Magistrate confirms dozens of Sarasota code-enforcement cases; fines, continuances ordered

Richard Ellis, serving as magistrate for the City of Sarasota, heard a long docket of code-enforcement cases on May 14, 2026, ranging from overgrowth and junk accumulation to unpermitted renovations and commercial code violations. City counsel identified multiple properties now in compliance and requested fines or continuances where work remained undone.

The city reported that violations in the first-called matter, City of Sarasota v. Gagnon Bajrami, were corrected at inspection on May 12; the city recommended a one-day civil fine of $100 plus inspection costs, and the magistrate imposed the $100 fine and assessed the inspection cost. Miss Kennedy, representing the city, repeatedly framed recommended sanctions the same way for cases where compliance had been achieved: a nominal one-day fine and recovery of inspection costs so “the taxpayer doesn’t bear the burden for the process,” she said.

The docket included higher-exposure matters. In City of Sarasota v. Marta Brand, the city said the property was a repeat violator for a pool in disrepair and listed a potential running civil fine of $101,500 (203 days at $500 per day) plus inspection fees; the magistrate admitted the affidavit and found the violation continuing, with the $500-per-day running fine to continue until corrected and the matter set for a June 25 hearing. For several other long-running unsafe-building or demolition matters, including a multi-case matter involving a commercial parcel where the respondent agreed to demolish remaining structures within 180 days, the magistrate accepted a stipulation that tied settlement to demolition permits and oversight and recorded fines and costs consistent with the city's affidavits.

Several respondents said they had taken steps to comply but needed more time to finish permitting or inspections. For example, counsel for a dock-pilings matter said the owner was deciding whether to seek permits for a house and dock or seek a demolition permit for the pilings; the magistrate continued that case to July 16 to allow the parties to pursue permits. Respondents who arrived with documentation of inspections or active permit submittals—such as parties who had final inspections scheduled or renewed short-term rental submissions—generally received continuances of 30–60 days to complete the remaining administrative steps.

Language access was used several times: a Vietnamese-language telephonic interpreter was engaged for respondents who required it, and the magistrate and city attorney repeated recommendations through the interpreter to ensure comprehension.

The magistrate frequently followed the city's recommendation to impose modest one-day fines and recover inspection costs where violations were corrected, and he reserved larger sanctions where violations remained outstanding or were statutory repeat offenses. In a number of cases the magistrate also vacated older, larger prior orders when the city and respondent reached stipulations or the property changed ownership and corrective work was promptly completed.

What happens next: most matters were continued to specific dates on the court calendar—commonly June 4, June 25, July 9 or July 16—so the city can verify permit filings, inspections, demolition progress or corrected conditions. If violations remain, running fines will continue to accrue per the affidavits admitted into the record.

The session was procedural in tone, focused on inspecting records, confirming dates and ensuring affected owners or their representatives either attend the next hearing or submit proof of compliance before then.