HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARING DOCUMENTS FROM MKW BUILDERSDocumentation pertaining to MKW Builders request for a hearing in front of the City of
Sebastian Construction Board in regards to the actions and decisions of building inspector
John Parker.
John Parker - building inspector
Mr. Parker engaged in misconduct during inspections by failing to conduct an inspection,
failing to conduct the inspections properly, citing incorrect violations, requiring contractor to
show pictures of work and to complete work that was not part of the required inspections for
the permit, allowing interference with the contractors permit and in inspections by the
homeowner who is an acquaintance of the inspector, making false claims on the inspection
report, failing to cite Florida Building Code in his inspection report, deny the contractor the
opportunity to be present during two different inspections, and engaging in unprofessional
conduct. This inspector has made false statements to the homeowner with regards to
corrections needed to the work and continued to do so even after the contractor sent a cease
and desist letter to the building official.
Violations of Florida Building Code By John Parker:
1.Failure to complete inspection per Florida Building Code.
(I)FBC 110.6 Approval Required - Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in
each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official.
The building official, upon notification, SHALL MAKE THE REQUESTED INSPECTIONS
AND SHALL EITHER INDICATE THE PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION THAT IS
SATISFACTORY AS COMPLETED, OR NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OF HIS OR HER
AGENT WHEREIN THE SAME FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS CODE. ANY PORTIONS
THAT DO NOT COMPLY SHALL BE CORRECTED AND SUCH PORTION SHALL NOT
BE COVERED OR CONCEALED UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
(II)FBC 110.3 required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit
holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT
PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS
OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES.
(III)FBC 110.3.13 Impact-resistant coverings or systems - Where impact-resistant coverings
or systems are installed to meet requirements of this code, the building official shall
schedule adequate inspections of impact-resistant coverings or systems to determine
the following:
1. The system indicated on the plans was installed.
2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation
instructions and the product approval
Violations of Florida Statutes by John Parker:
(I)F.S. 468.604 responsibilities of building code administrators, plans examiners, and
inspectors. -
1.It is the responsibility of the building code administrator or building official to
administrate, supervise, direct, enforce, or perform the permitting and inspection of
construction, alteration, repair remodeling, or demolition of structures and the
installation of building systems within the boundaries of their governmental jurisdiction,
when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and
any applicable technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. The building code
administrator or building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT
INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON. These responsibilities include:
(b). The inspection of each phase of construction where a building or other construction
permit has been issued, The building code administrator or building official, or
person having the the appropriate building code inspector license issued under this
chapter, shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is
performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code.
(II) F.S. 468.604
2. It is the responsibility of the building code inspector to conduct inspections of
construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or demolition of structures and the
installation of building systems, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with
the Florida Building Code and any applicable local technical amendment to the Florida
Building Code. Each building code inspector must be licensed in the appropriate
category as defined in s. 468.603. The building code inspector’s responsibilities
must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or
building official without interference from any unlicensed person.
Inspection by John Parker on April 28, 2025
On April 28, 2025 Mr. Parker was assigned to perform the inspection MKW Builders requested
on a window and door replacement permit. The City of Sebastian Building Department
improperly assigned this permit with a FRAMING inspection. Per FBC 110.3.13, the required
inspections for Impact-Resistant coverings or systems is to determine:
1. The system indicated on the plans was installed.
2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions
and the product approval
Mr. Parker completed this inspection prior to it being assigned and viewable on the MGO
Portal after speaking to the homeowner who is his acquaintance. Mr. Parker arranged to
complete the inspection at approximately 7:30am with the homeowner and denied Mr. Walker
the opportunity to meet the inspector on site. The homeowner did not want MKW Builders to
schedule this inspection and tried to prevent it from happening. Mr. Parker was assisting the
homeowner in interfering with MKW Builders permit/inspections and did so on multiple
occasions. In Mr. Parkers inspection report, he notes:
Provide photos of mull bar clip attachments (a). Provide photos of new window
bucks for framing inspection. (b) Garage door OK.(c) Front door missing screws at
hinges and strikes. (d) Provide photos of skylight framing and fasteners. (e) All
windows are missing fasteners and home owner claims some windows are leaking.
(f) Remove all trim strips at concealed fasteners. (g) Inspection stopped. (h)
(a) Mr. Parker failed to inspect the 3 windows with mull bar clips to ensure proper installation.
These fasteners are observable after window installation. Mr. Parker apparently did not know
that and failed to cite that they were missing on his report. This failure led to MKW Builders not
finding out about the missing mull clips until the reinspection on June 5, 2025.
(b) Per FBC 110.3.13, new window bucks for framing inspection IS NOT REQUIRED for a
Impact-Resistant Covering or System permit. All original window/door openings remained in
same location and replaced with the same size products.
(c) Mr. Parker says “Garage door OK”. This is not proper language to indicate this work was
approved. Mr. Parker’s failure to properly acknowledge this work as “Approved” led to the City
of Sebastian Building Official claiming that MKW Builders permit on this project “Expired” due
to not having an “approved” inspection in 180 days. Mr. Parker’s failure to perform his duties
according to Florida statute and Building code have caused MKW Builders to spend time,
money and resources to correct the record in addition to a legal dispute with the homeowner,
and a hearing with the City of Sebastian Construction board to dispute the actions of this
inspector and the building official and voice our concerns regarding their actions and behavior
that are direct violations of FBC and F.S.
(d) Mr. Parker falsely noted that the front door was “missing screws at hinges and strikes”. The
installation instructions called for 1 3” screw at the top of each hinge. The screws were all
there, and the 3 screws that were the incorrect length were installed as per manufacturer
instructions. Mr. Parker again failed to properly cite the deficiency in his report and made a
false claim that the front door was “missing” screws. The screws were not missing, there were
3 screws that were the incorrect length. No deficiency in the screws at the strikes was found.
Another false claim by Mr. Parker.
(e) Per FBC 110.3.13, skylight framing is not part of an Impact-Resistant Covering or System
permit. Mr. Parker is required to inspect the skylight to ensure the product installed matched
the product approval provided in the plan documents and that the skylight was installed per
manufacturer installation instructions. It is not the responsibility of MKW Builders to perform
the inspection, nor is it required that pictures be provided to the inspector. Mr. Parker failed to
complete this inspection per FBC 110.6.
(f) Mr. Parker claimed ALL windows are missing fasteners. This was another false claim. All
windows were not missing fasteners. A couple of windows had screws that were for a concrete
block application, instead of the wood frame application. Mr. Parker failed to note the specific
windows from the plan provided that he observed “missing fasteners” resulting in MKW
Builders having to check hundreds of screws to find the handful that were the incorrect size.
There were NO MISSING FASTENERS. Only incorrect size fasteners.
Mr. Parker stated “home owner claims some windows are leaking”. This was a false claim
made by the homeowner, and any leaking was due to the homeowner not completing the
waterproofing and painting on the stucco bands they had installed. MKW Builders did not
contract with the homeowner for painting and stucco work. Per FBC 110.3.13, window leaks
are not part of the inspection for impact-resistant systems, and there is no FBC that applies to
this statement. Mr. Parker failed to perform this inspection per FBC, and failed to cite a
corresponding code to his noted deficiencies.
Mr. Parker is in violation of Florida Statute 468.604 1. …..The building code administrator or
building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE
FROM ANY PERSON, and F.S. 468.604.2 ……..The building code inspector’s
responsibilities must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator
or building official without interference from any unlicensed person.
Mr. Parker’s report made it clear that he was allowing the homeowner (his acquaintance) to
interfere with him executing his duties as required per Florida Building Code and Florida
Statute.
Mr. Parker is also in violation of F.S. 468.604.1.b. …..shall inspect the construction or
installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections
of the code. Mr. Parker cited numerous items in his report that were not violations of Florida
Building Code, and repeated false claims made by the homeowner.
(h) Mr. Parker states “inspection stopped”. Mr. Parker stopped his inspection against FBC
110.3 Required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit holder
or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT
PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR
HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES
Reinspection requested May 8, 2025
At the time, MKW Builders was unaware of Mr. Parker’s relationship with the homeowner and
found the inspectors behavior to be highly unprofessional and unusual. MKW Builders returned
to the project site to correct the minor issues on Mr. Parker’s inspection report and planned to
meet the assigned inspector for the reinspect to discuss the items that were cited by Mr.
Parker unrelated to building code violations. On 5/8/25 MKW Builders had scheduled the
reinspect and it was assigned to inspector Andrew Yacko. The contractor checked the
inspectors schedule throughout the day to prepare to be on site to meet him. Around 2pm, the
contractor received a call from inspector John Parker, (the owner’s friend). Mr. Parker claimed
he was on site but no one was home to let him in and the owner left a note on the door saying
to call a phone number. The contractor asked why he was calling him and not the assigned
inspector Mr. Yacko as he had been watching the schedule all day. Mr. Parker became rude
and defensive. The contractor told him he wanted to be there for the inspection and that he
had notified the owner he would need access to the home for the inspection however, since Mr.
Parker took over the inspection from the assigned inspector, he had no idea he was coming.
The homeowner had contacted his friend, Mr. Parker, to interfere with the inspection, which is
why it was switched from Inspector Yacko to Parker. Mr. Parker told Mr. Walker he had to
upload pictures from his last inspection and stated he would not complete the inspection that
day and he was cancelling it. The contractor was stunned by this situation as this has never
happened in his 25 years of experience in construction. It is unprecedented for a building
inspector to bypass the contractor as the permit holder for inspections and solely
communicate with the homeowner. The contractor told Mr. Parker there were concerns
regarding the improper citing of “deficiencies” that are not code violations, and not part of the
inspections for a window and door replacement permit, no building code references, and he
was not following protocol with the inspections, denying the contractor on two separate
occasions the opportunity to be present on site with the inspector. Mr. Parker was disrespectful
to the contractor, and engaged in threatening behavior insinuating he was in full control of the
inspections for this permit and he could act any way he pleased. This is a violation of the FBC
and F.S. stated above.
The homeowner has stated numerous times that they have received “advice and information”
from “city building officials” about the corrections needed to the work, the construction
methods used to complete the work, and the work required to make the corrections. This
homeowner is currently in a legal action with MKW Builders, and MKW Builders has filed a
construction lien against this homeowner for nonpayment. This situation could have been
avoided if Mr. Parker had performed his job according to Florida Statute and Florida Building
Code.
See Exhibits for evidence to substantiate these claims.
Documentation pertaining to MKW Builders request for a hearing in front of the City of
Sebastian Construction Board in regards to the actions and decisions of building official Wayne
Eseltine.
Wayne Eseltine - Building Official
Complaint Summary:
Mr. Eseltine is the Building Official for the City of Sebastian Building Department. He has
engaged in misconduct as follows: failed to correct improper inspection reporting by an
inspector under his supervision, failing to provide permit and inspection requirements on the
building department website and permit applications, allowing staff to issue an expired permit
notice with his signature while he was out of the office for a week with no grounds for expiring
the permit, requiring the contractor to perform work outside of the scope of work on the
building permit issued, violating numerous Florida Building Codes, allowing a homeowner to
influence his decision making and failing to act as required by FBC and Florida Statute, making
false claims to the contractor and the homeowner, failing to issue stop work order to
homeowner engaging in work that was covered under the contractors active and open permit,
failing to release portions of the work under the contractors permit and close out the permit
prior to issuing a second permit for the same work to another contractor, taking a plan and
product approval documents from MKW Builders permit package and attaching those
documents to a second permit for our work without the knowledge of the other contractor
Permit 25-2566, threatening, harassing and intimidating the contractor, exhibiting disrespectful
and unprofessional conduct, and failing to follow multiple City of Sebastian municipal codes.
Mr. Eseltine has made false statements to the homeowner with regards to corrections needed
to the work and continued to do so even after the contractor sent a cease and desist letter.
Violations of Florida Building Code & Florida Statute By Wayne Eseltine:
Section 1:
(I)FBC 110.3.13 Impact-resistant coverings or systems - Where impact-resistant
coverings or systems are installed to meet requirements of this code, the building official
shall schedule adequate inspections of impact-resistant coverings or systems to
determine the following:
1. The system indicated on the plans was installed.
2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation
instructions and the product approval
(III) F.S. 553.79 (b)
A local enforcement agency shall post each type of building permit application,
including a list of all required attachments, drawings, or other requirements for
each type of application, on its website. A local enforcement agency must post and
update the status of every received application on its website until the issuance of the
building permit. Completed applications, including payments, attachments, drawings, or
other requirements or parts of the completed permit application, must be able to be
submitted electronically to the appropriate building department.
(IV) F.S. 553.79 (e)
A local enforcement agency must post its procedures for processing, reviewing, and
approving submitted building permit applications on its website.
On 11/22/2024 MKW Builders applied for a Window / Door Replacement permit. The scope of
work for the project falls under FBC Existing Building, Level 1, and the required inspections per
FBC 110.3.13 for impact-resistant coverings or systems consists of 1. Determining the system
indicated on the plans was installed, and 2. the system was installed in accordance with the
manufacturer’s installation instructions and the product approval. The permit application
posted on the city of Sebastian Building Department website is a general permit application,
and the corresponding documentation requirements for the application are basic and
incomplete. No where on the permit application form or the documentation list does it require a
“framing inspection” including window bucking and skylight framing, or a list of pictures
required of the work in progress. There is no notice that the building official requires an
exposed framing inspection for this permit which would be a major deviation from Florida
Building Code and every other jurisdiction.
Since there is no separate permit application for window / door replacement available, a
“Standard Permit Application” is used. The documentation requirements sheet available on the
website is under “Residential Additions & Alterations”. This documentation sheet only
references the following that pertains to window/door replacement:
Two (2) complete sets of product approval for all new doors, garage doors, windows,
soffits, siding, hurricane protection, and roofing.
MKW Builders has pulled numerous window/door replacement permits in many jurisdictions
and although not specified or required by this building official, we submitted a window/door
schedule that included the existing opening size, the new opening size (which remained the
same), egress requirements and a plan that indicated the location of each window/door that
was being replaced.
The permit was issued on 12/03/24, and due to material delivery delays, the work was
completed in phases. Phase 1 began 12/16/24 and consisted of front entry door, garage door
and skylight replacement. Phase 2 was the window replacement and that began the first week
of January 2025. 3 windows were delivered in the incorrect size, so new windows had to be
ordered. Those windows were installed in March 2025. A window was cracked during install, so
the final window was installed on 4/25/25. The inspection was called for on 4/28/25. The
inspectors report listed numerous “deficiencies” that were not part of the required inspections
per FBC 110.3.13. The inspector cancelled the reinspect called for on 5/8/25 as he refused to
perform the inspection without documentation of the window bucking, skylight framing and
mull clips. There is no requirement for any of these items per the permit application, permit
documentation or FBC.
Mr. Eseltine, and the inspector he oversees, failed to adhere to the required inspections per
FBC 110.3.13 and also violated Florida Statute F.S. 468.604. Mr. Eseltine has also violated F.S.
553.79 (b) and F.S. 553.79 (e) which requires the local enforcement agency (under direction of
the Building Official) shall post each type of building permit application, including a list of all
required attachments, drawings, or other requirements for each type of application, on its
website, and must post its procedures for processing, reviewing, and approving submitted
building permit applications on its website
Section 2 Violations of F.S. and FBC by Wayne Eseltine:
(I)FBC 110.6 Approval Required - Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in
each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official.
The building official, upon notification, SHALL MAKE THE REQUESTED
INSPECTIONS AND SHALL EITHER INDICATE THE PORTION OF THE
CONSTRUCTION THAT IS SATISFACTORY AS COMPLETED, OR NOTIFY THE
PERMIT HOLDER OF HIS OR HER AGENT WHEREIN THE SAME FAILS TO
COMPLY WITH THIS CODE. ANY PORTIONS THAT DO NOT COMPLY SHALL BE
CORRECTED AND SUCH PORTION SHALL NOT BE COVERED OR CONCEALED
UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
(II)FBC 110.3 required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the
permit holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall
RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE
PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE
CORRECTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES.
(III)F.S. 468.604 responsibilities of building code administrators, plans examiners, and
inspectors. -
1.It is the responsibility of the building code administrator or building official to
administrate, supervise, direct, enforce, or perform the permitting and inspection
of construction, alteration, repair remodeling, or demolition of structures and the
installation of building systems within the boundaries of their governmental
jurisdiction, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida
Building Code and any applicable technical amendment to the Florida Building
Code. The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform
these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON. These
responsibilities include:
(b). The inspection of each phase of construction where a building or other construction
permit has been issued, The building code administrator or building official, or
person having the the appropriate building code inspector license issued under this
chapter, shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is
performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code.
2. It is the responsibility of the building code inspector to conduct inspections of
construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or demolition of structures and the
installation of building systems, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with
the Florida Building Code and any applicable local technical amendment to the Florida
Building Code. Each building code inspector must be licensed in the appropriate
category as defined in s. 468.603. The building code inspector’s responsibilities
must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or
building official without interference from any unlicensed person.
On April 28, 2025 Mr. Parker (inspector) was assigned to perform the inspection MKW Builders
requested on a window and door replacement permit. The City of Sebastian Building
Department improperly assigned this permit with a FRAMING inspection. Per FBC 110.3.13,
the required inspections for Impact-Resistant coverings or systems is to determine:
1. The system indicated on the plans was installed.
2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions
and the product approval
The inspector completed this inspection prior to it being assigned and viewable on the MGO
Portal after speaking to the homeowner who is his acquaintance. The inspector arranged to
complete the inspection at approximately 7:30am with the homeowner and denied the
contractor the opportunity to meet the inspector on site. The homeowner did not want MKW
Builders to schedule this inspection and tried to prevent it from happening. The inspector was
assisting the homeowner in interfering with MKW Builders permit/inspections and did so on
multiple occasions. In the inspection report, he notes:
Provide photos of mull bar clip attachments (a). Provide photos of new window
bucks for framing inspection. (b) Garage door OK.(c) Front door missing screws at
hinges and strikes. (d) Provide photos of skylight framing and fasteners. (e) All
windows are missing fasteners and home owner claims some windows are leaking.
(f) Remove all trim strips at concealed fasteners. (g) Inspection stopped. (h)
(a) The inspector failed to inspect the 3 windows with mull bar clips to ensure proper
installation. These fasteners are observable after window installation. The inspector apparently
did not know that and failed to cite that they were missing on his report. This failure led to
MKW Builders not finding out about the missing mull clips until the reinspection on June 5,
2025.
(b) Per FBC 110.3.13, new window bucks for framing inspection IS NOT REQUIRED for a
Impact-Resistant Covering or System permit. All original window/door openings remained in
same location and replaced with the same size products.
(c) The inspector says “Garage door OK”. This is not proper language to indicate this work was
approved. Mr. Parker’s failure to properly acknowledge this work as “Approved” led to the City
of Sebastian Building Official Wayne Eseltine claiming that MKW Builders permit on this project
“Expired” due to not having an “approved” inspection in 180 days. Mr. Parker’s failure to
perform his duties according to Florida statute and Building code have caused MKW Builders
to spend time, money and resources to correct the record in addition to a legal dispute with the
homeowner, and a hearing with the City of Sebastian Construction board to dispute the actions
of this inspector and Wayne Eseltine and voice our concerns regarding their actions and
behavior that are direct violations of FBC and F.S.
(d) The inspector falsely noted that the front door was “missing screws at hinges and strikes”.
