlos Viscara (202501218) — city reported compliance on March 17 and the magistrate imposed a one‑day $100 fine plus costs; City of Sarasota v. Rosanna O'Pay (202501089) — the property was found in compliance and the magistrate imposed a $100 fine and cost to close the matter.

Where respondents reported progress but not full resolution, the magistrate continued matters to short, specific hearing dates to permit reinspections or permit intake review. Examples include continuances to April 23 for several permit-related matters (Patricia Bashert; KC Gulf Investments LLC; Jeffrey and Nicole Labelle), to April 9 for vacation-rental listing corrections (984 Indian Beach Drive LLC), and a short continuance to March 26 for some nuisance cleanup verifications (Robert John White II; Glencoe Properties follow‑ups). In repeated or long-running matters the magistrate sometimes reduced previously proposed large fines to a more limited one‑day fine (for example, Glencoe Properties-related orders were reduced and set at $500 with costs in certain files) while preserving running daily fines until compliance.

The hearing record includes several contested points: Thomas Noble and his spouse objected to fines and alleged selective enforcement and disputed statements about who may file complaints; Miss Kennedy responded that the inspector had made a proactive observation and clarified the city's procedure. The magistrate reiterated that respondents retain appeal rights and that, in his view, the city's photographic evidence was not fraudulent.

What happens next: Most cases were continued to specific dates in late March, April or May with instructions that respondents or their representatives attend and that permits, inspections or documentary evidence be submitted before the next appearance. Cases in which the city obtained authority to demolish a hazardous structure will proceed through the city's demolition process; other matters will return for reinspection and possible closure if compliance is verified.

Outcomes at a glance (selected): - City v. Patricia Bashert (202500353): continued to April 23, 2026 at 10:15 a.m.; violations found continuing. - City v. Vittori Laika & Erliss Pali (202501056): continued to April 23, 2026 at 8:45 a.m.; FBC 105.1 violation continuing. - City v. Raveed Chikraun & Carly Howard (202600005): civil fine to date $13,000 plus costs; continued to April 16, 2026 at 11:15 a.m.; respondents required to attend. - City v. Thomas R. Noble (202501520): magistrate assessed a one‑day fine of $100 and costs $540; respondents retain appeal rights. - City v. APG Florida LLC (202501052): civil fine to date imposed $12,500 plus costs; continued to April 23, 2026 at 10:45 a.m. - City v. Queen Major (202600080): authority granted to demolish unsafe structures; matter continued to May 14, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. for demo process. - City v. Rosanna O'Pay (202501089): violations corrected; one‑day $100 fine and $3.90 cost imposed.

Speakers on the record included magistrate Richard Ellis; Miss Kennedy speaking for the City of Sarasota; attorneys such as Amy Consilio and Christopher C. Morrison; and respondents and representatives (for example, Ryan Rand, Sheila Simmington, Thomas R. Noble, Carlos Viscara). Where respondents raised disputes, the record reflects both their statements and the city's responses; the magistrate frequently emphasized that respondents retain the right to appeal.

This summary is based on the March 19, 2026 special magistrate docket and lists the next scheduled dates and the magistrate's rulings as reflected in the hearing. For full case-specific documents (affidavits, notices, exhibits and orders) consult the City of Sarasota code enforcement records or the clerk's office.