Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owner fined over enclosed carport; compliance ordered by April 1
Summary
Special Magistrate Ryan Knight found the owner of 502 Portside Lane in Edgewater in violation for an unpermitted enclosed carport and sidewalk obstruction, levying two $75 citations and ordering compliance by April 1, 2026; the magistrate declined to impose daily fines.
At a City of Edgewater code enforcement hearing, Special Magistrate Ryan Knight found the respondent in Case 25-122710 A/B in violation of the city code for an enclosed carport without a permit and for parking that at times blocked the sidewalk, and ordered the property be brought into compliance by April 1, 2026.
Myron San Miguel, supervisor for code enforcement, told the hearing the property at 502 Portside Lane (owners listed as Charles Hewitt and Linda Schuman) had an enclosed carport installed by a previous owner and that recent work and parked vehicles had reduced driveway frontage and at times blocked the sidewalk. "The property was identified to have enclosed a carport, without a permit by previous owner," San Miguel said, and he told the magistrate a permit was finalized only yesterday but a building final still remained outstanding.
The respondent, who did not give a name at the podium, said an inspection was scheduled for the next morning and described health and household difficulties that had delayed work. "They're supposed to come... tomorrow morning and do an inspection," the respondent said, adding that family illness and temporary storage of flooring prevented normal garage parking.
Knight said he considered the gravity of the violation, corrective actions by the respondent and any prior violations. He imposed citation fines of $75 in both the permit (A) and parking (B) cases but declined to impose daily fines at this time. "In case 25-122710A ... the property be in compliance by 04/01/2026," Knight ordered.
San Miguel told the respondent building officials planned to inspect and encouraged prompt compliance; he also provided his contact information for follow-up. The magistrate closed the matter after entering the order.
The hearing record shows the city presented evidence and testimony, the respondent acknowledged the pending inspection, and the magistrate issued a compliance deadline rather than daily penalties. If dissatisfied with the order, parties may file a notice of appeal in circuit court within 30 days of execution of the order.