The installation instructions called for 1 3” screw at the top of each hinge. The screws were all
there, and the 3 screws that were the incorrect length were installed as per manufacturer
instructions after the inspection. The inspector again failed to properly cite the deficiency in his
report and made a false claim that the front door was “missing” screws. The screws were not
missing, there were 3 screws that were the incorrect length. No deficiency in the screws at the
strikes was found. Another false claim by the inspector.
(e) Per FBC 110.3.13, skylight framing is not part of an Impact-Resistant Covering or System
permit. The inspector is required to inspect the skylight to ensure the product installed
matched the product approval provided in the plan documents and that the skylight was
installed per manufacturer installation instructions. It is not the responsibility of MKW Builders
to perform the inspection, nor is it required that pictures be provided to the inspector. The
inspector failed to complete this inspection per FBC 110.6. In addition, a third permit
application for the skylight, front entry door and garage door is under review by Wayne
Eseltine’s department and I have attached that document as an exhibit that shows only a Final
inspection is required and a framing inspection is not listed. Another example of Mr. Eseltine’s
failure to follow state statute and Florida building code for required inspections and
documentation for permit applications.
(f) The inspector claimed ALL windows are missing fasteners. This was another false claim. All
windows were not missing fasteners. A couple of windows had screws that were for a concrete
block application, instead of the wood frame application. The inspector failed to note the
specific windows from the plan provided that he observed “missing fasteners” resulting in
MKW Builders having to check hundreds of screws to find the handful that were the incorrect
size. There were NO MISSING FASTENERS. Only incorrect size fasteners.
The inspector stated “home owner claims some windows are leaking”. This was a false claim
made by the homeowner, and any leaking was due to the homeowner not completing the
waterproofing and painting on the stucco bands they had installed. MKW Builders did not
contract with the homeowner for painting and stucco work. Per FBC 110.3.13, window leaks
are not part of the inspection for impact-resistant systems, and there is no FBC that applies to
this statement. The windows were all sealed per manufacturer installation instructions, and the
inspector did not note the sealing as a deficiency is his report because there wasn’t one. The
inspector failed to perform this inspection per FBC, and failed to cite a corresponding code to
his noted deficiencies.
Mr. Eseltine is required by Florida Statute and FBC to ensure the inspectors working under him
execute their job duties as required. He has failed to do so. Mr. Eseltine is in violation of Florida
Statute 468.604 1. …..The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform
these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON, and F.S. 468.604.2
……..The building code inspector’s responsibilities must be performed under the
direction of the building code administrator or building official without interference from
any unlicensed person.
This inspection report clearly shows that Mr. Eseltine was allowing the homeowner to interfere
with executing his duties and the oversight of his inspector as required per Florida Building
Code and Florida Statute.
Mr. Eseltine is also in violation of F.S. 468.604.1.b. …..shall inspect the construction or
installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections
of the code. The inspector cited numerous items in his report that were not violations of
Florida Building Code, and repeated false claims made by the homeowner. Mr. Eseltine failed
to correct the report of his inspector.
(h) The inspector states “inspection stopped”. The inspector stopped his inspection against
FBC 110.3 Required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit
holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT
PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR
HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES.
Neither Mr. Eseltine nor his inspector acknowledged the portions of the work that were
approved or should have been approved per FBC. They also did not cite the code violations
that pertained to the noted deficiencies in the report.
Section 3: Violation of FBC by Wayne Eseltine Required Inspections
FBC 110.3 Required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit
holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall
RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT
HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED
IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES.
Misconduct by inspector and Eseltine engaging in harassment, threats and intimidation
during inspections.
Reinspection requested May 8, 2025
MKW Builders returned to the project site to correct the minor issues on the inspectors report
and planned to meet the assigned inspector for the reinspect to discuss the items that were
cited by the inspector that were unrelated to building code violations and items that were not
part of the FBC required inspections. On 5/8/25 MKW Builders had scheduled the reinspect
and it was assigned to inspector Andrew Yacko. The contractor checked the inspectors
schedule throughout the day to prepare to be on site to meet him. Around 2pm, the contractor
received a call from the inspector John Parker, (who performed the first inspection on 4/28/25).
The inspector claimed he was on site but no one was home to let him in and the owner left a
note on the door saying to call a phone number. The contractor asked why he was calling him
and not the assigned inspector Mr. Yacko, as he had been watching the schedule all day. The
inspector became rude and defensive. The contractor told him he wanted to be there for the
inspection and that he had notified the owner he would need access to the home for the
inspection however, since the inspector was never assigned this inspection, he had no idea he
was coming.
The homeowner had contacted the inspector to interfere with the inspection and it switched
from Inspector Yacko to Parker. The inspector told Mr. Walker he had to upload pictures from
his last inspection and stated he would not complete the inspection MKW builders requested
and he was cancelling it. The contractor was stunned by this situation as this has never
happened in his 25 years of experience in construction. It is unprecedented for a building
inspector to bypass the contractor as the permit holder for inspections and solely
communicate with the homeowner. The contractor told the inspector there were concerns
regarding the improper citing of “deficiencies” that are not code violations, and not part of the
inspections for a window and door replacement permit, no building code references, and he
was not following protocol with the inspections, denying the contractor on two separate
occasions the opportunity to be present on site with the inspector. The inspector was
disrespectful to the contractor, and engaged in threatening behavior insinuating he was in full
control of the inspections for this permit and he could act any way he pleased. This is a
violation of the FBC and F.S. stated above.
The homeowner has stated numerous times that they have received “advice and information”
from “city building officials” about the corrections needed to the work, the construction
methods used to complete the work, and the work required to make the corrections. This
homeowner is currently in a legal action with MKW Builders, and MKW Builders has filed a
construction lien against this homeowner for nonpayment. This situation could have been
avoided if the inspector and Mr. Eseltine had performed their jobs according to Florida Statute
and Florida Building Code.
Section 4: Violations of FBC and F.S. by Wayne Eseltine Regarding “expired permit”
(I)FBC 105.4.1 Permit Intent
A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as
authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor
shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of
errors in plans, construction or violations of this code. Every permit issued shall become
invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within 6 months after
its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a
period of 6 months after the time the work is commenced
(II)FBC 105.4.1.1
If work has commenced and the permit is revoked, becomes null and void, or expires because
of lack of progress or abandonment, a new permit covering the proposed construction shall
be obtained before proceeding with the work.
(III)FBC 105.4.1.3
Work shall be considered to be in active progress when the permit has received an
approved inspection within 180 days. This provision shall not be applicable in case of civil
commotion or strike or when the building work is halted due directly to judicial injunction, order
or similar process.
The permit for the work completed on this project was issued 12/3/25 under permit # 24-4148.
The work commenced on 12/16/2024. The skylight, garage door, and front entry door were
replaced at that time. Homeowner requested to hold on replacing windows until he was on
vacation from work over the holidays. We did not work over the holidays so the window
replacement began in the first week of January.
The contractor observed unforeseen conditions that prevented him from removing the windows
as planned in the proposal while removing the first window, which would require additional
labor and costs to complete the work. The contractor stopped the work and he had a
conversation with the homeowner showing him the situation and explaining what he would
need to do in order to complete the window replacement. He made the homeowner aware that
there would be additional costs associated with the additional work. The contractor
understood these clients were low income, due to the MSFH grant and they obtained financing
through our website for the cost of the work. The contractor told the homeowner he would
cover half the cost of the stucco repairs to help him out, (Total cost for stucco was around
$4,000.00, and MKW Builders covered $1,900.00) but that the owner would need to pay the
additional labor and material costs, along with the other half of the stucco work. The
homeowner wanted to proceed with the window replacement and agreed to the additional
costs. The contractor then proceeded with the removal and replacement of the windows. (The
additional cost to the owner in total was $3,000.00) MKW Builders did not charge a builder fee
and was not making a profit on this work. This job was was not about profit, it was an
opportunity for MKW Builders to give back to someone they felt needed a little help.
This project was never abandoned and MKW Builders was on site from the date work
commenced until June 5, 2025 when we had to arrange through a second City of Sebastian
Building Official to complete the reinspection the original inspector refused to do and the
homeowner refused to provide MKW Builders with access to the home.
The homeowner texted the contractor on 5/30/25 that he saw his permit was going to expire
on 6/1/25. The contractor responded to let him know that was not the case and his permit was
active and in the inspection phase. He explained that a permit would expire after 180 days if
the project had been abandoned or had not commenced within that time period. On Monday,
6/2/25, MKW Builders received an email from the City of Sebastian building official Wayne
Eseltine notifying him that his permit had expired. MKW Builders contacted the building
department to find out what was going on. The building official Wayne Eseltine was out of the
office, however, a staff member was the person who sent the email with Mr. Eseltines
signature. The staff member notified MKW Builders that the homeowner had been contacting
the building department about “this situation”. MKW Builders asked her what situation she was
referring to and she was told she would have to speak with Dan Hainey, the second in charge
of the department. MKW contacted him immediately. Mr. Hainey advised that the homeowners
had been calling constantly, telling them we had abandoned their job and we refused to fix the
problems they had etc. MKW explained the situation in great detail and notified him that the
homeowners were obstructing the contractor from scheduling the reinspection. Further, MKW
stated that expiring this permit was NOT appropriate and requested the permit status be
correct immediately. MKW sent a letter via email and through the MGO contractor portal in
response to the expired permit letter. MKW then contacted Mr. Hainey and told him he would
need to intervene with the owner to provide us access for the inspection. Mr. Hainey agreed to
perform the inspection personally after MKW explained the history with the other inspector.
Mr. Eseltine was present at the reinspection on 6/5/25, and the permit had been extended for
15 days. After a meeting with City of Sebastian Manager Brian Benton and Mr. Eseltine, the
permit was extended 90 days. Mr. Eseltine was disrespectful, unprofessional and out of line
during this meeting.
The permit should never have been expired to begin with. The permit was active, work had
commenced within 2 weeks of permit issue and the inspection was requested on 4/25/25. The
failure of the inspector to notate the approved work, failure to adhere to the required
inspections for the permit, false statements about the work on the report and failure to cite
building code violations were disregarded by Eseltine and he claimed he could expire the
permit because the inspection was not passed. Mr. Eseltine has purposely misinterpreted the
FBC with regard to expired permits to justify the actions of his department placing our permit in
an expired status based on false claims by the homeowner. This is a violation of F.S. 468.604.1
Section 5: Violations by Wayne Eseltine Responsibilities of Building Official & Permits:
F.S. 468.604 responsibilities of building code administrators, plans examiners, and inspectors.
1.It is the responsibility of the building code administrator or building official to
administrate, supervise, direct, enforce, or perform the permitting and inspection
of construction, alteration, repair remodeling, or demolition of structures and the
installation of building systems within the boundaries of their governmental
jurisdiction, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida
Building Code and any applicable technical amendment to the Florida Building
Code. The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform
these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON. These
responsibilities include:
(b). The inspection of each phase of construction where a building or other construction
permit has been issued, The building code administrator or building official, or
person having the the appropriate building code inspector license issued under this
chapter, shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is
performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code.
2. It is the responsibility of the building code inspector to conduct inspections of
construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or demolition of structures and the
installation of building systems, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with
the Florida Building Code and any applicable local technical amendment to the Florida
Building Code. Each building code inspector must be licensed in the appropriate
category as defined in s. 468.603. The building code inspector’s responsibilities
must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or
building official without interference from any unlicensed person.
F.S. 553.79 (4) (b)
After the local enforcing agency issues a permit, the local enforcing agency may not
make or require any substantive changes to the plans or specifications except
changes required for compliance with the Florida Building Code, the Florida Fire
Prevention Code, or the Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto. If a local
enforcing agency makes or requires substantive changes to the plans or
specifications after a permit is issued, the local enforcing agency must identify the
specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the
specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide
the information to the permit holder in writing.
F.S. 553.79 (4)(2)
A building code administrator who fails to provide a permit applicant or permitholder
with the reasons for making or requiring substantive changes to the plans or
specifications is subject to disciplinary action against his or her certificate under s.
468.621(1)(i)
Wayne Eseltine told the contractor he would have to complete a full window framing
inspection, with the framing exposed on the windows in order to pass inspection. The
contractor argued with him at length as this was NOT part of a window/door replacement
permit per FBC 110.3.13 and it was not work he had accounted for in his contract with the
owners. Mr. Eseltine failed to provide the specific plan features that do not comply with the
applicable codes, failed to identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which his
finding was based and failed to provide this information in writing to MKW Builders.
This is a violation of F.S. 553.79 (4) (b), After the local enforcing agency issues a permit, the
local enforcing agency may not make or require any substantive changes to the plans or
specifications except changes required for compliance with the Florida Building Code, the
Florida Fire Prevention Code, or the Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto. If a local
enforcing agency makes or requires substantive changes to the plans or specifications
after a permit is issued, the local enforcing agency must identify the specific plan
features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific code
chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide the information to
the permit holder in writing.
Due to Mr. Eseltine’s new “requirements”, we had to inform the homeowner that while we
would correct the minor issues in the inspectors report at no charge to them, we sent a change
order for the “framing work” Mr. Eseltine was requiring MKW Builders to complete in order to
close out this permit.
The homeowner’s lawyer stated numerous times that the owners had been informed by “city
building officials” that they had to completely remove their windows and redo them and we
would have to pay for that. These comments were very unsettling as the lawyer was now
claiming that staff at the City of Sebastian Building Department officials were providing
misinformation and making false claims about the work MKW Builders completed. A copy of
the inspection report from 6/5/25 states the deficiencies the inspector observed but again
failed to report on the portions of the work that were approved. A building inspector or Building
Official is authorized to inspect the contractors work to ensure it meets building code, they are
not authorized to inform a contractor or homeowner on the process for how corrections to the
work are made, nor was the framing work Mr. Eseltine was requiring noted on the inspection
report and the report did not include any statement that the windows had to be removed and
replaced. 3 windows needed to have the mull clips installed that were mistakenly left off of the
window mull bars. This work was easy to correct, and MKW Builders had every intention of
making the corrections and having the windows reinspected once that was completed. Due to
Mr. Eseltine’s numerous violations of F.S. and FBC, he created confusion and chaos between
the contractor and the owner.
A third permit (Permit 25-2799) was issued to the owner acting as the contractor for a portion
of the work completed by MKW Builders. This permit does not show a framing inspection
required for the skylight which is contradictory to Wayne Eseltines requirements that MKW
builders undergo a full framing inspection.
Section 6: Violations by Wayne Eseltine Permits
Mr. Eseltine ignored a letter sent by MKW Builders informing him that the owners were actively
engaging in work that was under the permit issued to MKW Builders and requested Mr.
Eseltine issue a stop work order to the owners until the permit was closed and the situation
resolved. Mr. Eseltine ignored the multiple requests of MKW Builders. MKW Builders
discovered that a second permit application WITH THE EXACT SAME SCOPE OF WORK was
approved on this project (Permit 25-2566) while OUR PERMIT IS STILL ACTIVE. The contractor
finally spoke with Eseltine on July 15, 2025 and he informed the contractor that he couldn’t
“hold the owners hostage”. He approved and issued the second permit and stated that once
the work was inspected and completed under this second permit, he would VOID MKW
Builders PERMIT. The contractor demanded that his permit be closed as his permit
documents, product approvals, the installation of the products etc were paid for and
completed by MKW Builders, and issuing another permit on this work was not appropriate.
This action by Wayne Eseltine is illegal and equates to the building official assisting the
homeowner with committing fraud and theft.
According to Code Section 26-172 Causes for Disciplinary Action:
(11) Failing to actively supervise construction projects for which the contractor has applied
for and obtained a building permit; or for projects for which the contractor is, by
contract, responsible;
MKW builders is well aware of this Municipal Code and F.S. that requires the Contractor to
ACTIVELY SUPERVISE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FOR WHICH THE CONTRACTOR HAS
APPLIED AND OBTAINED A BUILDING PERMIT. MKW Builders sent the cease and desist letter
to Wayne Eseltine to prevent the homeowner or another contractor from working on this project
that MKW Builders is responsible for supervising. Wayne ignored the serious concerns and this
code by allowing the owner and another contractor to engage in work under MKW Builders
permit, and issuing two additional permits for the work to the owner and another contractor.
This is a grave violation that jeopardizes the permit and liability of all parties, and it is the
reason why multiple permits are not issued for the same project. As explained to Wayne, MKW
Builders permit needed to be closed PRIOR to the issuance of another permit. This was
another example of Wayne Eseltine violating Code and F.S.
A records request was made 7/28/25 for the documents related to this second permit. It was
discovered that the plan and product approvals submitted by MKW Builders with their permit
application were transferred over to the second permit under a new contractor. After speaking
with the contractor listed on the second permit, MKW Builders was informed she did not
submit those documents with her application, it was the building department that added MKW
Builders documents to her permit. This is an unfathomable action by Wayne Eseltine and
illegal. The plan examiner who reviewed and issued this permit was identified by Wayne
Eseltine as “Sam Smith”. There is no precedent for this action. A Plans Examiner or Building
Official does not have the authority to take documents from one permit and ADD them to
another, nor do they have the authority to edit a contractors documents in a permit application.
Their authority is strictly limited to review the documents PROVIDED TO THEM IN THE
APPLICATION to determine if those documents are sufficient and that they meet FBC
requirements. A complaint will be sent to the DBPR against the Plan Examiner’s license once
their identity is confirmed for this gross violation. It should be noted, Wayne Eseltine oversees
the plan examiners and he allowed this violation to occur.
Section 7: Notice of Hearing written and sent by Wayne Eseltine on behalf of the Board
Mr. Eseltine sent a letter to MKW Builders accusing them of 1. Committing incompetency or
misconduct in the practice of contracting, 2. Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the
practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer, and 3. Knowingly or
deliberately disregarding or violating any applicable building codes or laws of the state, county
or the city. Mr. Eseltine has no evidence that MKW Builders did any of those things, and these
allegations are nothing but retaliation for filing complaints against him and his inspector and
bringing those complaints to the City of Sebastian Construction Board. Coincidentally, this
letter coincides with a complaint made to the DBPR against MKW Builders by the homeowner
and the accusations are very similar in nature.
The hearing notice sent to us by Wayne Eseltine on behalf of the City of Sebastian
Construction Board was sent to MKW Builders (no date on notice) included claims of alleged
violations by MKW Builders. There was no “citation” issued, no opportunity to provide
documentation negating the alleged violations, and no basis for the alleged violations was
provided.
According to the procedures outlined in the City of Sebastian Municipal Code, this “Notice of
Hearing” was sent prematurely and did not follow the procedures outlined in the code:
Sec. 2-195. - Procedure for enforcement of contractor licensing statutes.
(a) These procedures are enacted pursuant to F.S. § 489.127.
(b) A code enforcement officer so designated by the city may issue a citation for any violation of F.S.
§ 489.127 or § 489.132(1) (relating to unlicensed, uncertified or unregistered contractors), or for any
violation of chapter 26 of this Code, whenever, based upon personal investigation, the code
enforcement officer has reasonable and probable cause to believe that such a violation has
occurred.
(c) A contracting citation issued by a code enforcement officer shall be in a form prescribed by the
city and shall contain the information outlined in subsection 2-194(c)(2), items a. through j.
A citation issued by a code enforcement officer shall be in a form prescribed by the city and
shall contain:
a. The date and time of issuance.
b. The name and address of the person to whom the citation is issued.
c. The date and time the civil infraction was committed.
d. A brief description of the violation and the facts constituting reasonable cause.
e. The number of the section of the code or ordinance violated.
f. The name and authority of the code enforcement officer.
g. The procedure for the person to follow in order to pay the civil penalty or to contest the
citation.
h. The applicable civil penalty if the person elects to contest the citation.
i. The applicable civil penalty if the person elects not to contest the citation.
j. A conspicuous statement that if the person fails to pay the civil penalty within the time allowed, or
fails to appear in court to contest the citation, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to
contest the citation and that, in such case, judgment may be entered against the person for an
amount up to the maximum civil penalty.
