Magistrate continues dozens of City of Sarasota code‑compliance cases, imposes limited fines and sets deadlines

Richard Ellis, serving as the special magistrate for the City of Sarasota, presided over a long docket of code‑compliance matters on May 7, 2026, hearing updates from city staff and property representatives and setting deadlines aimed at resolving unpermitted work and property‑maintenance violations.

The city, represented throughout by “Miss Kennedy,” described a series of continued and new violations including unpermitted interior and exterior renovations, accessory dwelling units built without permits (Florida Building Code 105.1), accumulation of junk (city code 16‑47), overgrowth, and several zoning violations tied to prohibited commercial vehicles and owner‑occupancy rules. The city repeatedly recommended limited administrative remedies — commonly a one‑day civil fine of $100 plus the city’s inspection costs — and asked for continuances to allow applicants to pull permits and complete inspections.

Magistrate Ellis followed that approach in multiple matters. For example, in a case the city described as an ADU constructed without a permit, the magistrate continued City of Sarasota v. James Ian Murray to June 25 at 8:30 a.m. after the respondent said he needed time to hire a draftsman and obtain as‑built plans. In another matter involving an inoperable, unlicensed vehicle, the magistrate found the violation corrected and imposed a $500 civil fine plus costs of $3.90.

A notable enforcement outcome came in a technical stormwater matter against United Parcel Service, where the city presented an affidavit documenting an inspection and notices dating to late 2025 and asked the magistrate to impose fines and require a representative to attend the next hearing. Ellis admitted the city’s exhibits, imposed civil fines to date of $11,300 and costs, started a $100‑per‑day running fine and continued the matter to June 11 at 1:15 p.m. for representation and further plan submittal.

Across the docket the magistrate used continuances rather than maximal penalties when staff reported progress toward permits or inspections. Multiple respondents told the magistrate they were working with contractors, awaiting building‑department comments, or — in one instance — awaiting Sunbiz paperwork that would trigger a PACE loan to pay for a roof. Where respondents demonstrated active steps, Ellis frequently paused or said he would revisit accrued fines at the conclusion of corrective work.

Miss Kennedy often recommended continuances of 30–60 days; the magistrate typically set return dates on June 4, June 11, June 25 or July 9, assigning morning or afternoon times according to the parties’ availability. Typical penalties the magistrate imposed when the city recommended them were a one‑day fine of $100 and the city’s inspection costs (commonly recorded in the hearing as $3.90 or $390 depending on the matter), while larger potential civil fines listed in affidavits were usually reduced.

The hearing record shows the magistrate balancing enforcement with leeway to complete the permitting process: he continued most matters to allow plans, inspections, or contractor schedules to be completed; imposed smaller administrative fines to address taxpayer cost recovery; and required representation for some commercial or engineering‑type cases. The next scheduled dates for many matters are in early to mid June and, for a handful of items needing more time, early July.

The magistrate closed the docket after setting those return dates and entering the limited fines and cost orders reflected above. The City of Sarasota will notify respondents of their next hearing dates and the necessary paperwork to close the outstanding permit and compliance issues.