Special magistrate resolves dozens of Sarasota code cases, orders removals and sets fines

Richard Ellis, serving as the special magistrate for the City of Sarasota, heard a full docket of code‑compliance cases on March 12, 2026, resolving dozens of matters ranging from unpermitted renovations to overgrowth and vacation‑rental registration violations. The hearing produced several continuances for permit corrections, modest fines in resolved cases and specific instructions for property owners on next steps.

The day began with City representative Miss Kennedy outlining the city’s position on a string of continued and new cases. In City of Sarasota v. James Ian Murray (case 202500872), Kennedy said an after‑the‑fact building permit application filed Feb. 12 is pending plan corrections. James Ian Murray told the magistrate he has to get "as‑built" plans drafted and asked for more time because of a recent birth in his family; the magistrate continued that matter to May 7, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. and left violations of Florida Building Code 105.1 and city zoning section 6‑202(b) in continuing status.

Several cases were closed after the city confirmed corrective work. In the fence case brought against Alan Shipes, the city reported a final inspection on Jan. 14 and recommended vacating a previously imposed fine; Ellis vacated the prior order and eliminated fines and costs. Similarly, inspectors reported correction of multiple items for Columbia Restaurant and other respondents; the magistrate accepted city recommendations and imposed modest closing fines and cost recoupment where appropriate.

Some matters produced more contentious exchanges. In a prolonged hearing over a residential lot, the Noble respondents produced timestamped photographs and argued some city evidence was misdated; they suggested a city photo had been altered. Miss Kennedy responded that the property had fallen back into noncompliance after earlier corrections, and Ellis rejected allegations of deliberate photo tampering while explaining that grass can regrow quickly. Ellis ordered the property owners to cut the grass, invited coordinated inspections and electronic photo submissions, and scheduled a follow‑up visit the week of March 19.

The magistrate also addressed questions about required work and permits. When a respondent asked whether an arborist was required to remove a damaged tree, Miss Kennedy and the magistrate replied that no arborist or permit was required in that instance and told the owner: "You don't need an arborist. Just take the tree down" (the magistrate confirmed that the permit requirement was waived for that removal). The same exchange closed one case with a one‑day fine of $500 plus the city's costs to recoup inspection expenses.

Several repeated violators faced larger recommended affidavits but smaller imposed penalties. For example, matters with long running fines or multiple inspections showed large potential affidavits on paper (the city frequently noted potential totals into the tens of thousands), but the magistrate routinely accepted the city's reduced recommendation — often a single‑day fine plus inspection costs — when the property had been brought into compliance before the hearing. Where a property remained out of compliance (for example, multiple structures constructed without permits), the magistrate found continuing violations and imposed fines to date and continued the cases to April hearings so the city, respondents and inspectors could report progress.

What happens next: most continued matters were scheduled for follow‑up dockets between April 9 and April 23, 2026, with specific times set on the record. Owners and representatives who were found in compliance were assessed the modest fines and directed to follow the payment instructions that the city will email; properties still out of compliance were continued so the city can verify corrections before final fines are determined.

A copy of the magistrate’s orders and the city's affidavits will be emailed to respondents with instructions for payment or next steps. The magistrate closed the docket at the end of the morning session and scheduled many of the remaining matters for April dockets to verify corrections or continue permit reviews.