There was no investigation, and no probable cause for an investigation. MKW Builders was
never contacted by a Code Enforcement Officer or Building Official regarding an investigation
nor did MKW Builders receive any requests for information that pertained to the alleged
violations claimed by Wayne Eseltine. No citation issued, so no facts supporting the
accusations and no procedure for contesting the violation was provided. MKW Builders could
not contest a violation because no citation was received and therefore no procedure for
contesting the violation was provided. The letter sent to MKW Builders skipped these required
procedures and went straight to determining what disciplinary action he wants the
Construction Board to take against MKW Builders. This is extremely concerning, and to date,
no one has corrected this egregious action.
According to the Code 2-195
(e) Cessation of violations; hearing procedures.
(1) The act for which the citation is issued shall be ceased upon receipt of the citation. The person
charged with the violation shall elect either to correct the violation and pay the civil penalty in
the manner indicated on the citation or, within ten days of receipt of the citation, exclusive of
weekends and legal holidays, request an administrative hearing to contest the issuance of
the citation by the code enforcement officer. Said administrative hearing shall be held before
the city code enforcement special magistrate. Any person who willfully refuses to sign and accept
a citation issued by a code enforcement officer commits a misdemeanor of the second degree,
punishable as provided for in F.S. § 775.082 or 775.083.
(2) Failure of a violator to contest the decision of the code enforcement officer within the time
period set forth in the preceding paragraph shall constitute a waiver of the violator's right to an
administrative hearing. A waiver of the right to an administrative hearing shall be deemed an admission of
the violation and penalties may be imposed accordingly.
(3) If the person receiving the citation, or his designated representative, shows that the
citation is invalid, the special magistrate shall dismiss the citation
Article VI - Contractors
Sec. 26-171. - Unlicensed contractors: Prohibitions; penalties and enforcement.
(b) The building official, assistant building official, building inspectors and licensing investigators of
the city building department are hereby designated, authorized and charged with enforcement
responsibilities to enforce the provisions of F.S. §§ 489.127(1) and 489.132(1) and chapter 26 of
this Code against persons who engage in activities for which a city certificate of competency is
required.
(1) The enforcement authorities designated herein may issue a citation, as provided herein, for
any violation of F.S. §§ 489.127(1) and 489.132(1) and chapter 26 of this Code, whenever,
based upon personal investigation, the enforcement officer has reasonable and probable
grounds to believe that such a violation has occurred.
(2) The citation issued by an enforcement officer pursuant to this section shall be in the form
prescribed by the city which form shall state:
a. The time and date of issuance.
b. The name and address of the person to whom the citation is issued.
c. The time and date of the violation.
d. A brief description of the violation and the facts constituting reasonable cause.
e. The name of the enforcement officer.
f. The procedure for the person to follow in order to pay a civil penalty or to contest the
citation.
g. The applicable civil penalty if the person elects not to contest the citation.
A citation must include A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE VIOLATION AND THE FACTS
CONSTITUTING REASONABLE CAUSE, AND THE PROCEDURE FOR THE PERSON TO
FOLLOW IN ORDER TO CONTEST THE CITATION.
F.S. 489.127(1) regulates UNLICENSED CONTRACTORS and F.S. 489.132(1) regulates
Prohibited Acts by UNLICENSED PRINCIPALS; INVESTIGATIONS; HEARINGS; PENALTIES.
No violations or citations under these two Florida Statutes can be issued to MKW Builders as
MKW Builders is a State Certified Building Contractor License # CBC1267842.
Sebastian Code Chapter 26 - 172 Causes for disciplinary action corresponds to F.S. 489.129
Disciplinary Proceedings.
F.S. 489.129 (1)
The board may take any of the following actions against any certificateholder or registrant:
place on probation or reprimand the licensee, revoke, suspend, or deny the issuance or renewal of
the certificate or registration, require financial restitution to a consumer for financial harm directly
related to a violation of a provision of this part, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000
per violation, require continuing education, or assess costs associated with investigation and
prosecution, if the contractor, financially responsible officer, or business organization for which the
contractor is a primary qualifying agent, a financially responsible officer, or a secondary qualifying
agent responsible under s. 489.1195 is found guilty of any of the following acts:
Please note the State Construction Board can take action against a license holder IF THE
CONTRACTOR IS FOUND GUILTY OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTS.
Before a Contractor is found guilty of any acts, there must first be an INVESTIGATION which
is outlined in F.S. 489.129(12):
When an investigation of a contractor is undertaken, the department shall promptly
furnish to the contractor or the contractor’s attorney a copy of the complaint or
document that resulted in the initiation of the investigation. The department shall
make the complaint and supporting documents available to the contractor. The
complaint or supporting documents shall contain information regarding the specific
facts that serve as the basis for the complaint. The contractor may submit a written
response to the information contained in such complaint or document within 20 days
after service to the contractor of the complaint or document. The contractor’s written
response shall be considered by the probable cause panel. The right to respond does
not prohibit the issuance of a summary emergency order if necessary to protect the public.
However, if the secretary, or the secretary’s designee, and the chair of the board or the chair
of the probable cause panel agree in writing that such notification would be detrimental to
the investigation, the department may withhold notification. The department may conduct
an investigation without notification to a contractor if the act under investigation is a criminal
offense.
The “Notice of Hearing” received by MKW Builders makes allegations that are stated in
Sebastian Code Sec. 26-172. - Causes for disciplinary action:
(3). Committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting; and
(6). Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a
customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs when:
A. Valid liens have been recorded against the property of a contractor's customer for supplies or services
ordered by the contractor for the customer's job; the contractor has received funds from the customer
to pay for the supplies or services: and the contractor has not had the liens removed from the
property, by payment or by bond, within 75 days after the date of such liens;
B. The contractor has abandoned a customer's job and the percentage of completion is less than the
percentage of the total contract price paid to the contractor as of the time of abandonment, unless the
contractor is entitled to retain such funds under the terms of the contract or refunds the excess funds
within 30 days after the date the job is abandoned; or
C. The contractor's job has been completed, and it is shown that the customer has had to pay more for
the contracted job than the original contract price, as adjusted for subsequent change orders, unless
such increase in cost was the result of circumstances caused by the customer, or was otherwise
permitted by the terms of the contract between the contractor and the customer.
(8) Knowingly or deliberately disregarding or violating any applicable building codes or laws of the state,
county or the city;
Sec. 26-172. - Causes for disciplinary action corresponds to F.S. 489.129:
(g) Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial
harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs when:
1. Valid liens have been recorded against the property of a contractor’s customer for supplies or
services ordered by the contractor for the customer’s job; the contractor has received funds
from the customer to pay for the supplies or services; and the contractor has not had the
liens removed from the property, by payment or by bond, within 75 days after the date of
such liens;
2. The contractor has abandoned a customer’s job and the percentage of completion is less
than the percentage of the total contract price paid to the contractor as of the time of \
abandonment, unless the contractor is entitled to retain such funds under the terms of the
contract or refunds the excess funds within 30 days after the date the job is abandoned; or
3. The contractor’s job has been completed, and it is shown that the customer has had to pay
more for the contracted job than the original contract price, as adjusted for subsequent
change orders, unless such increase in cost was the result of circumstances beyond the
control of the contractor, was the result of circumstances caused by the customer, or was
otherwise permitted by the terms of the contract between the contractor and the customer.
(i) Failing in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this part or violating a rule or lawful
order of the board.
(m) Committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
Prior to holding a disciplinary hearing, MKW Builders needs to be found GUILTY of a violation.
Wayne Eseltine made serious allegations against MKW Builders, yet he did not believe he
needed to issue a citation or conduct a proper investigation to substantiate his claims. He
simply made a decision to act on his own, violating the Municipal Code. One would think that if
MKW Builders had committed the serious violations alleged by Wayne, that he would have a
mountain of documentation and follow the proper procedure to ensure his case was solid. The
logical explanation for why Wayne ignored required process was that he was consumed with
his anger and decided to take this action to threaten and intimidate MKW Builders as retaliation
for MKW Builders filing complaints with the DBPR against him and one of the inspectors he
oversees.
Code Section 26-172 Cause for disciplinary action does NOT contain any reference to the
INVESTIGATION that needs to happen PRIOR to any Disciplinary Hearings, however, a
CITATION issued by a CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER must be based on findings of an
INVESTIGATION, and the citation issued by the officer MUST INCLUDE:
A brief description of the violation and the facts constituting reasonable cause.
The Code Section 2-195 (c) (d), Section 26-171 (2)(d) and Florida Statute 489.129 (12) also
require the basis, facts and documents pertaining to the alleged violations be PROVIDED
TO THE CONTRACTOR.
Both the Code Sections 2-195 (e) (3) and F.S. 489.129(12) allow the Contractor to RESPOND to
the allegations as well:
Code: (3) If the person receiving the citation, or his designated representative, shows
that the citation is invalid, the special magistrate shall dismiss the citation
F.S. 489.129(12): The contractor may submit a written response to the information
contained in such complaint or document within 20 days after service to
the contractor of the complaint or document. The contractor’s written
response shall be considered by the probable cause panel.
Wayne Eseltine failed to follow City Code and Florida Statute by never issuing a “CITATION” to
MKW Builders, failed to provide any basis or facts supporting his claims violations occurred,
and failed to provide MKW BUILDERS the required procedure for and opportunity to respond
to the allegations and provide documentation negating the claims. Wayne Eseltine should be
reprimanded for his failure to properly execute his job duties and further must receive proper
training on the City Codes and Florida Statutes he is charged with upholding. Frankly, Wayne
still having a job with the City of Sebastian after his outrageous illegal conduct reflects poorly
on the City Officials responsible for overseeing him.
City Code Section 26-173 - Miscellaneous General Provisions:
(a)The provisions of this article shall be deemed supplemental to, and not in conflict with or in
preemption of, the provisions of article VI, division 2 of chapter 2 of the Code of
Ordinances concerning the code enforcement special magistrate. To the extent provided
in such article, the special magistrate shall have concurrent jurisdiction over the enforcement
of any of the provisions of this article.
The improper actions of Wayne Eseltine have circumvented the special magistrate in this case.
Code Section 2-195(e)(3) states: If the person receiving the citation, or his designated
representative, shows that the citation is invalid, the special magistrate shall dismiss the
citation. If Wayne had actually issued a proper citation, MKW Builders would have provided
the mountain of documentation to the SPECIAL MAGISTRATE that destroys the frivolous
allegations made by Wayne Eseltine. His claims could have easily been dismissed and there
would be no further waste of time by MKW Builders, the Construction Board, City Council, or
other City Officials. MKW Builders will not allow Wayne Eseltine to continue to violate Florida
Statutes and City of Sebastian Municipal Codes. MKW Builders has filed a complaint against
Wayne Eseltine’s State Licenses and we will be attending the meeting of the State Board that
oversees Building officials, inspectors and plan examiners on August 28, 2025 to speak about
his actions and the actions of inspector John Parker.
As of August 14, 2025, MKW Builders has no knowledge of any facts or basis for the
allegations made by Wayne Eseltine. Specifically, Wayne alleged a violation of Section
26-172(6) which has three different items listed under this section. MKW Builders is unable to
provide a proper defense to this allegation without knowing what the allegation is based on.
MKW Builders filed a lien against the property located at 113 Redgrave Drive due to
NONPAYMENT for labor, materials and services provided to the owners of the property. MKW
Builders has the right to file this lien per F.S. 713.001-713.37:
ACCORDING TO FLORIDA’S CONSTRUCTION LIEN LAW, THOSE WHO WORK ON YOUR
PROPERTY OR PROVIDE MATERIALS AND SERVICES AND ARE NOT PAID IN FULL HAVE A
RIGHT TO ENFORCE THEIR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY. THIS CLAIM
IS KNOWN AS A CONSTRUCTION LIEN.
The owners of this property owe MKW Builders $9,200. Had Wayne followed the procedures in
the Municipal Codes with performing an actual investigation and done his due diligence, MKW
Builders would have provided him with the documentation showing that the lien filed against
this property was in fact executed properly and well within the right of MKW Builders to file.
Additionally, the other two allegations made by Wayne Eseltine are so vague that MKW
Builders has no indication on what these allegations are based on. Wayne Eseltine is
REQUIRED to produce this information, in a proper CITATION, which he failed to issue. He also
did not include any basis or facts in the “Notice of Hearing” he sent to MKW Builders. MKW
Builders will not respond to allegations without facts.
MKW Builders has also been denied the required due process outline in Section 26-197(6)
Subpoena powers. The board shall have the authority to subpoena alleged violators and witnesses to its
hearings. The city, the board or the alleged violator may request that witnesses and records be
subpoenaed to any emergency or formal hearing. Subpoenas shall be served in the same manner
as civil subpoenas are served under Florida Statutes and the Florida Civil Rules of Procedure. The
chairman of the board shall provide the clerk with sufficient signed and blank witness subpoenas
to be provided to alleged violators and the city attorney for the purpose of subpoenaing witnesses
and records.
Section 8: Letter sent to City Officials and Construction Board on August 1, 2025
In a letter sent to the Construction board, city council members, city clerk, city attorney, code
enforcement, building officials, and city manager, MKW Builders stated:
Wayne Eseltine has acted outside of this authority and failed to follow the Municipal Codes.
Eseltine also instructed the Chief of Police Dan Acosta to send an officer with the Code
Enforcement Officer Curtis Bloomfield to hand deliver this letter to our personal residence. Mr.
Acosta stated that Mr. Bloomfield was uncomfortable delivering this letter, for reasons yet to be
determined. Mr. Acosta also confirmed that city attorney Jennifer Cockcroft approved Wayne
Eseltine’s request that an officer and Curtis Bloomfield hand deliver this letter even though this
was not a citation and should have been sent via certified mail.
We contacted the City of Sebastian Police Department and requested the name and badge
number of the officer sent to our home and multiple staff refused to provide that information.
One of your employees stated this officer went to our home “outside his official capacity as an
officer” so they could not provide me his information and said I could leave him a voicemail. I
left messages and no one returned my call. The following day, I called the police department
numerous times and the staff sent me to every voicemail except for the person I asked for
which was the Chief of Police. Finally after about 6 attempts I received a call back from Mr.
Acosta.
I spoke at length with him about the situation and explained that sending a uniformed officer
with badge and firearm to my home outside his jurisdiction at the request of Wayne Eseltine as
a favor, and then when I call to confirm this was a legitimate officer they refused to confirm that
and stated the officer was not there on official business, there are serious safety concerns for
our family. Wayne Eseltine has demonstrated erratic behavior and anger management issues,
and we became concerned that this person was impersonating an officer and could have been
sent to cause us harm. If I had been home alone and the staff in your police department
refused to confirm this was in fact one of your officers, I would have perceived this person on
my property as a threat. Mr. Acosta agreed that this situation was dangerous for both the
officer and us, and he was going to follow up with his staff on why the officers information was
not provided to me when I called the first time. We have the video showing Curtis Bloomfield
and officer Terrance Pizzuti, Badge #321 on our property, in full uniform and the officer ran Mr.
Walker’s tag while standing on our walkway. I have provided pictures from this video and will
be presenting this video at the upcoming construction board hearing.
There is no excuse for the behavior of Wayne Eseltine, and we will not tolerate harassment,
threats or intimidation from this individual. In light of his recent behavior, we believe he is
unstable. He is not to contact us going forward. Any communications must be sent to MKW
Builders in writing via email or mail.
We have followed the Florida Statutes, Florida Building Code and Municipal Code with all of
our filings, and Wayne needs to do the same. If the Code Enforcement Officer believes he has
reasonable and probable cause to issue MKW Builders a citation for violating municipal code
or Florida Statute, then he must follow the code requirements for doing so. If that citation is
found to be valid, at that time, Wayne can initiate his disciplinary proceedings through the
construction board and MKW Builders will present our case to the Construction Board at a
proper hearing.
As of August 14, 2025, no response to this letter has been received.
Section 9: Construction Board
MKW Builders requests an explanation for the lack of oversight and activity of the Construction
Board for the past three years. The Florida Building Code 2023 was adopted and in effect on
December 31, 2023. This revision included many changes and updates to the 2020 FBC, and
some of those changes impacted building officials and permit processes. The Construction
Board did not see a need to meet in order to discuss the changes to the FBC with Wayne
Eseltine to ensure these changes were implemented by the Building Department and to be
informed on Eseltine’s plans for implementation. This seems to indicate the Construction Board
was not actively meeting and allowed Wayne Eseltine to act on his own accord with no
oversight or accountability. The new FBC have been in effect for over a year and a half and it
seems unlikely that there have been no questions or issues arising.
Under Wayne Eseltine’s management, in 2024/2023 the building department was not in
compliance with Florida Statue 533.80(7)(a), which requires the building fund’s fund balance
not to exceed the City’s average operating budget for enforcing the Florida Building Code for
the previous four fiscal years, and the City does not have a complete fee schedule that ties to
the fees within MyGovernmentOnline (MGO) and there is not a documented review of the
building department fees entered into MGO.
The Construction Board has abdicated their oversight role of this department and according to
records available, has not held a meeting to ask Wayne about this violation of Florida Statute
and have Wayne Eseltine develop a plan of action to bring the building department into
compliance.
(III)F.S. 553.79 (b)
A local enforcement agency shall post each type of building permit application,
including a list of all required attachments, drawings, or other requirements for
each type of application, on its website. A local enforcement agency must post and
update the status of every received application on its website until the issuance of the
building permit. Completed applications, including payments, attachments, drawings, or
other requirements or parts of the completed permit application, must be able to be
submitted electronically to the appropriate building department.
Wayne Eseltine has failed to adhere to this statute by not posting each type of permit
application including a list of all required attachments, drawings or other requirements for each
type of application on its website. This is a very basic requirement for a building official, yet
Wayne has failed to accomplish this task in his years of employment. The Construction Board
was unaware of this failure as well apparently.
When MKW Builders asked for information on who to contact for a meeting with the
Construction Board, we were informed that Wayne Eseltine was the person who determined
when a Construction Board meeting was held. According to the code, the Construction Board
has subpoena power and the CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, (Not Wayne Eseltine) shall provide
the Clerk with sufficient signed and blank witness subpoenas to be provided to alleged
violators and the city attorney for the purpose of subpoenaing witnesses and records. As of
August 14, 2025, MKW Builders has received no such documents or information on
subpoenas.
On August 6, 2025, Jeanette Williams, City Clerk, requested MKW Builders provide 8 copies of
our documents by August 15. It seems odd that this request would be made considering
absolutely no documents whatsoever have been provided to MKW Builders. We will not be
printing 8 copies of the documents and hand delivering them to Sebastian tomorrow. There is
nothing in the Quasi Judicial Hearing Procedures received from Jeanette Williams that requires
8 paper copies be delivered by a certain date.
You will receive our documents in electronic format tomorrow as requested, however, we
requested all documents, witness lists, subpoenas, records etc. be delivered to MKW Builders
no later than August 18, 2025. This documentation should have been provided to us weeks
ago.
Section 26-197 powers and duties
1. Advice to the city council. On its own initiative or whenever requested to do so by the city council, to
give advice to the city council and to other public officials or employees with reference to any matter
affecting contractors or the construction industry within the corporate limits of the city.
2. Reviewing city building and housing codes. To advise the city council concerning the city building
and housing codes, their adoption, their amendment, and the revision of the minimum state building
codes or any standard published code or technical regulation which constitutes all or part of such
codes or of this chapter.
6. Subpoena powers. The board shall have the authority to subpoena alleged violators and witnesses
to its hearings. The city, the board or the alleged violator may request that witnesses and records be
subpoenaed to any emergency or formal hearing. Subpoenas shall be served in the same manner as
civil subpoenas are served under Florida Statutes and the Florida Civil Rules of Procedure. The
chairman of the board shall provide the clerk with sufficient signed and blank witness subpoenas to be
provided to alleged violators and the city attorney for the purpose of subpoenaing witnesses and
records.
According to Section 26-198. - Administration.
In order to carry out the intent of this article, the city council hereby appoints the following officials to
assist the construction board in performing its duties:
(1) Building official. The building official, or his authorized representative, shall have the primary duty of
enforcing the various codes and initiating disciplinary proceedings before the board, and shall make such
recommendations or reports to the board as needed on each matter considered by it.
It appears Wayne Eseltine has brazenly overstepped his authority and assumed the duties and
powers reserved to the Construction Board Members.
Mr. Eseltine’s blatant disregard for the statutes, municipal codes and building codes he is
required to follow along with his explosive anger management issues makes him a liability to
the City of Sebastian Building Department. As a state certified building contractor, we are
required to follow all Florida Statutes and Florida Building Codes, and so is Mr. Eseltine as a
state licensed Building Official. Mr. Eseltine is not above the law and he must be held
accountable for violating the statutes and codes as outlined in this document.
Exhibit List
Exhibit 1 - City Of Sebastian Building Department Permit Application
Exhibit 2 - Required Documentation List For Permit Applications.
Exhibit 3 - Copy of MKW Builders permit and application docs window/door schedule &
location plan
Exhibit 4 - Copy of second permit documents issued to another contractor showing MKW
Builders documents were added to this other permit.
Exhibit 5 - Third permit application with the owner acting as the contractor that shows no
framing inspection required for the skylight, front door and garage door that was
already purchased and installed by MKW Builders. Eseltine demanded MKW
Builders complete the framing work and undergo a full framing inspection including
the skylight, however a framing inspection is not a requirement on the owner builder
permit.
Exhibit 6 - Copy of the inspectors report from 4/28/25
Exhibit 7 - Screenshot of cancelled inspection
Exhibit 8 - Letter to building department with pictures in response to Mr. Parker’s demand
Exhibit 9 - Lien filed against homeowner
Exhibit 10 - Documents from homeowner stating they have spoken with “city building officials”
and received false information. Also included are MKW Builders responses to these
claims.
Exhibit 11 - Expired permit letter sent to MKW Builders, Response by MKW Builders to Expired
permit letter, & Letter extending permit for 90 days
Exhibit 12 - Reinspection report from 6/5/25
Exhibit 13 - Letter to building official requesting staff cease and desist providing false
information to the homeowner.
Exhibit 14 - Email from City Council Member stating Mr. Eseltine confirmed to him he planned
to issue a second permit to another contractor for work completed by MKW
Builders and void our permit when the second permit was closed.
Exhibit 15 - Copy of Notice of hearing letter that does not include the required information per
City Codes.
Exhibit 16 - Copy of MKW Builders response to the DBPR complaint.
Exhibit 17 - Complaint filed against Wayne Eseltine with the DBPR
Exhibit 18 - Complaint filed with the DBPR against John Parker
Exhibit 19 - Examples of permit applications that list the required inspections per FBC
that Wayne Eseltine has failed to implement in City of Sebastian.
Other Exhibits - Pictures and video of Sebastian Code Enforcement officer and City Police
Detective at our home address.
1
PERMIT APPLICATION
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING MUST BE FILLED IN BY APPLICANT, ACCORDING TO FS 713.135
DATE: ________________________ RECEIVED BY:___________
LOT: _______ BLOCK:__________ SUBDIVISION:_________________________________FLOOD ZONE: ________________
TYPE OF WORK: __NEW STRUCTURE __ADDITION __ALTERATION __ REPAIR __DEMOLITION __ OTHER
WORK INCLUDES: __STRUCTURAL __ELECTRICAL __PLUMBING __MECHANICAL __ROOFING - SLOPE:____
__ FIRE SYSTEM __ POOL __ ALUMINUM STRUCTURE __ SHED __ FENCE __ SLAB OR DECK __ OTHER
WORK DESCRIPTION: _____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ESTIMATED JOB VALUE: $_____________________TOTAL S/F ________________ UNDER AIR____________________
JOB NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
JOB ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________________SUITE/UNIT NO. _________
PROPERTY OWNER’S NAME: ________________________________________________ PHONE: ______________________
ADDRESS:_________________________________________________________________________________________________
CITY/STATE: ________________________________________________________________ ZIP CODE ____________________
CONTACT E-MAIL ADDRESS: ______________________________________________________________________________
CONTRACTOR BUSINESS NAME:_____________________________________________ LICENSE #: __________________
ADDRESS:_____________________________________________________________CONTACT PHONE:__________________
CITY/STATE: ________________________________________________________________ ZIP CODE____________________
CONTACT E-MAIL ADDRESS:______________________________________________________________________________
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER:_____________________________________________________ PHONE:______________________
ADDRESS:_________________________________________________________________________________________________
CITY/STATE: _________________________________________________________________ ZIP CODE: ___________________
CONTACT E-MAIL ADDRESS:_______________________________________________________________________________
PRESENT USE:_______________________ PROPOSED USE: _________________________ OCCUPANT LOAD:___________
NUMBER OF: __ STORIES ___BAYS ___UNITS ___BEDROOMS ___HEIGHT ______________
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: ______________________________ GROUP OCCUPANCY: __________ AREA_______________
IS THE BUILDING PRESENTLY EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM? ___YES ___NO
IS THE BUILDING PRESENTLY EQUIPPED WITH A FIRE ALARM SYSTEM? ___YES ___NO
EXHIBIT 1 - PERMIT APPLICATION
2
SUB-CONTRACTOR SUMMARY
PERMIT # ____________________________
_________________________________ will be using the following sub-contractors
(Company/Business Name)
for the project located _________________________________________________
(Street Address)
It is understood that ALL sub-contractors are required to be licensed regardless if a
Separate permit is required. If there are any changes in status regarding the participation
of the sub-contractors listed below, I will immediately advise the City of Sebastian
Building Department.
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR: ____________________________________________________________
QUALIFIER: ______________________________________________________________________________
PHONE # _________________________________ LICENSE #_____________________________________
E-MAIL ADDRESS: _______________________________________________________________________
PLUMBING CONTRACTOR: ________________________________________________________
QUALIFIER: ______________________________________________________________________
PHONE # _____________________________ LICENSE #__________________________________
E-MAIL ADDRESS: ________________________________________________________________
MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR: _____________________________________________________
QUALIFIER:_______________________________________________________________________
PHONE # ______________________________ LICENSE #_________________________________
E-MAIL ADDRESS:________________________________________________________________
ROOFING CONTRACTOR: __________________________________________________________
QUALIFIER: _______________________________________________________________________
PHONE# _______________________________LICENSE #__________________________________
E-MAIL ADDRESS: _________________________________________________________________
OTHER CONTRACTOR: ____________________________________________________________
QUALIFIER:_______________________________________________________________________
PHONE# _______________________________LICENSE #__________________________________
E-MAIL ADDRESS: _________________________________________________________________
NOTE: THE ABOVE CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED TO PULL
BUILDING PERMITS AND SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT
A “SUB-CONTRACTOR PERMIT APPLICATION” PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF THE MASTER PERMIT.
EXHIBIT 1 - PERMIT APPLICATION
3
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO DO THE WORK AND INSTALLATIONS AS INDICATED. I
CERTIFY THAT NO WORK OR INSTALLATION HAS COMMENCED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT AND THAT
ALL WORK WILL BE PERFORMED TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF ALL LAWS REGULATING CONS TRUCTION IN THIS
JURISDICTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT A SEPARATE PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK,
PLUMBING, SIGNS, WELLS, POOLS, FURNACES, BOILERS, HEATERS, TANKS AND AIR CONDITIONERS , ETC.
WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING
TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE RECORDED AND
POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT
WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT.
A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RECORDED NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT SIGNED BY THE OWNER, SHALL BE FILED
WITH THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY IF THE VALUE IS $2,500 OR MORE, EXCEPT HEATING OR AIR CONDITIONING
CHANGE OUTS LESS THAT $7,500.
NOTICE: IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS
APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THE COUNTY, AND THERE
MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUCH AS WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, STATE AGENCIES, OR FEDERAL AGENCIES.
ANY CHANGE IN BUILDING PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE RECORDED WITH THIS OFFICE. ANY WORK NOT
COVERED ABOVE MUST HAVE A VALID PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING. IN CONSIDERATION O F GRANTS, THIS
PERMIT, THE OWNER, AND THE BUILDING CONTRACTOR AGREE TO ERECT THIS STRUCTURE IN FULL
COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING AND ZONING CODES OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN.
NOTE: THIS PERMIT APPLICATION IS VOID AFTER 180 DAYS UNLESS THE WORK, WHICH IT CO VERS, HAS
COMMENCED. ALL CONTRACTORS MUST HAVE A VALID STATE CERTIFICATION, STATE REGISTRATION, OR
CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY ISSUED BY THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN PRIOR TO OBTAINING PERMIT.
❖ (ALL ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS OR REPAIRS MUST HAVE OWNER’S SIGNATURE ON APPLICATION OR PROVIDE COPY OF
EXECUTED CONTRACT)
________________________________________ ____________________________________
❖ SIGNATURE OF OWNER/AGENT QUALIFIER’S SIGNATURE
_________________________________________ ____________________________________
PRINTED NAME OF OWNER/AGENT PRINTED NAME OF QUALIFIER
DATE: ________________________ DATE: _________________________
❖ Individuals who sign as the owner’s agent must first obtain owner’s written authorization to sign on their behalf
STATE OF FLORIDA **NOTARY IS FOR QUALIFIER’S SIGNATURE**
COUNTY OF
I hereby certify that on this _________ day of ________________________, 20_____ personally appeared
___________________________________ who is _____ personally known to me or has _____ produced identification.
Type of identification produced:_______________________________________.
_______________________________
Official Signature of Notary Public Notary Seal
EXHIBIT 1 - PERMIT APPLICATION
RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS
• TWO (2) SURVEYS SHOWING LOCATION OF ADDITION –
PROPERTIES ON SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS THAT ARE INCREASING
LIVING AREA WILL REQUIRE SURVEY TO BE STAMPED APPROVED
BY IRC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
• TWO (2) COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
INCLUDING STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL AND
PLUMBING: AT LEAST ONE SET MUST BE SEALED BY A LICENSED
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. DESIGN SHALL MEET WIND SPEEED OF
160 MPH Vult; EXPOSURE B, C OR D AS APPLICABLE.
• TWO (2) COMPLETE SETS OF PRODUCT APPROVAL FOR ALL NEW
DOORS, GARAGE DOORS, WINDOWS, SOFFITS, SIDING, HURRICANE
PROTECTION, AND ROOFING
• TWO (2) COMPLETE SETS OF TRUSS ENGINEERING AND TRUSS
LAYOUT PLANS WHEN UTILIZING PRE-FABRICATED TRUSS SYSTEM
• ENERGY CALCULATIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE FORMS
• CONTRACTOR’S APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY HOMEOWNER
IN ADDITION TO CONTRACTOR’S SIGNATURE. PERMIT APPLICATION
• OWNER / BUILDER PERMIT APPLICATION AND DISCLOSURE
STATEMENT MUST BE SIGNED BY PROPERTY OWNER WHO MUST
PERSONALLY APPEAR. OWNER BUILDER PERMIT APPLICATION
EXHIBIT 2 - PERMIT REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
1225 Main Street Sebastian, Fl. 32958
PH: (772) 589-5537 FAX: (772) 589-2566
BUILDING PERMIT
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: REMOVE AND REPLACE WINDOWS WITH NEW IMPACT RATED WINDOWS, REMOVE AND REPLACE FRONT
ENTRY DOOR WITH IMPACT RATED DOOR, REMOVE AND REPLACE GARAGE DOOR WITH IMPACT RATED GARAGE DOOR AND
REMOVE AND REPLACE A SKYLIGHT WITH AN IMPACT RATED SKYLIGHT.
PERMIT INFORMATION
PERMIT NO:
WORK TYPE:
PERMIT TYPE:
TOTAL FEES PAID:
24-4148
WINDOW / DOOR REPLACEMENT
RESIDENTIAL ALTERATION
79.00
ISSUE DATE:
DATE PAID:
12/03/2024
11/22/2024
LOCATION INFORMATION
ADDRESS:
LOT / BLK:
SUBDIVISION:
PARCEL NUMBER:
SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 17
31391900001458000023.0
113 REDGRAVE DR
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
NAME:
ADDRESS:
LICENSE NO:
PHONE:
MKW BUILDERS LLC - MARK WALKER
4113 ABINGTON WOODS CIR
CBC1267842
(772) 360-8980
OWNER INFORMATION
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
DIANA & STEVEN M MARINI
113 REDGRAVE DR
No Number Provided
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE, OR IF
CONSTRUCTION IS SUSPENDED, OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME.
THE CONTRACTOR HAS CERTIFIED BY SIGNATURE OF APPLICATION, THIS DOCUMENT AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED OR NOT.
** NOTICE ** IN ADDTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE
FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES SUCH AS WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, STATE AGENCIES, OR FEDERAL AGENCIES.
** WARNING TO OWNER **
YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING
TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE
RECORDED AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION. IF YOU INTEND
TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING
YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT.
THIS PERMIT SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT EXPIRATION TO AVOID ADDITIONAL FEES.
REQUEST INSPECTIONS: By phone at 772-589-5537 OR online at www.mygovernmentonline.org
FINAL BUILDING ______FRAMING ______
EXHIBIT 3 - PERMIT ISSUED TO MKW BUILDERS
Ma
r
i
n
i
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
11
3
R
e
d
g
r
a
v
e
D
r
.
Se
b
a
s
t
i
a
n
,
F
L
3
2
9
5
8
8a
8
b
7
6 5
4
3
2a
2
b
1
12
1110
9a
9
b
9
c
13
EG
R
E
S
S
EG
R
E
S
S
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
FO
R
C
O
D
E
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
D.
H
a
i
n
e
y
12
/
0
3
/
2
0
2
4
2
:
5
9
:
5
4
P
M
EX
H
I
B
I
T
3
-
P
E
R
M
I
T
I
S
S
U
E
D
T
O
M
K
W
B
U
I
L
D
E
R
S
MK
W
B
U
I
L
D
E
R
S
P
L
A
N
W
I
T
H
N
U
M
B
E
R
E
D
WI
N
D
O
W
/
D
O
O
R
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
I
N
G
TH
E
W
I
N
D
O
W
A
N
D
D
O
O
R
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
O
N
T
H
E
NE
X
T
P
A
G
E
.
T
H
I
S
P
L
A
N
W
A
S
T
A
K
E
N
F
R
O
M
OU
R
P
E
R
M
I
T
A
N
D
A
D
D
E
D
T
O
T
H
E
S
E
C
O
N
D
PE
R
M
I
T
I
S
S
U
E
D
.
IN
D
I
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
C
O
U
N
T
Y
/
C
I
T
Y
O
F
V
E
R
O
B
E
A
C
H
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
WI
N
D
O
W
A
N
D
D
O
O
R
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
1
S
t
o
r
y
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
2
S
t
o
r
y
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
NA
M
E
:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
J
O
B
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
W
i
n
d
S
p
e
e
d
:
_
_
_
_
_
E
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
ID
#
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
W
i
n
d
o
w
Ne
w
W
i
n
d
o
w
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
Wi
n
d
o
w
-
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
Ro
o
m
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
Zo
n
e
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
Zo
n
e
4
Or
5
*
*
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Op
e
n
i
n
g
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
s
pe
r
C
h
a
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
Nu
m
b
e
r
Im
p
a
c
t
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
Ye
s
o
r
No
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
Ra
t
i
n
g
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Eg
r
e
s
s
Wi
n
d
o
w
N
e
t
Cl
e
a
r
Op
e
n
i
n
g
**
*
(S
q
.
F
e
e
t
)
Ne
w
E
g
r
e
s
s
Wi
n
d
o
w
N
e
t
Cl
e
a
r
Op
e
n
i
n
g
**
*
(S
q
.
F
e
e
t
)
(+
)
PS
F
(-)
PS
F
Si
z
e
Ty
p
e
*
Si
z
e
Ty
p
e
*
(+
)
PS
F
(-)
PS
F
1
Mu
l
l
i
o
n
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
#
:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
*In
d
i
c
a
t
e
T
y
p
e
o
f
W
i
n
d
o
w
(
S
H
)
S
i
n
g
l
e
H
u
n
g
,
(
D
H
)
D
o
u
b
l
e
H
u
n
g
,
C
A
S
(
C
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
)
H
R
(
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
R
o
l
l
e
r
)
,
SL
D
R
(
S
l
i
d
e
r
)
o
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
or
d
o
o
r
ty
p
e
.
**
Z
o
n
e
5
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
n
e
v
e
r
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
4
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
e
n
d
w
a
l
l
o
f
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
Z
o
n
e
4
i
s
f
o
r
a
n
y
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
o
ca
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
4
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
e
n
d
w
a
l
l
s
.
**
*
N
e
t
c
l
e
a
r
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
is
t
h
e
a
c
t
u
a
l
f
r
e
e
/cl
e
a
r
s
p
a
c
e
t
h
a
t
e
x
i
s
t
s
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
i
s
o
p
e
n
.
Not
t
h
e
r
o
u
g
h
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
s
i
z
e
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
a
c
t
u
a
l
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
a
p
e
r
s
o
n
c
a
n
c
r
a
w
l
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
.
MA
R
I
N
I
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
11
3
R
E
D
G
R
A
V
E
D
R
I
V
E
S
E
B
A
S
T
I
A
N
,
F
L
3
2
9
5
8
15
0
B
35
X
1
8
AR
C
H
/
F
I
X
E
D
35
X
1
8
AR
C
H
/
F
I
X
E
D
MA
S
T
E
R
B
A
T
H
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
7
7
6
7
YE
S
55
55
35
X
3
5
SH
35
X
3
5
SH
MA
S
T
E
R
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
4
9
1
1
YE
S
55
60
4.
2
6
4.
2
6
35
X
1
8
AR
C
H
/
F
I
X
E
D
35
X
1
8
AR
C
H
/
F
I
X
E
D
MA
S
T
E
R
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
7
7
6
7
YE
S
55
55
35
X
5
9
SH
35
X
5
9
SH
LI
V
I
N
G
R
O
O
M
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
4
9
1
1
YE
S
55
60
37
X
6
3
SH
37
X
6
3
SH
DE
N
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
4
9
1
1
YE
S
55
60
35
X
5
9
SH
35
X
5
9
SH
FA
M
I
L
Y
R
O
O
M
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
4
9
1
1
YE
S
55
60
35
X
5
9
SH
35
X
5
9
SH
FA
M
I
L
Y
R
O
O
M
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
4
9
1
1
YE
S
55
60
35
X
5
9
SH
35
X
5
9
SH
BE
D
R
O
O
M
1
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
4
9
1
1
YE
S
55
60
6.
9
3
5
6.
9
3
5
47
X
5
1
SH
47
X
5
1
SH
BE
D
R
O
O
M
1
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
4
9
1
1
YE
S
55
60
47
X
2
4
AR
C
H
/
F
I
X
E
D
47
X
2
4
AR
C
H
/
F
I
X
E
D
BE
D
R
O
O
M
1
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
7
7
6
7
YE
S
55
55
35
X
3
5
SH
35
X
3
5
SH
DI
N
I
N
G
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
4
9
1
1
YE
S
55
60
35
X
3
5
SH
35
X
3
5
SH
DI
N
I
N
G
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
4
9
1
1
YE
S
55
60
70
X
3
5
AR
C
H
/
F
I
X
E
D
70
X
3
5
AR
C
H
/
F
I
X
E
D
DI
N
I
N
G
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
7
7
6
7
YE
S
55
55
35
X
1
8
AR
C
H
/
F
I
X
E
D
35
X
1
8
AR
C
H
/
F
I
X
E
D
EN
T
R
Y
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
7
7
6
7
YE
S
55
55
36
X
8
0
IN
S
W
I
N
G
36
X
8
0
IN
S
W
I
N
G
EN
T
R
Y
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
6
7
0
8
.
1
YE
S
65
65
24
X
2
4
SK
Y
L
I
G
H
T
24
X
2
4
SK
Y
L
I
G
H
T
RO
O
F
/
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
3
3
0
3
.
5
YE
S
15
0
12
0
16
’
X
7
’
GA
R
A
G
E
D
R
16
’
X
7
’
GA
R
A
G
E
D
O
O
R
GA
R
A
G
E
4
24
.
3
26
.
3
FL
1
5
3
7
1
YE
S
36
44
✔
5
2A 2B 3 4 5 6 7 8A 8B 9A 9B 9C 10 11 12 13
FL
6
0
6
7
EX
H
I
B
I
T
3
-
P
E
R
M
I
T
I
S
S
U
E
D
T
O
M
K
W
B
U
I
L
D
E
R
S
CONTRACTOR’S ON-LINE PERMIT AFFIDAVIT
I ______________________________________, AM HEREBY APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT IN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN
(PRINTED NAME OF QUALIFIER)
AS DESCRIBED IN THE ON-LINE APPLICATION, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
ADDRESS: _____________________________________________________ SUITE/UNIT NO. _______
WORK DESCRIPTION: ___________________________________________________________________
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO DO THE WORK AND INSTALLATIONS AS INDICATED. I
CERTIFY THAT NO WORK OR INSTALLATION HAS COMMENCED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT AND
THAT ALL WORK WILL BE PERFORMED TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF ALL LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUCTION
IN THIS JURISDICTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT A SEPARATE PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FOR ELECTRICAL,
PLUMBING, SIGNS, WELLS, POOLS, FURNACES, BOILERS, HEATERS, TANKS AND AIR CONDITIONINGS, ETC.
A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RECORDED NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT SIGNED BY THE OWNER, SHALL BE FILED
WITH THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY IF THE VALUE IS GREATER THAN $5000 OR FOR HEATING OR AIR
CONDITIONING WORK, THE VALUE IS GREATER THAN $15,000.
ANY CHANGE IN BUILDING PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE RECORDED WITH THIS OFFICE. ANY WORK
NOT COVERED ABOVE MUST HAVE A VALID PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING. IN CONSIDERATION OF GRANTS,
THIS PERMIT, THE OWNER, AND THE BUILDING CONTRACTOR AGREE TO ERECT THIS STRUCTURE IN FULL
COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING AND ZONING CODES OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN.
___________________________________ _________________________________________
PRINTED NAME OF QUALIFIER QUALIFIER’S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE
DATE: ________________________
STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF :
I hereby certify that on this _________ day of ________________________, 20_____ personally appeared
___________________________________ who is _____ personally known to me or has _____ produced identification.
Type of identification produced:_______________________________________.
_______________________________
Official Signature of Notary Public Notary Seal
WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR
PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE
RECORDED AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN
FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF
COMMENCEMENT.
NOTE: THIS PERMIT APPLICATION IS VOID AFTER 180 DAYS UNLESS THE WORK, WHICH IT COVERS, HAS
COMMENCED. ALL CONTRACTORS MUST HAVE A VALID STATE CERTIFICATION, STATE REGISTRATION, OR
CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY ISSUED BY THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN PRIOR TO OBTAINING PERMIT.
MARK WALKER
113 REDGRAVE DRIVE SEBASTIAN, FL 32958
REMOVE AND REPLACE WINDOWS, GARAGE AND FRONT ENTRY DOOR, AND SKYLIGHT WITH IMPACTED RATED PRODUCTS.
MARK WALKER
11/21/2024
X
21ST NOVEMBER 24
EXHIBIT 3 - PERMIT ISSUED TO MKW BUILDERS
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
1225 Main Street Sebastian, Fl. 32958
PH: (772) 589-5537 FAX: (772) 589-2566
BUILDING PERMIT
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: BRING WINDOWS INTO CODE COMPLIANCE
PERMIT INFORMATION
PERMIT NO:
WORK TYPE:
PERMIT TYPE:
TOTAL FEES PAID:
25-2655
WINDOW / DOOR REPLACEMENT
RESIDENTIAL ALTERATION
79.00
ISSUE DATE:
DATE PAID:
07/15/2025
7/15/2025
LOCATION INFORMATION
ADDRESS:
LOT / BLK:
SUBDIVISION:
PARCEL NUMBER:
SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 17
31391900001458000023.0
113 REDGRAVE DR
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
NAME:
ADDRESS:
LICENSE NO:
PHONE:
321 HOMES, INC. - CHRISTINA SOUTH
402 S BABCOCK ST
CBC1262517
(321) 600-4607
OWNER INFORMATION
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
DIANA & STEVEN M MARINI
113 REDGRAVE DR
(772) 633-8643
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE, OR IF
CONSTRUCTION IS SUSPENDED, OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME.
THE CONTRACTOR HAS CERTIFIED BY SIGNATURE OF APPLICATION, THIS DOCUMENT AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED OR NOT.
** NOTICE ** IN ADDTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE
FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES SUCH AS WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, STATE AGENCIES, OR FEDERAL AGENCIES.
** WARNING TO OWNER **
YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING
TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE
RECORDED AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION. IF YOU INTEND
TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING
YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT.
THIS PERMIT SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT EXPIRATION TO AVOID ADDITIONAL FEES.
REQUEST INSPECTIONS: By phone at 772-589-5537 OR online at www.mygovernmentonline.org
FINAL BUILDING ______FRAMING ______
EXHIBIT 4 - SECOND PERMIT ISSUED TOANOTHER CONTRACTOR WITH MKW BUILDERS DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.
Ma
r
i
n
i
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
11
3
R
e
d
g
r
a
v
e
D
r
.
Se
b
a
s
t
i
a
n
,
F
L
3
2
9
5
8
8a
8
b
7
6 5
4
3
2a
2
b
1
12
1110
9a
9
b
9
c
13
EG
R
E
S
S
EG
R
E
S
S
07
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
5
1
1
:
5
1
:
2
2
AM
S.
S
m
i
t
h
TH
I
S
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
W
A
S
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
M
K
W
B
U
I
L
D
E
R
S
AN
D
S
H
O
W
S
I
T
W
A
S
RE
V
I
E
W
E
D
A
N
D
S
T
A
M
P
E
D
O
N
7/
1
5
/
2
5
F
O
R
T
H
I
S
O
T
H
E
R
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
.
EX
H
I
B
I
T
4
-
S
E
C
O
N
D
PE
R
M
I
T
I
S
S
U
E
D
TO
A
N
O
T
H
E
R
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
W
I
T
H
MK
W
B
U
I
L
D
E
R
S
DO
C
U
M
E
N
T
S
AT
T
A
C
H
E
D
.
EXHIBIT 4 - SECOND PERMIT ISSUED TOANOTHER CONTRACTOR WITH MKW BUILDERS DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
1225 Main Street Sebastian, Fl. 32958
PH: (772) 589-5537 FAX: (772) 589-2566
BUILDING PERMIT
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: install skylight, front door and garage door
PERMIT INFORMATION
PERMIT NO:
WORK TYPE:
PERMIT TYPE:
TOTAL FEES PAID:
25-2799
WINDOW / DOOR REPLACEMENT
RESIDENTIAL ALTERATION
0.00
ISSUE DATE:
DATE PAID:
LOCATION INFORMATION
ADDRESS:
LOT / BLK:
SUBDIVISION:
PARCEL NUMBER:
SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 17
31391900001458000023.0
113 REDGRAVE DR
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
NAME:
ADDRESS:
LICENSE NO:
PHONE:
DIANA & STEVEN M MARINI
113 REDGRAVE DR
(772) 300-1642
OWNER INFORMATION
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
DIANA & STEVEN M MARINI
113 REDGRAVE DR
(772) 300-1642
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE, OR IF
CONSTRUCTION IS SUSPENDED, OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME.
THE CONTRACTOR HAS CERTIFIED BY SIGNATURE OF APPLICATION, THIS DOCUMENT AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED OR NOT.
** NOTICE ** IN ADDTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE
FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES SUCH AS WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, STATE AGENCIES, OR FEDERAL AGENCIES.
** WARNING TO OWNER **
YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING
TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE
RECORDED AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION. IF YOU INTEND
TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING
YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT.
THIS PERMIT SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT EXPIRATION TO AVOID ADDITIONAL FEES.
REQUEST INSPECTIONS: By phone at 772-589-5537 OR online at www.mygovernmentonline.org
FINAL BUILDING ______
EXHIBIT 5 - THRID PERMIT ISSUED TO HOMEOWNER FOR MKW BUILDERS WORK
Jurisdiction Inspection Type Inspector
Sebastian Framing John Parker
Details
Provide photos of mull bar clip attachments. Provide photos of new window bucks for framing inspection. Garage door
OK. Front door missing correct screws at hinges and strikes. Provide photos of skylight framing and fasteners. All
windows are missing fasteners and home owner claims some windows are leaking. Remove all trim strips at concealed
fasteners. Inspection stopped.
Permit Number Work Order Number Inspection Number
24-4148 40618792 33434376
Customer Address Phone
Mark Walker 113 REDGRAVE DR, SEBASTIAN 32958 (772) 360-8980
Scheduled Completed Uploaded
4/28/2025 12:50:00 AM 4/28/2025 8:14:14 AM 4/28/2025 8:58:14 AM
You can download this report or request additional inspections at www.MyGovernmentOnline.org.
For software assistance please call 866.957.3764.
For questions about this inspection please contact your jurisdiction
Inspection Report Inspection Date: 4/28/2025 8:14:14 AM
FAILED Mark Walker should contact Sebastian at
(772) 589-5537 for further information.
EXHIBIT 6- INSPECTION REPORT BY JOHN PARKER
EX
H
I
B
I
T
7
-
C
A
N
C
E
L
L
E
D
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
I
O
N
B
Y
J
O
H
N
P
A
R
K
E
R
Mailing Address: 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, FL 32967
Phone: (772) 360-8980 Email: Contact @MKWbuilders.com
License # CBC 1267842
May 13, 2025
Pictures and Information Related to Permit # 24-4148
Job Address: 113 Redgrave Drive
To Whom it May Concern,
I am attaching the photos I have of the work performed on this project as requested by
inspector.
I have verified all window fasteners are secured and the correct screws for the front entry
door are in place.
The homeowner claimed his windows were leaking, however, he did not tell you they were
leaking due to him blasting the windows with his hose. The weep holes are not designed to
take on that kind of water. There is nothing wrong with the installation or the product itself.
Let me know if you need additional information in order to complete this project.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (772) 360-8980.
Warm Regards,
____________________________________
Mark Walker
President
MKW Builders LLC
EXHIBIT 8 -LETTER IN REPONSE TO JOHN PARKERS DEMAND FOR PICTURES OF WORK NOT REQUIRED BY OUR
PERMIT
EXHIBIT 9 - LIEN FILED AGAINST HOMEOWNER FOR NONPAYMENT
jclark@mmhlaw.com
TAMPA • MIAMI
June 12, 2025
VIA EMAIL- mark@mkwbuilders.com
MKW Builders, LLC
4113 Abington Woods Cir.
Vero Beach, Florida 32967
Re: Breach of Contract Involving Marini Residential construction project
Our clients: Steven and Diana Marini
Contract Date: November 5, 2024
MMH Ref: 02-839
Dear MKW Builders, LLC:
This firm has the pleasure of representing Steven and Diana Marini with respect to the above-
referenced matter. Please direct all future correspondence to my attention and do not contact the
Marinis directly. I have reviewed available documentation and pertinent correspondence related to
your failure to complete two projects for this residence. As you know, Steven and Diana Marini
contracted with MKW Builders, LLC on November 5, 2024, by accepting two separate Proposals:
1. Scope of Work: My Safe FL Home, included replacement of the garage door, a skylight,
and a front entry door, for a total cost of $4,487.15, with the following contract
provisions:
“Time to complete scope of work is 3 days from permit issue. Work start date
will be scheduled with homeowner.”
A deposit in the amount of $2,243 is required to cover the cost of materials
ordered. The remaining balance is due upon Completion certificate from building
dept and final Invoice.”
2. Scope of Work: Replace existing windows with impact rated windows, for a total cost of
$12,400.00, with the following contract provisions:
“Time to complete scope of work is 3 days from permit issue. Work start date
will be scheduled with homeowner.”
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
MKW Builders, LLC
June 12, 2025
Page 2
MURRAY, MORIN & HERMAN, P.A.
TAMPA • MIAMI
A deposit in the amount of $6,200 is required to cover the cost of materials
ordered. The remaining balance is due upon Completion certificate from building
dept and final Invoice.”
You have completed the My Safe FL Home contract, but due to your decision to apply for a
single permit for both projects and your failure to properly complete the window replacement
project, a final inspection failed as a whole, so the work has not been approved by the City of
Sebastian, although my clients have paid in full for that project. My clients hereby demand that
within seven (7) days you do whatever is necessary, with no further expense to them for your
errors, to complete the My Safe FL Home project and obtain the final inspection and approval
from the City of Sebastian.
With regard to the window replacement, you have failed to comply with the City of
Sebastian’s requirements to properly install the windows and it appears the windows will need to be
removed and completely redone. My clients have lost all confidence in your ability to complete this
project in a timely, workmanlike manner and they are appalled at your demand for pre-payment of
additional funds that were not accounted for in the original contract. Your failure to adequately
prepare for this project, to understand your obligations under the City of Sebastian building
requirements, and refusal to correct your mistakes without additional compensation, and your poor
workmanship have made the contractual relationship with my clients irreparable. In addition, my
clients have felt threatened by your demeanor and tone while they have attempted to work with you
to resolve this matter. Therefore, they demand that you provide any and all warranty
documentation for the windows. The remaining $6,200 on the original contract price will not be
paid because the project was not completed. They will be retaining a separate contractor to repair
your defective work and complete this project. To the extent additional damage was caused by you
that increases the cost of the window replacement, they will look to you for reimbursement.
My clients further demand that you turn over all project documents in your possession
and any and all photographs you have related to the project. Additionally, pursuant to Florida
Statutes, Section 627.4137, or alternatively 626.9372, you are required to promptly disclose the
name and coverage of each known insurer. Pursuant to the cited statutes, you are also required to
forward this request for information to all affected insurers.
Each insurer shall provide, within thirty (30) days of this written request, all information
required by the cited statutes, including a statement under oath of a corporate officer or the insurer’s
claims manager or superintendent setting forth the following information with regard to each known
policy of insurance, including excess or umbrella insurance:
a. The name of the insurer;
b. The name of each insured;
c. The limits of liability coverage;
d. A statement of policy or coverage defense(s) which such insurer reasonably believes
is/are available to such insurer at the time of filing such statement; and
e. A copy of the policy(ies).
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
MKW Builders, LLC
June 12, 2025
Page 3
MURRAY, MORIN & HERMAN, P.A.
TAMPA • MIAMI
Please be advised that we require a complete and certified copy of the policy, to include
the declarations page, the full-text policy itself, and any and all endorsements. A certified
affidavit of insurance does not satisfy the statutory requirements. Copies of all insurance
policies are requested from the point when you first began work on the projects set forth above
to the present.
Failure to comply with any of the demands set forth herein will result in a lawsuit being filed
against you.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
JENNIFER M. CLARK
JMC
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
Mailing Address: 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, FL 32967
Phone: (772) 360-8980 Email: Contact @MKWbuilders.com
License # CBC 1267842
June 12, 2025
Murray, Morin & Herman, P.A.
3550 Buschwood Park Drive
Suite 130
Tampa, FL 33618
RE: Breach of Contract Involving Marini Residential Construction Project
Clients: Steven & Diana Marini
Ms. Clark,
We are in receipt of your demand letter sent via email on June 12, 2025 on behalf of your clients Steven
and Diane Marini. Each item in your letter is addressed below.
Your opening paragraph includes the statement: your failure to complete two projects for this residence.
This statement is false. The work for the two projects included under one permit has been completed,
there are a couple of minor issues that need to be corrected in order to obtain final approval from the City
of Sebastian Building Department. This work is covered under our agreement and there are no additional
charges for completing this work. The permit application was submitted under one permit because all of
the work completed pertained to window and door replacement. There was never an agreement to
complete the work separately, and your clients wanted everything done at the same time.
The original proposal for the scope of work, as it pertains to the window replacement, was changed
when the first window was removed. Mark Walker and Steven Marini had an on site conversation in
which he explained to Mr. Marini that due to the unforeseen existing conditions with the stucco bands
and wall stucco (which could not be seen until removal of the existing window) the work could not be
completed as planned and included in the original proposal. Mr. Walker advised Mr. Marini that in order to
replace the windows to ensure proper installation and weather seal, he would need to remove all of the
existing stucco bands around the windows on the exterior, remove the drywall jambs and sills from the
interior around the windows, and then replace all of the above with new which would be an additional
cost. Mr. Walker explained this in detail to Mr. Marini and asked if he still wanted to proceed with the
window replacement and Mr. Marini confirmed he wanted to proceed with having the new windows
installed. Mr. Walker understood that your clients were awarded a grant through the My Safe Florida
Home Program, and your clients obtained financing for the work through our provider, Acorn Finance. In
an effort to lower the costs for your clients so that they could still have their new windows, Mr. Walker
agreed to cover half of the cost to replace the stucco bands around the newly installed windows. Mr.
Marini expressed his appreciation for Mr. Walker’s offer. The window replacement then proceeded.
Home Depot had made a mistake and sent 3 windows that were the incorrect size. Once that was
discovered, Mr. Walker informed your clients of the issue and closed up those window openings until new
windows, the correct size, were delivered. These windows were delivered to Home Depot in mid to late
February, and Mr. Walker went to Home Depot to ensure they were the correct size. The new windows
were the correct size, however, they came with no lattice. Mr. Walker spoke with Mr. Marini and told him
about the issue. Mr. Walker explained to Mr. Marini that we could send these windows back and wait for
new windows with the lattice, or a lattice trim could be installed on the exterior part of the glass. Mr.
Marini met Mr. Walker at Home Depot to look at the windows himself. Mr. Walker expressed his
frustration regarding the mistakes and told Mr. Marini he would sign over the job to another contractor of
his choosing. Mr. Marini refused and demanded Mr. Walker finish the job. Mr. Walker reluctantly agreed to
do so and ordered new windows.
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
Upon delivery of the new windows in the correct size and with the lattice, Mr. Walker scheduled with
your clients to install them in mid March. During the installation of the 3 windows, one of the windows
was broken by our crew member. Mr. Walker informed your clients about the issue and told them he
would order a new window at his expense. The replacement window was delivered at the end of April
and installed.
Mr. Walker scheduled an inspection to take place on April 28, 2025. On April 27th, 2025, the day
before the inspection was to occur, your client texted Mr. Walker stating the windows were leaking
and that he needed to cancel the inspection. Your clients were using the hose to “clean the windows”.
Mr. Walker advised your client not to use the hose on the windows and explained why. He also told
your clients he needed to proceed with the inspection, but when he came to the home for the
inspection, he would look at the windows and assess the leaks.
On the morning of April 28th, 2025, Mr. Walker checked the contractor portal for the inspector
schedule so that he could be present to meet the inspector. Your clients had contacted the City of
Sebastian Building Department and requested the inspector meet them personally. This is direct
interference and they have used their political connections to essentially prevent Mr. Walker from
performing his role as the licensed contractor and the rightful permit holder. Apparently, the inspector
came to meet your clients at 7:30am, before the inspectors schedule for the day was posted to the
contractor portal. Once the inspection report was available, Mr. Walker contacted the inspector to find
out what had happened and why his inspection was completed prior to the inspector’s schedule being
posted. The inspector was combative and refused to provide the information to Mr. Walker. It was after
this occurred that Mr. Walker became aware of your clients interference with and collusion with the
City of Sebastian Building Department. There were numerous times throughout this project that your
clients advised Mr. Walker that they had friends and family in local government and they know a lot of
people. Mr. Walker did not think anything of this at the time, but now began to understand what those
statements meant.
As per protocol on every inspection that lists corrections to the work, Mr. Walker coordinated with your
clients to come back and make the corrections necessary per the inspector report. After the
corrections were made, a reinspect was scheduled for May 8th. Again, Mr. Walker went on to the
contractor portal to check that his inspection was assigned to an inspector and see his schedule. The
inspection was assigned to a different inspector and he waited all day to time when he would need to
be there on site to meet the inspector. Around 2:00pm, Mr. Walker received a call from the same
inspector that came on April 28th, 2025. The inspector told Mr. Walker he was not able to access the
home as no one answered the door. Mr. Walker asked why the other inspector was not completing the
inspection as he had been watching the assigned inspector’s route to be able to be there. He was not
provided an answer, and the inspector told him he was canceling the inspection until Mr. Walker
uploaded pictures to the contractor portal.
On May 13th, 2025, the pictures and a letter were uploaded to the contractor portal. Mr. Walker tried
on numerous occasions to coordinate with your clients for the reinspect, however, they refused to
allow the inspection until their demands were met. Mr. Walker explained to your clients that the issues
from the first inspection had been addressed and that he needed to be present for the inspection so
that he could show the inspector what could not be addressed with pictures. Your clients were not
agreeable. Mr. Walker explained that the leak in the one window was possibly a manufacturer defect or
from the stucco bands that needed to be sealed, primed and painted. Your clients chose to save
money by doing this work themselves. At this time, your clients have still failed to complete this work
which is most likely where the leak is coming from.
On May 28th 2025, your clients sent Mr. Walker a lengthy email with their demands and complaints, to
which Mr. Walker replied the same evening. Their email boiled down to your clients being unhappy
with the drywall finishing on the jambs, which Mr. Walker saw no issue with, and they claimed the one
window was still leaking. Mr. Walker asked your clients to send him pictures of the window they had
an issue with so that he could assess where the leak was coming from and come prepared to fix it.
They sent a couple of pictures of the exterior of the window and an old picture of the inside two days
later. Mr. Marini texted Mr. Walker on May 30th, 2025 to tell him that the permit was set to expire on
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
Sunday June 1st, 2025. Mr. Walker informed Mr. Marini that was not the case as the permit was active
and had an approved inspection as required by Florida Building Code.
On Monday June 2nd, 2025, Mr. Walker received a letter from the City of Sebastian building
Department stating that his permit had expired. Upon receipt of this letter, Mrs. Walker contacted the
building department to find out what was going on. She was informed by a building official Dan Hainey
that your clients had been constantly contacting the building department making false claims and
statements and he was under the impression the job had been “abandoned”. After lengthy discussion
and communications over the next two days, Mr. Hainey agreed to contact your clients to schedule
the reinspect. Your clients had again interfered with Mr. Walker completing his job and fulfilling his
requirements with the building department. Mr. Walker attributes your clients inappropriate
interference to the fact that they do not want to pay for the work Mr. Walker has completed on their
home.
On June 2nd 2025, your clients sent Mr. Walker another hostile email with additional demands and
requested a response by June 5th, 2025. On June 4th, 2025, the building department reactivated Mr.
Walker’s permit and he submitted a written response to the building department regarding the expired
permit letter and summarized the ongoing issues with your clients via email on June 3rd, 2025 and
uploaded to the contractor portal on June 4th, 2025.
On June 5th, 2025, Mr. Walker met the building inspector at your client’s home. Mr. Marini was hostile,
and made false accusations against Mr. Walker, including saying he had not heard from him for over a
month. This is demonstrably false. Mr. Walker was on site May 8th, 2025, and had numerous text
message and email communications with your clients over the course of May most recently on June
2nd. Your clients advised Mr. Walker in their email on June 2nd that they had spoken to people at the
building department and with “other reputable contractors” that advised them (wrongly) of what Mr.
Walker was required to do to meet their demands. Mr. Marini told the inspector that his one window
was leaking and the inspector told Mr. Marini that window leaks are not part of his inspection.
During the inspection, it was found that the clips to the mullions installed on three windows were not in
place. Mr. Walker discussed his plan for attaching the clips without having to remove the window with
the inspectors and they agreed that his plan would be acceptable. Mr. Walker asked the inspectors to
make the notes in their report on any deficiencies and told them and your clients that he would correct
the issues and request a reinspection when that was done. To be clear, there was no additional cost to
your clients for the correction of this issue.
After the inspection, Mr. Walker and Mr. Marini went together to look at the window your clients claim
was still leaking. Mr. Walker showed Mr. Marini that the sealant around the window frame where it
meets the stucco bands was completely sealed, and that no more sealant could be applied to that
area and it was impossible for the leak to be coming from that location. Mr. Walker then pointed out to
Mr. Marini that there were gaps where the stucco bands meet the exterior wall and those gaps needed
to be sealed immediately along with unprimed stucco which his porous and requires primer to be
applied to seal it. Mr. Marini told Mr. Walker he thought that was his job, and Mr. Walker again
explained that it was not, it was part of the job of the painter, which is your clients. Upon Mr. Walker’s
inspection of the rest of the windows with the inspector, Mr. Walker observed that all the windows
were properly sealed and completed, but observed that the stucco to wall caulking, priming and
painting had not been completed. Eight of those eleven windows were install in January, which means
your clients failed to complete this work for almost six months and the other three windows had been
installed for over a month with this work still not being completed.
At some point after the inspection, your clients contacted someone at the building department and
interfered again, and this time it led to an argument between Mr. Walker and the building official,
Wayne Eseltine. Mr. Eseltine told Mr. Walker that he would have to expose the framing of the three
windows with the mullion clips. This is not typically required for a window and door replacement. Mr.
Walker and Mr. Eseltine had numerous email exchanges and Mr. Eseltine refused to concede the
requirement. Mr. Walker was put in a difficult position now in which he is obligated to comply with the
building official in order to close out this permit, but it would require additional work and cost to your
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
clients. This was the work that required the change order, and was completely unrelated to the minor
issues discussed during the inspection.
Mr. Walker responded to your clients June 2nd email on June 5th, 2025 and explained in detail what
would need to be done in order to satisfy the building official and a rough estimate of the cost, along
with an in depth explanation and list of what needed to be done by your clients (the painters) to seal
up the windows around the stucco bands. He advised your clients that the permit was active and he
would be meeting with the building official and City Manager to discuss this whole situation on
Tuesday, June 10, 2025.
Your clients responded to Mr. Walker’s email on June 6th, 2025 requesting a detailed proposal for the
additional work required by the building official. On June 9, 2025, Mr. Walker sent your clients a
change order with a detailed description of the additional work that needed to be completed per the
building officials requirement.
On June 10, 2025, Mr. And Mrs. Walker met with the building official and the city manager to try to
come to a resolution and address other concerns with how this permit was being handled. Mr. Walker
tried to come to an agreement with the building official that would eliminate the need for the additional
work to be completed on your client’s project. The building official told Mr. Walker he was not going to
compromise and he didn’t think Mr. Walker should charge your clients for the additional work. Mr.
Walker again explained that if the building official would simply let him correct the issues on the
inspection report in the manner they agreed to at the inspection, then that would be the case.
Unfortunately, the interference from your clients made that impossible. The City Manager assisted Mr.
Walker with an agreement to extend the permit for 90 days so that we could discuss the issue with
your clients and give them time to decide how they wanted to proceed.
Due to your clients interfering with Mr. Walker’s permit and inspection process with the building
department, they have caused Mr. Walker to be in a no win position. He must comply with the building
official requirements, and he cannot absorb the costs associated with performing additional work
without being paid to do so. In addition, your clients did not respond to the change order sent to them
by Mr. Walker and did not contact him to discuss why this was needed.
Your clients are required to pay Mr. Walker for the work completed on their project. Your letter states
that your clients are essentially firing Mr. Walker and will not allow him to make the necessary
corrections per the building inspector report and they do not want Mr. Walker to perform the work
required for him to satisfy the building official requirements in order to close out the permit. Your
clients are fully within their right to terminate their contract with Mr. Walker, however, Mr. Walker is fully
within his right to pursue payment for the work he completed.
Mr. Walker’s permit for this project is open and active with minor corrections needed and additional
work now required to receive final approval. Mr. Walker does not have the ability to separate parts of
the project. Your demand that Mr. Walker do whatever is necessary with no further expense to your
clients to complete the My Safe Florida Home project and obtain the final inspection and approval
from the City of Sebastian within seven days is not possible. Your clients will not allow Mr. Walker to
perform any additional work, nor will they allow him to make the corrections necessary to receive final
approval from the building department.
Your clients need to be informed that failing an inspection only means that the contractor has to
correct deficiencies in order to receive a pass. Your clients windows do not need to be removed and
redone, as stated multiple times in this letter. There are minor corrections that need to be made (at no
additional cost to your clients) and additional work the building official is requiring to be completed in
order to receive final inspection approval. Your clients are out of line accusing Mr. Walker of poor
workmanship, and your clients lack the knowledge and understanding of construction and permitting
which is why they should have allowed Mr. Walker to do his job instead of interfering in his field of
expertise. Mr. Walker provided your clients with a proposal for work based on the visible conditions he
observed. When those conditions are different from what was planned for, it results in a change order
and additional cost.
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
It is not Mr. Walker’s fault that your clients interfered with his permit, and it is very common with all
construction projects that there are unforeseen conditions and additional costs that arise. Your clients
experienced this when the windows could not be installed as planned and resulted in added cost.
They decided to proceed with the window replacement and additional costs associated with it. They
are not appalled that there is an additional cost associated with additional work required to complete
their project. They simply do not want to pay for that work and they wanted Mr. Walker to do that work
for free. Mr. Walker has no confidence that your clients will pay for the additional work required, which
is why payment for that work was requested up front. Mr. Walker believes this is a reasonable request
considering your clients behavior and actions.
Your clients are not entitled to any of the permit documents as those belong to Mr. Walker. Upon
payment of Mr. Walker’s final invoice, any and all documents that they are entitled to will be provided
to your clients. If your clients choose not to pay their final invoice for the work completed on their
home, Mr. Walker will exercise his right to file a lien against your clients property.
In your letter, it states that your clients are retaining a new contractor to “repair defective work” (a
completely false assumption and statement that the work performed by Mr. Walker was defective)
however, you have demanded Mr. Walker do everything necessary to complete the work on the My
Safe Florida Home project, which is not separate and all work is under one permit. Are you firing Mr.
Walker and obtaining a new contractor? If so, that new contractor will have to get their own permit for
the work Mr. Walker has already completed. You have confidence in Mr. Walker’s ability to obtain final
approval on some items included in the permit but not others? That is a direct contradiction of your
demands.
In order to resolve the dispute between your clients and Mr. Walker, Mr. Walker has made the following
offers:
1.Mr. Walker will perform the minor corrections needed per the building inspectors report from the
June 5, 2025 inspection with the requirement that your clients contact the building department and
obtain in writing assurance from the building official that if Mr. Walker makes these minor
corrections stated in the report, the inspector will not require Mr. Walker to complete any additional
work in order to obtain the final approval. Your clients must also agree in writing to provide Mr.
Walker with access to their home and to provide access to the inspector so that they can perform
their required inspections.
2. If your clients pay Mr. Walker’s final invoice in full, Mr. Walker will agree to sign a change of
contractor document which allows your client’s new contractor to take over the permit without
applying for a new permit and will provide all the documents associated with the permit and the
Materials installed.
Thank you in advance for your prompt response.
Regards,
_____________________________________________
Mark Walker
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
jclark@mmhlaw.com
TAMPA • MIAMI
June 19, 2025
VIA EMAIL- mark@mkwbuilders.com
MKW Builders, LLC
4113 Abington Woods Cir.
Vero Beach, Florida 32967
Re: Breach of Contract Involving Marini Residential construction project
Our clients: Steven and Diana Marini
Contract Date: November 5, 2024
MMH Ref: 02-839
Dear MKW Builders, LLC:
I am in receipt of your letter dated June 12, 2025, as well as a copy of the text message you
sent to my client despite my request that you direct all future correspondence to my attention and not
contact the Marinis directly. I assume you will cease any further direct contact with them as you
stated you would in the text message.
As an initial matter, you may rest assured that my clients have no interest in prolonging this
matter with you. That being said, your letter was not well-received. It is clear that your intention is
to place the blame for your mistakes and poor workmanship on every company (Home Depot),
public entity (City of Sebastian), and every *former* customer (the Marinis) in an effort to avoid
taking responsibility yourself. This is no way to run a business and does not bode well for your
future prospects of remaining in business. This is unfortunate because my clients were hopeful and
had every intention of supporting your small business from the outset, but you have made them
regret that decision.
The Marinis want to specifically address a few of your false statements – it would be too
time-consuming and not worth the effort to address all of the false statements in your letter. The
Marinis have no special connections within the City of Sebastian building department. They have no
control or influence over the building code or how the code is enforced by the City of Sebastian.
They are simply highly competent individuals capable of tracking down the right person to contact
for information. Their first contact with the building department was when Mrs. Marini needed to
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
MKW Builders, LLC
June 19, 2025
Page 2
MURRAY, MORIN & HERMAN, P.A.
TAMPA • MIAMI
know when the inspector was going to arrive because she had to be away from the home in the
morning dealing with issues with the family’s dog’s torn ACL. She was not able to obtain
information from you and you had just screamed at Mr. Marini the day before, so she contacted the
building department. The first time either of the Marinis met the first inspector was on the morning
of the inspection (April 28, 2025). At that time, the inspector noted that there was a large number of
screws missing from all windows and there were no photos of the clips required for 3 arch windows,
so your work failed inspection. When you attempted to have the missing screws installed, your crew
used the wrong size screws that did not meet the code, and they tried to fix leaking windows with
caulk, advising they had never caulked any of the windows prior to that time.
The second inspection that was supposed to take place on May 8, 2025, was canceled by the
inspector because he saw there were no photos in the packet. My clients could not get a solid answer
from you despite multiple texts asking you what the next step would be. Your responses to those
texts were non-committal and appeared to be attempts to simply brush them off. Finally, they
understood why you were trying to brush them off when you responded to their email of May 28,
2025, requesting your anticipated completion timeline. Your response was to tell the Marinis they
would need to hire someone else because you weren’t going to do anything further to satisfy the
inspectors regarding anything that was already done. Based on your response, the Marinis met with
other contractors and spoke with Dan at the building department (for the first time ever), to ask
whether the permit could be split – he noted the permit was set to expire soon.
On June 4, 2025, there was another inspection (although you had not done anything the
building inspector told you needed to be done). The inspector noted every window had the wrong
size screws and you told the inspector and the Marinis that you would “make it right.” To the
contrary, you proposed increased pricing, all paid up front to complete the work that was only not
complete because you did it incorrectly.
In short, this needs to end. Every false statement you have made is refuted by documents and
witnesses that the Marinis have been gathering. The Marinis will not pay you anything further. The
Marinis have been advised you can close out the My Safe FL Home portion of the permit by
canceling the window portion of the permit in an amended permit application. That will allow you to
close out that aspect. The Marinis further demand that you provide them a Paid in Full receipt on the
My Safe FL Home contract – they have, in fact, paid that contract in full.
The building department has advised the Marinis that your work on the windows requires
removal and reinstallation – that is not something the Marinis have any influence over and your
claims in this regard are absurd. The Marinis have no confidence in your ability to fix the window
project so that it conforms with code and they refuse to be yelled at by you because you messed up
and don’t know how to fix it.
Turning to your threat to file a lien against the property, you would be wise to avoid taking
any such action. You are not owed any further money. The contract you drafted clearly does not
require payment of anything further until you obtain a certificate of completion from the City, which
you refused to accomplish without demanding pre-payment of additional sums. This is unethical and
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
MKW Builders, LLC
June 19, 2025
Page 3
MURRAY, MORIN & HERMAN, P.A.
TAMPA • MIAMI
in no way required by the Marinis under the contract. You have no basis for any claim of lien. If you
file a fraudulent lien against the property and force the Marinis to defend it, they will be entitled to
recover from you all attorneys’ fees and costs they incur.
Understand that the Marinis are not negotiating with you except to give you an additional
seven (7) days from today to do get your permit modified so you can close out the My Safe FL
Home project and provide them with the certificate of completion and Paid In Full receipt.
Failure to comply with any of the demands set forth in my previous letter or the above
demand will result in a lawsuit being filed against you.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
JENNIFER M. CLARK
JMC
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
June 19, 2025
Murray, Morin & Herman, P.A.
3550 Buschwood Park Drive
Suite 130
Tampa, FL 33618
RE: Breach of Contract Involving Marini Residential Construction Project
Clients: Steven & Diana Marini
Ms. Clark,
We are in receipt of your second letter sent via email on June 19, 2025 on behalf of your clients Steven
and Diane Marini. We are not going to address the lies and false statements you have made in your letter
except for one. Your clients claim that the “building department” told them the windows had to be
removed and reinstalled is an outrageous claim. Mr. Walker was with Wayne Eseltine (Head building
official) and Dan Hainey (Second in charge building official) during the inspection, presented his plan for
adding the clips and both the top two building officials AGREED that would satisfy their requirements.
Once Mr. Walker executed his plan and changed out a couple of screws in the windows, he would have
went for re-inspection and PASSED. That’s how permits and inspections work. Its unprecedented for
homeowners to be interfering with a contractor and his permit with the building department, and even
more bizarre is that your clients have tried to prevent Mr. Walker from finalizing his permit. The only
explanation for this Mr. Walker can think of is that your clients were trying to justify not paying for the
work MKW Builders completed on their home.
Your clients have failed to fulfill their obligations of our contract. Specifically, your clients are in breach of
contract by failing to cooperate with the contractor in order to complete the work necessary to satisfy the
permit requirements of the City of Sebastian Building Department. Your clients have obstructed Mr.
Walker’s performance of the contract and interfered with Mr. Walker’s work and with his permit for the
work issued by the City of Sebastian Building Department. Your clients have refused to accept and make
payment for the additional work required by the City of Sebastian Building Department as outlined in the
Change Order provided to your clients on June 9, 2025.
Your clients have terminated the contract with MKW Builders, as you made clear in your letter by
notifying us that the Marinis are our “Former Customers”. The project was substantially completed and
required minor corrections to satisfy the building department, which the contractor has every right to do.
It is extremely uncommon for an owner to obstruct the contractor from completing his job. You also
noted that “the Marinis are not negotiating with you”, which backs up Mr. Walker’s claim that your clients
are refusing to cooperate with Mr. Walker and obstructing him from performing his job.
As Mr. Walker has told you in his previous letter and told your clients on numerous occasions, ALL OF
THE WORK CONTRACTED BY MKW BUILDERS AND YOUR CLIENTS IS UNDER ONE PERMIT. Mr.
Walker does not have multiple permits on your client’s home, the final inspection and approval is on ALL
of the work included under the ONE permit, and payment for ALL of the work must be satisfied before
Mr. Walker will provide your clients with a receipt.
Mr. Walker will exercise his right to file a lien against your client’ property if they fail to pay their final
balance of $9,200.00 within 14 days of June 19, 2025.
The Final Invoice for the work completed on your clients home is attached to this letter as you
have requested all communication be directed to you and not with our “former” clients.
Regards,
_____________________________________________
Mark Walker
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
jclark@mmhlaw.com
TAMPA • MIAMI
June 26, 2025
VIA EMAIL- mark@mkwbuilders.com
MKW Builders, LLC
4113 Abington Woods Cir.
Vero Beach, Florida 32967
Re: Breach of Contract Involving Marini Residential construction project
Our clients: Steven and Diana Marini
Contract Date: November 5, 2024
MMH Ref: 02-839
Dear MKW Builders, LLC:
I am in receipt of your letter dated June 19, 2025. It is astonishing that you are continuing to
take the position you are taking.
First, the Marinis obviously would have no incentive to interfere with getting final approval
of the work even if they had such power, which they don’t. They have wanted nothing more than to
be done with this process and not have to deal with you anymore. The simple fact is, you failed to
comply with the building code and the manufacturer’s installation instructions when you installed
the windows. The Marinis were, in fact, prepared to allow you to fix your mistake, but you insisted
on being paid more than the contract amount up front and with no reason to believe you would not
try to add additional costs while fixing your mistake, which you acknowledged in your June 6, 2025
letter. The Marinis never agreed to pay you any additional amount beyond what was originally
proposed in the contract.
Second, the Marinis were present during the inspection in which you claim you advised the
City officials of your plan and they approved it. No such discussion took place. All you said was that
you would take care of it. The Marinis were astonished by your subsequent “plan” to install the
brackets without removing the windows. Therefore, they have asked other contractors and the City
officials whether it would be possible to install the brackets without removing the windows and, of
course, nobody believes there is any way to do that but you.
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
MKW Builders, LLC
June 26, 2025
Page 2
MURRAY,MORIN &HERMAN,P.A.
TAMPA •MIAMI
Third, it was your choice, not the Marinis’, to obtain a single permit for both projects,
although they are separate contracts. This is another error you should fix and provide the Marinis
with a paid in full receipt for the My Safe Florida Home project – they have paid that in full,
although you failed to obtain the City approval as required before their obligation to pay you under
the contract.
The Marinis are working to remedy your mistakes to hopefully ensure their home is safe for
the hurricane season, which has already begun now. As stated in my previous letter, there is nothing
further that the Marinis owe you under any legal theory whatsoever. There is no aspect of your
written contract that has been breached by the Marinis; the only breach has been by you. Therefore,
any attempt on your part to file a lien against their property would be fraudulent and ill-advised. If
you do go forward with such a foolish decision, the Marinis are prepared to defeat your lien and
recover all their attorneys’ fees and costs against you.
Govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
JENNIFER M. CLARK
JMC
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
June 26, 2025
Murray, Morin & Herman, P.A.
3550 Buschwood Park Drive
Suite 130
Tampa, FL 33618
RE: Breach of Contract Involving Marini Residential Construction Project
Clients: Steven & Diana Marini
Ms. Clark,
We are in receipt of your third letter sent via email on June 26, 2025 on behalf of your clients Steven and
Diane Marini. As stated in our previous response letter, Mr. Walker has an active and open permit with the
City of Sebastian for the project on your client’s home. It seems you do not understand how permits and
inspections work. Mr. Walker has already explained this multiple times to both you and your clients,
however you have failed to understand it. You are making statements that the installation failed to meet
building code and manufacturer instructions as if the corrections could not be made in order to pass
inspection. That is FALSE. Inspections are simply part of the construction process to make sure the work
is completed according to plan. When an inspection is failed, the contractor contacts the inspector, goes
over the deficiencies in the inspectors report and makes the corrections. The work is then reinspected
and receives a pass which closes out the project.
Mr. Walker did not request your clients pay an additional amount for the corrections needed. Your clients
did agree to pay the additional costs of the window installation when Mr. Marini and Mr. Walker had a
discussion, in person, that the proposed plan for the window replacement would not be possible and in
order for Mr. Walker to complete the project there would be additional labor and material costs. Your
clients AGREED to proceed with the work and to pay for the additional costs to complete the work.
Those costs are reflected in the final invoice sent to you on June 19, 2025. The balance due is $9,200.00.
Your clients have continued to interfere with Mr. Walker’s building permit and have obstructed Mr. Walker
from finishing their project. What your clients have failed to comprehend is that their interference along
with the misguided advice of third parties and lack of knowledge regarding building inspections has put
Mr. Walker in no win situation. The building official is requiring Mr. Walker to complete a Framing
Inspection, which entails the actual wood framing on the exterior walls around the windows. That is not
part of a window replacement permit, however, in this case due to your client’s interference, that is what
the Building Official wants him to do. Since this work was not included in the proposal, Mr. Walker sent
your clients a Change Order, which was for $5,000.00 in order to complete the additional work required
by the Building Official. To be clear, this work has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CORRECTIONS ON THE
INSPECTORS REPORT. Mr. Walker has no choice but to satisfy the Building Official’s requirements per
Building Code. It is the additional FRAMING work and materials that make up the $5,000.00 amount
detailed in the Change Order. Your clients chose not to agree to the change order, which obstructs Mr.
Walker from satisfying the Building Official’s requirements.
Perhaps your clients did not hear or understand what Mr. Walker, Mr. Hainey and Mr. Esseltine discussed
and agreed to during the inspection, however, Mr. Walker is certainly prepared to have Mr. Hainey and Mr.
Esseltine testify to their discussion. Your clients are receiving misinformation from whoever they are
contacting at the building department and other “contractors” they have spoken to. Mr. Walker’s plan for
the process of correcting the deficiencies on the windows is not the concern of your clients, nor was it
going to cost your clients additional money. Mr. Walker’s plan for correcting the deficiencies was between
him and the building inspector. As long as Mr. Walker made the corrections to the satisfaction of the
Building Inspector, the work would have been approved. Mr. Walker does not need to explain to your
clients his plan, nor would he, as they have no knowledge of construction and process, which is obvious
from the false statements and accusations they have made.
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
The proposals for the project were only separated into two sheets due to your clients needing to submit to
the My Safe Florida Home Grant Program a proposal that only included the portions of the work covered
under their grant approval. Your clients wrote ONE deposit check, and Mr. Walker pulled One permit for
the work. Your clients have made two payments towards the total amount due. There is no separation of
the work, nor do your clients determine how the payments made are applied. The initial deposit did not
cover the total cost of materials for the project, let alone the labor. This project is beyond substantially
completed. Your clients are required to pay Mr. Walker for the work completed on their project. If your
clients fail to pay the remaining balance owed to Mr. Walker, he will file a lien against your clients for failure
to pay. Mr. Walker is confident that he will be successful against your clients, and that he will be awarded
attorney fees, interest, damages and other costs related to this matter. Mr. Walker has been in constant
communication with your clients and immediately responded to your emails. The undo stress and
hardship your clients have caused him and his company are unwarranted and unacceptable.
Mr. Walker requests that your clients stop any work they are doing related to the project he has an open
permit for. In addition, Mr. Walker is going to alert the City of Sebastian Building Department that your
clients are engaging in construction work without authorization or supervision by Mr. Walker while his
permit is active, which is another breach of contract and violation of building code. In order to protect
himself from the liability of your clients performing unlicensed/unauthorized work under his permit, he will
request the City of Sebastian Building Department immediately issue a stop work order to your clients
until this issue is resolved.
As a side note, you are not Mr. Walker’s legal representative, and stating his lien claim is “fraudulent and
ill-advised” is highly inappropriate and unprofessional, especially considering your assessment is wildly
inaccurate and based on false statements made by your clients. The foul tone of your letters is not well
received and it is counterproductive to resolving this simple dispute. Mr. Walker has been more than
willing to work with you and your clients to come to a resolution on this matter and he has responded to
your letters respectfully. Your clients are in breach of contract for obstructing Mr. Walker from fulfilling his
job performance, failed to accept a change order for additional work required by the Building official, and
failing to pay for the work that Mr. Walker has completed on your client’s home.
Mr. Walker does not believe that further communication with you and your clients will result in a resolution
to this matter. If the balance owed to Mr. Walker for the work completed on your clients home has not
been paid by July 7, 2025, Mr. Walker will proceed with filing a lien against your clients for non-payment.
Govern yourself accordingly.
Regards,
_____________________________________________
Mark Walker
EXHIBIT 10 - DOCUMENTATION SHOWING HOMEOWNER INTERFERENCE AND CITY BUILDING
OFFICIALS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO OWNER
EXPIRED PERMIT NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Date:
Contractor:
Permit No:
6/2/2025
MKW BUILDERS LLC
4113 ABINGTON WOODS CIR
VERO BEACH, FL 32958
24-4148
Owner:DIANA & STEVEN M MARINI
113 REDGRAVE DR
SEBASTIAN, FL 32958
Work Description:
Permit Address:
WINDOW / DOOR REPLACEMENT
113 REDGRAVE DR, SEBASTIAN, FL 32958
Dear Permit Holder,
The above referenced permit(s) has not had an approved inspection for 180 days and is now expired. In
accordance with Florida Building Code Section 105.4 and City of Sebastian Land Development Code 54-1-2.3(2)
permits that have expired due to lack of progress or abandonment become null and void. By way of this letter a
STOP WORK ORDER IS NOW IN EFFECT for the above permit(s) and no further inspections are
authorized. A violation has been placed on this property, which may jeopardize the issuance of any future permits
and/or sale of said property.
The original permit may be re-instated within 30 days from the date this notice of violation is received with a
written request to the Building Official showing just cause for the delay and paying the expired permit fee. Re-
instatements and period of time allotted to obtain an approved inspection will be at the discretion of the Building
Official.
NOTE: Expired permits that are not re-instated within 180 days from the original expiration date require a
new permit in accordance with FBC 105.4.1.2. A new permit application will be required along with appropriate
plan submittals. All existing work and new work is required to be brought up to the current code. New permit(s)
will require the payment of all permit fees including applicable sub-permits and plan review fees.
LICENSED CONTRACTORS who fail to comply with the above directive may have an immediate
administrative hold placed on their license. The department may seek disciplinary action through the City of
Sebastian Construction Board.
If you have questions, please contact the Building Department at 772-589-5537
Sincerely,
Wayne Eseltine
Building Official
Expiration Date:6/1/2025
EXHIBIT 11 - EXPIRED PERMIT, RESPONSE, AND EXTENSION
Mailing Address: 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, FL 32967
Phone: (772) 360-8980 Email: Contact @MKWbuilders.com
License # CBC 1267842
June 2, 2025
Sebastian Building Department
1225 Main Street
Sebastian, FL 32958
RE: Expired Permit Notice of Violation
Permit 24-4148
113 Redgrave Dr.
We obtained this permit December 3, 2024 to include the scope of work for the following: Replace garage
door, front entry door and 1 skylight under the My Safe Florida Home Grant and replace existing windows
with new impact windows. The windows were not part of the grant, however all work was performed
under one permit.
We coordinated with the owner to begin the work on December 16, 2024. We installed the new skylight,
garage door and the front door. There were no issues. The owner requested we wait until he was home
on vacation over the holidays to install the windows. Unfortunately, we aren’t available during the
holidays. The first week of January, we coordinated to begin the window work. Upon trying to remove the
first window, it was clear that the originally proposed process to remove the windows was not going to be
possible. It would now involve removing the stucco bands from the exterior which is a time consuming
and involved process. Prior to continuing the removal, Mark spoke to the owner to notify him of the
situation and asked if he still wanted to proceed with the job. The owner said he wanted the windows
replaced and understood there was going to be an extra cost associated with this.
They continued to remove and replace the windows and finished the majority. We discovered 3 of the
windows were the incorrect size. Home Depot had made a mistake. We had to order the 3 new windows
and hold on finishing the replacement until those windows came in. During the wait, the stucco bands,
window sills and drywall was finished on the majority of the windows. Upon arrival of the replacement
windows, Home Depot did not order them with lattice another mistake. The owner had a meltdown at the
store. We told him we could install the lattice on the exterior, or he would have to wait for new windows
with the lattice. He chose to wait for new windows. This decision caused another delay that was out of
our control.
The owners complained nonstop, demanding I leave my other jobs to come there to be harassed. I sent
my crew to the job numerous times to satisfy the owners complaints and to correct some minor
deficiencies that I saw when I was there to inspect the work. In total, we have been to this project at
least 10 different times. After taking the harassment and abuse from these owners for months, I had
enough and told them to stop harassing me or I would not continue the project.
On or about March 26th, we returned to the project to install the 3rd set of the 3 windows that had
arrived. Unfortunately, a window was broken during the install process, so we had to order a replacement
AT OUR COST. When that window came in, we scheduled the install on our about the 23rd of April. While
waiting for the final window to come in, the stucco and drywall was completed on the other windows.
After we installed the final window, we called in for inspection on April 25th.
EXHIBIT 11 - EXPIRED PERMIT, RESPONSE, AND EXTENSION
The day before the inspection, on April 27th, the owner sent us pictures of the windows and what
looked to be water on the floor inside the house. He told us his windows were leaking. It had not
rained so we didn’t understand where the water was coming from. When we zoomed in on the picture
he sent, you can see him standing in front of the window with the hose. He said he was using the hose
to clean the windows. We told him NOT TO DO THIS because the caulking and unprimed stucco needs
time to cure. He continued to do it, and according to the wife, they “lightly used the hose to clean the
windows”. THEY CAN’T PUT THE HOSE ON THE WINDOWS FOR A WEEK TO ALLOW THE
POLYURETHANE SEALANT/STUCCO TO CURE!!!!! Can’t be more clear about the instructions.
The inspector came at 7:30am, never notified us that he would be out that early, and did the walk
through with the owner. The inspector was correct about the screws in the door, the garage was
approved. He wanted pictures of window bucks, mull bar clips, and skylight framing and fasteners.
The inspector, John Parker, was rude, did not cite any building code on his report and when questioned
he was combative. Mark returned the attitude.
We returned within a few days to recaulk and remove the trim strips off the windows, switch out the
couple of screws for the longer screws in the front door, and make sure all screws in the windows were
attached and secured according to the NOAs. We called in for reinspection on May 8th, about a week
from the first inspection. Mark kept checking the schedule for the assigned inspector, (Andrew Yacko)
however, his job was not showing on the schedule. At around 2pm, John Parker called Mark to tell him
he didn’t have anything to inspect because he had not sent the pictures. If this inspector felt
“threatened”, why did he take this inspection over from Mr. Yacko?
It became obvious at that point that the owner was interfering with the permit and was calling the
building department to complain about our company. The owners have threatened us that they have a
lot of “pull” in Sebastian and the owners brother is the Fire Chief. We don’t care who they know, they
hired us to do a job and we have done it. Them creating drama and causing problems for us is over.
These people are nasty, rude, obnoxious and cheap. We have not abandoned their job, or stopped
answering their texts, emails and phone calls which we receive from them DAILY.
On May 13th we sent pictures along with a letter explaining the situation with the owner blasting his
newly installed windows with the hose constantly. We received an email stating the document uploaded
had been accepted by the building dept. Unfortunately, the owner has told us we can’t call in for
inspection because they have issues they want addressed before they will allow access to the home for
inspection.
On May 28th, the owners sent us an email manifesto with demands and complaints which is typical for
them. We responded the same day and explained that complaints about drywall, stucco, time delays
due to multiple window orders, etc. were not related to getting the inspection done. They claim 1
window is leaking, we asked for pictures but they didn’t have them of the actual leak, so they sent us
pictures a couple of days later. We don’t see anything that would cause the windows to leak. We
explained to them numerous times that it could be a manufacturer issue which they would have to take
up with them. Apparently, that’s not what they want to hear.
The owner texted mark this weekend to tell him they weren’t ready for inspection because Mark had
not been to their home to look at their window and listen to their complaining. He also told Mark the
permit was going to expire so how was he going to deal with that. First of all, in over 25 years of
experience in construction, we have NEVER had an owner behave in this manner. This owner called the
building department to instruct them to send us a letter that their permit expired. The Florida Building
Code requires work to commence within 180 days on a permit, (We started work within 2 weeks of the
permit being issued on December 3, 2024). We had an inspection on April 28th, and received an
EXHIBIT 11 - EXPIRED PERMIT, RESPONSE, AND EXTENSION
inspection result of “failed” although in his notes he states “Garage OK”. So is that an approval as
required by code? In our opinion it is. In addition, on the permit application, it states “THIS PERMIT
BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS
FROM ISSUANCE, OR IF CONSTRUCTION IS SUSPENDED, OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180
DAYS AT ANY TIME.” The work did commence two weeks after issue, and we had an inspection,
corrected the deficiencies and then due to the inspector refusing to return until we sent pictures
instead of inspecting the work and the owner refusing to allow access for inspection, our hands were
tied. We have never had a situation in which a permit is considered expired during the inspection phase
and it seems this was done based on interference from the owner. The job has never been abandoned
and we have been there working from two weeks after the permit issue date until present. We are fully
prepared to explain this to the Sebastian Construction Board if necessary. The issue date on the permit
was 12/3/24. The letter we received today, 6/2/25 states the permit expired on 6/1/25 The work is
completed and ready to be inspected but the owner has told us we can’t request inspection because
they will not allow access to the home until their demands are satisfied and due to their influence at
the building department, there’s nothing we can do.
Upon receipt of this letter stating our permit was expired, we called and spoke with an employee
Courtney. I asked to speak with Wayne Eseltine as that is the person who signed the letter. Apparently
he is out of the office until Thursday. I then asked since he wasn’t there who sent the letter. Courtney
said it was her or Darren. Then after asking her to pull up the documents on this job she put me on
hold for 5 minutes and then came back and said the department was “aware” of the permit and that
she sent the letter and I would have to speak with Dan Hainey. We were given Dan’s cell phone
number and we called, left a message and then texted him requesting a call back.
Upon Dan returning the call, he was defensive and over speaking me. I allowed him to continue
speaking even though he was making false accusations and incorrect statements. He told me that the
owner had been calling the building department constantly, making false claims and creating drama
that was unnecessary. As a Certified Building Contractor, I take my license and career very seriously
and I will not allow an unstable erratic homeowner to tarnish my career and company, and I don’t care
who their brother is or what “pull” they think they have. This crossed a major ethical line.
After speaking with Dan at length regarding this project, he agreed to contact the owner to schedule
the inspection and the inspection would be performed by him personally. He asked if we had additional
pictures that we could send and I told him I would include whatever additional pictures we have with
this response. I followed up by text with him, sending him a picture of the finished and installed
windows and asked him to notify us of the day/time he would be doing the inspection so that Mark
could attend. I asked Dan for clarification on the picture he wanted with regards to the mullion clips,
and if he could provide the code so that I could understand what he wanted. Mark was in the field and
I was trying to get all the information together to discuss when he got back to the office.
Just before 5pm, I texted Dan to ask if he had spoken with the owner, and he told me he had not but
that he would reach out to them tomorrow. I called him as Mark was walking in the door and Mark
spoke with Dan. Mark explained to Dan that the windows are a retrofit and the mullion clips were
installed per NOA specifications, but he didn’t take pictures of the clips. He then asked if that was a a
requirement and where that was stated. Dan said that 9 out of 10 installations come with pictures but
that a framing inspection was not required on a retrofit and only required on a new build. Dan then told
Mark that next time, even though a framing inspection is NOT REQUIRED, the inspector could come
out the same day to inspect because you are a small department. Mark told him he appreciated the
availability, and that next time, even though it is NOT REQUIRED he would be sure to take pictures of
the clips.
EXHIBIT 11 - EXPIRED PERMIT, RESPONSE, AND EXTENSION
This evening we received a second email manifesto from the owner. Here is an excerpt of that email:
We also consulted the building department to clarify the requirements for final inspection. We were informed that
clear photos of the brackets attached to the mullbars are necessary. The photos you uploaded do not show the
required brackets. Every contractor we spoke with confirmed that not only are the brackets required, but
verifiable photographic documentation is needed to obtain approval.
If the brackets were indeed installed, you are welcome to return to the site, cut the drywall as necessary to
expose them, and take the appropriate photographs to provide to the inspector. This is your responsibility, and we
expect it to be handled promptly.
We are requesting that you contact the owner to advise them that whoever they spoke to was incorrect
about the pictures being REQUIRED. This is NOT REQUIRED on a retrofit. The clips were indeed
installed, and installed per NOA spec. The owner is also demanding we cut the drywall to expose the
clips. This is just one example of the lunacy we have dealt with over the past 6 months.
In addition, the owner states:
We need to determine whether the required brackets were installed in the three windows in question. Until that is
confirmed with proper documentation (including the required photos), we cannot proceed with inspection or
sign off. If the brackets were installed, you—or someone on your team—must come on site, expose the areas in
question, and provide the necessary photo evidence.
As we stated earlier in our letter, the owner is refusing to allow the inspection of the work. They do not
determine whether or not the work is ready for inspection or what it required for inspection, that’s
between the contractor and the building official. Furthermore, the owner does not sign off on the
permit inspection or approval. If someone from your department gave them that impression, we
request that you clarify this for them when you speak to them about the pictures.
I am attaching the details from the NOAs for the mullions that were installed on the 3 windows in the
Master Bedroom, the Guest Bedroom and the Dining Room. At this time, all the windows are installed,
jambs are drywalled and the stucco bands are finished. The front entry door has the correct screws in
place, the trim is off the windows and ready for inspection, and the skylight is installed per NOA
specifications. The garage door was “OK” which is an approval but that is also ready for inspection if
you would like to look at it again.
The “Expired Permit Letter” includes a STOP WORK ORDER, which was improperly applied. This permit
is active and needs to be reinstated immediately. Your department had no basis for expiring this permit
to begin with. We have asked Dan to coordinate access for inspection due to the owner refusing to
provide us with access to the home and we would appreciate this being scheduled as soon as possible.
Mark will be present for the inspection.
The situation with this owner has become extremely toxic and we are not going to be bullied or
harassed by them going forward. We stand by the work performed by our company and we are highly
offended by the comments and false accusations made by this owner. Pictures of their original window
and the new window are provided to show the quality of our work. If this issue is not resolved
promptly, we will escalate it to the Sebastian Construction Board.
Regards,
Mark & Kelli Walker
MKW Builders LLC
EXHIBIT 11 - EXPIRED PERMIT, RESPONSE, AND EXTENSION
Date:
Permit No:
Work Description:
Permit Address:
6/10/2025
24-4148
WINDOW / DOOR REPLACEMENT
113 REDGRAVE DR
BUILDING PERMIT PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Building Status: General
Cautionary by Wayne Eseltine
This permit expiration date has been extended 90 days to allow the contractor time to make the
necessary repairs to bring the installation into code compliance.
EXHIBIT 11 - EXPIRED PERMIT, RESPONSE, AND EXTENSION
Jurisdiction Inspection Type Inspector
Sebastian Framing Daniel Hainey
Details
Comments to address the first inspection results :
1. Missing screws at all windows installed, contractor added incorrect size screws per window product approval
installation instructions.
2. Mull bars installed with out mounting clips at 3 window locations per mull bar product approval installation
instructions.
3. Front door sill not sealed, tapcons added to sill are not holding.
F.B.C R609 fenestrations shall be flashed per AAMA and installed per the manufacturer ’s installation instructions
Permit Number Work Order Number Inspection Number
24-4148 40881099 33657500
Customer Address Phone
Mark Walker 113 REDGRAVE DR, SEBASTIAN 32958 (772) 360-8980
Scheduled Completed Uploaded
6/5/2025 12:00:00 AM 6/5/2025 12:18:57 PM 6/5/2025 12:36:47 PM
You can download this report or request additional inspections at www.MyGovernmentOnline.org.
For software assistance please call 866.957.3764.
For questions about this inspection please contact your jurisdiction
Inspection Report Inspection Date: 6/5/2025 12:18:57 PM
FAILED Mark Walker should contact Sebastian at
(772) 589-5537 for further information.
EXHIBIT 12 -REINSPECTION 6/5/25
RE: Inspection Report Items
Wayne Eseltine < weseltine@CityOfSebastian.org >
Thu, 05 Jun 2025 4:44:02 PM -0400
To "'Mark'"<mark@mkwbuilders.com>
1. Check them all.
2. Ok
3. We need to verify code compliance to ensure the product installation is in accordance to
the installation instructions. We choose to use a framing inspection for that purpose. I
can’t speak for how Indian River County does their inspections.
4. That is a civil matter. The permit was re-opened for 15 days so that we could perform the
inspection and any corrections can be made. If the permit expires than it will be a
violation on the property and an open permit on the contractor’s record. Permit
extensions have to be for just cause. Contractor’s refusal to fix their own mistakes is not
just cause.
Wayne Eseltine, CBO FSI CFM
BUILDING DIRECTOR / FIRE MARSHAL
772-388-8235
weseltine@CityOfSebastian.org
1225 Main Street, Sebastian, FL 32958
Follow us on social media
From: Mark <mark@mkwbuilders.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2025 4:30 PM
To: Wayne Eseltine <weseltine@CityOfSebastian.org>
Subject: RE: Inspection Report Items
Wayne, 1. I need a list of the windows that the inspector observed the incorrect size and length of the screws and the window locations he observed that were missing screws. He stated "Missing screws at all windows and contractor added incorrect
Wayne,
1. I need a list of the windows that the inspector observed the incorrect
size and length of the screws and the window locations he observed that
were missing screws. He stated "Missing screws at all windows and
contractor added incorrect size screws per window product approval
instructions". It is the building official's responsibility to notate deficiencies
observed during the inspection so that the contractor can correct the
deficiencies for reinspection. We provided a window layout with the
EXHIBIT 12 -REINSPECTION 6/5/25
windows numbered as part of our permit application, and we need the
specific windows he is referencing so that we don't miss anything that
needs to be corrected.
2. Got it.
3. The requirements for inspections on a window replacement permit
should be specified on the permit or a document provided to ensure the
contractor is aware of the requirements of your department. Indian River
County does not have a framing inspection on window replacement as it is
all included in a final inspection. So where can I locate this information for
your building department? Just to be clear, there was no mention of your
department requiring an inspection on the framing of windows or the
skylight, so thats why everything was closed up. If your department
requires photos in lieu of an in person inspection, that requirement must
be stated so the contractor can comply, so I am asking where that
information was provided to us, the contractor.
4. We are fully prepared to perform the necessary work to correct all
deficiencies, and in order to do so, we need the specific items to correct
that your inspector found to be deficient. There will be an additional cost
to the owner, and once they pay for the work, we will schedule it to be
completed. If the owner chooses not to pay for the work, how do we
handle that situation?
Thanks,
Mark Walker
President
Cell: (772) 360-8980
www.MKWBuilders.com
---- On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 15:54:20 -0400 Wayne Eseltine
<weseltine@CityOfSebastian.org> wrote ---
EXHIBIT 12 -REINSPECTION 6/5/25
Kelli,
1. Contractor was on site to witness a screw being removed from a window that
was not of the right size or length. Contractor agreed to check all windows to
make sure all screws are of the proper size and length. There are smaller
screws throughout that need to be removed and replaced.
2. Yes, the threshold.
3. Your permit had the following inspections listed on the permit. Framing and
Final. Florida Building Code 110.1 states that construction work subject to
inspection shall remain open and provided with access for inspection
purposes until approved. Framing inspection includes all attachments per the
approved product approval installation instructions. Final inspection is after
installation is complete and all joints are sealed.
As a licensed contractor you should know what is required to install these products.
If you are ever unclear after receiving the permit you can contact the building
department to get further clarification.
Wayne Eseltine, CBO FSI CFM
BUILDING DIRECTOR / FIRE MARSHAL
772-388-8235
weseltine@CityOfSebastian.org
1225 Main Street, Sebastian, FL 32958
Follow us on social media
From: Mark <mark@mkwbuilders.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2025 2:57 PM
To: Wayne Eseltine <weseltine@CityOfSebastian.org>; Daniel Hainey
<dhainey@CityOfSebastian.org>
Subject: Inspection Report Items
Please address the following: 1. Your report states that all windows missing screws. Very vague. ALL the windows had NO screws? Which windows were missing screws? Please reference the window locations as labeled on the window replacement plan
Please address the following:
EXHIBIT 12 -REINSPECTION 6/5/25
1. Your report states that all windows missing screws. Very
vague. ALL the windows had NO screws? Which windows were
missing screws? Please reference the window locations as labeled
on the window replacement plan in our permit package that are
missing the screws. You also said the incorrect screws were
installed, so were ALL the screws incorrect or some of the screws
incorrect? Please clarify which windows had the incorrect
screws.
2. Front door sill not sealed. Are you referring to the threshold on
the front door?
I will check the NOAs for the specifications for the sealer, but
need to confirm that’s what you are referring to.
3. Please provide the documents showing the inspection
requirements for window and door replacement permits. I
couldn’t find anything on your website. specifically I’m looking for
the number and type of inspections required for the permit and
the itemized list of what is required for each inspection. I’m sure
you have this, however I never saw it and since this inspection
has been outside the typical protocol I want to make sure we
have the detailed information.
I need this information as soon as possible.
Mark Walker
President
Cell: (772) 360-8980
www.MKWBuilders.com
EXHIBIT 12 -REINSPECTION 6/5/25
Mailing Address: 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, FL 32967
Phone: (772) 360-8980 Email: Contact @MKWbuilders.com
License # CBC 1267842
June 26, 2025
City of Sebastian Building Department
Attention: Wayne Esseltine
RE: Homeowners engaging in unauthorized/unsupervised work relating to permit 24-4148
Project Address: 113 Redgrave Drive, Sebastian, FL 32958
We currently have a dispute with the homeowner on the project referenced above. The owners have
refused to allow MKW Builders LLC to complete the project, will not allow access to their property and are
in breach of our construction contract.
We have made numerous attempts to work with the homeowners to resolve this matter, however, we
have been unsuccessful in coming to a resolution. We met on site with Dan Hainey and Wayne Esseltine,
and also had a special meeting with the City Manager and Mr. Esseltine with regards to issues with this
permit and the homeowners.
The Owners have stated multiple times that they have spoken to “City officials” in your department that
have provided them with incorrect information and bad advice relating to the work completed on their
project. The officials in your department are not licensed contractors, and their role is to inspect the work
completed by the licensed contractor. Mr. Walker is a state certified CBC, and he has been in
communication with your inspectors and officials throughout this project. Clearly, the discussions between
Mr. Walker and your department, and the discussions with your department and the owner have been
completely different. We demand that the “city officials” in your department cease and desist engaging in
this conduct immediately. The officials in your department providing misinformation to the owners has
been a major contributing factor to the dispute we now have with this owner.
It has been brought to our attention today by the owners legal representative that owners are currently
engaging in work that we have an open permit on. This work is being done without our authorization or
supervision and poses a serious liability to our company. It was not specified if the work is being done by
the owners themselves or another contractor. We request your department immediately issue a Stop Work
Order to the Owners, Steven and Diane Marini, until the permit is either transferred or closed and no
longer under our license.
We have not consented to a Change of Contractor on this project, and will not do so as the owners have
failed to pay for the work completed. Please respond to this letter with the City of Sebastian Building
Department process for withdrawing/closing this permit. This information needs to be provided quickly so
that we can provide it to our attorney to protect our rights and our company.
Regards,
________________________________
Mark Walker
EXHIBIT 13 - CEASE AND DESIST LETTER TO BUILDING OFFICIAL AND REQUEST OWNER BE ISSUED STOP WORK ORDEREXHIBIT 13 - CEASE AND DESIST LETTER TO BUILDING OFFICIAL
EXHIBIT 14 - EMAIL WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ED DODD VERIFYING WAYNE’S MISCONDUCT
EXHIBIT 14 - EMAIL WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ED DODD VERIFYING WAYNE’S MISCONDUCT
EXHIBIT 15 - NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND HEARING FROM WAYNE ESELTINE FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE REQUIRED PROCEDURES AND PROCESS IN CITY CODE
EXHIBIT 15 - NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND HEARING FROM WAYNE ESELTINE FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE REQUIRED PROCEDURES AND PROCESS IN CITY CODE
We are in receipt of the complaint filed against Mark Walker, CBC 1267842. This complaint is
completely fraudulent.
Our short answer to the alleged violation of: F.S. 489.129(1)(O) Failing to obtain permits /
inspections:
MKW Builders has an active permit with the City of Sebastian Building Department, Permit #:
24-4148. MKW Builders had TWO inspections (This job only requires a final inspection) that failed and
required minor corrections to the work to satisfy the building official.
The claimant REFUSED TO ALLOW MKW BUILDERS ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY TO MAKE
THE MINOR CORRECTIONS NOTED ON THE INSPECTION REPORT. This is a BREACH OF
CONTRACT by Mr. Marini. Mr. Marini also REFUSED to PAY MKW Builders for the work including
labor and materials completed on his home. The Marini’s failure to pay for his project resulted in
MKW Builders filing a Lien against their property.
See attached Exhibit 2 - Copy of the permit, Exhibit 3 - 4/28/25 inspection report, Exhibit 7 -
Reinspection report 6/5/25, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 15 and Exhibit 18 - Copy of the
Construction Lien filed against them.
Mr. Marini selected the complaint category: “financial dishonesty or misconduct by contractor”
This amounts to DEFAMATION and LIBEL. MKW Builder will add this complaint to its file to be used in
legal action against him.
The DBPR website clearly states: False Official Statements Section 837.06, Florida Statutes, states
that whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public
servant in the performance of his or her official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the
second degree.
There must be consequences for people who file false complaints. After your investigation, if you
determine Mr. Marini has made a false complaint against Mr. Walker and MKW BUILDERS, he needs
to be held accountable for doing so. As it is a deterrent from engaging in this type of behavior in the
future. This complaint was made in retaliation for us warning them that a breach of contract does not
absolve them from PAYING FOR THE WORK COMPLETED. The only financially dishonest person in
this situation is STEVEN & DIANA MARINI, the complainers.
Below is a summarized history of the project and how things reached this point along with Exhibits
that correspond with each paragraph.
July 17, 2025
Case #: 2025047575
Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Attention: Mario Acosta
111 S. Sapodilla Avenue, Suite 104
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 650-6773
RE: Case # 2025047575 Response to claims made against Mark Walker, CBC 1267842
Mr. Acosta,
EXHIBIT 16 - MKW BUILDERS RESPONSE TO DBPR AFTER OWNER FILED A COMPLAINT
WITH SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS TO THOSE MADE BY WAYNE ESELTINE.
In early October 2024, prior to the hurricane and tornadoes that came through our community, Mr.
Steven Marini contacted us for a quote on a scope of work that was partly under the My Safe Florida
Home Grant Program, and new impact windows that were not part of the work he was approved for
under the grant. We provided him with a breakdown in two separate proposals PER MR. MARINI’S
REQUEST as he had to submit a proposal to the MSFH program that only included the work he was
approved for. This work was included under one permit, and they paid the deposit in one check. The
Marini’s obtained financing for their project through our financing partner posted on our website. Even
though MKW Builders isn a small company, we wanted to provide our customers with an option that
makes their project more affordable over time, especially for low income clients like the Marini’s. We
absolutely pulled a permit with the City of Sebastian Building Department, Permit # 24-4148 issued on
12/03/2024.
Exhibit 1 - Copy of the proposals/contract for this project
Exhibit 2 - Copy of the permit
On December 16, 2024, the work on their project commenced. The skylight was replaced, the front
door was replaced and the garage door was replaced. Mr. Marini asked Mr. Walker to wait on starting
the window replacement as he wanted to be home while that work was being done. The first week of
January, Mr. Walker came back to begin the window replacement. Upon removing the first window, Mr.
Walker observed some unforeseen conditions that prevented him from removing the windows as
planned in the proposal, which would require additional labor and costs to complete the work. Mr.
Walker stopped the work and he had a conversation with Mr. Marini showing him the situation and
explaining what he would need to do in order to complete the window replacement. He made Mr.
Marini aware that there would be additional costs associated with the additional work. Mr. Walker
understood they were low income, due to the MSFH grant and they obtained financing through our
website for the cost of the work. Mr. Walker told Mr. Marini he would cover half the cost of the stucco
repairs to help him out, (Total cost for stucco was around $4,000.00, and MKW Builders covered
$1,900.00) but that Mr. Marini would need to pay the additional labor and material costs along with the
other half of the stucco work. Mr. Marini wanted to proceed with the window replacement and agreed
to the additional costs. Mr. Walker then proceeded with the removal and replacement of the windows.
(The additional cost to the owner was $3,000.00) Mr. Walker did not charge them a builder fee and was
not making a profit on this work. This job was was not about profit for Mr. Walker, it was an
opportunity for him to give back to someone he felt needed a little help.
It was discovered that three of the windows in this order were delivered in the wrong size, a mistake
made by the supplier, Home Depot. Mr. Walker notified Mr. Marini of this issue immediately and told
him he would order the new windows and follow up on the delivery. The new windows were delivered
about 6 weeks later, however, they did not come with the lattice like the other windows. This was
another error by Home Depot. Mr. Marini had a meltdown and Mr. Walker invited him to come to Home
Depot to see for himself. He did, and Mr. Marini freaked out, blaming Mr. Walker for the mistake. It was
Home Depot’s mistake, and Mr. Walker told him he would call for inspection on the garage door, front
door, skylight and the other windows and close out his permit and he could hire someone else do
complete the final three windows. Mr. Marini refused, and demanded Mr. Walker complete the project.
Mr. Walker ordered the windows again and told him he would let him know when they came in.
Once delivered for the third time, they were correct and Mr. Walker scheduled the install of the
windows. During installation, one of our crew members cracked one of the windows. Mr. Walker
informed Mr. Marini of the situation and let him know he would be ordering a new window at NO COST
TO THE OWNER. Two weeks later the final window was installed.
Mr. Walker called in for inspection on 4/25/25, and the inspection was scheduled for 4/28/25. On
4/27/25 Mr. Walker received a text from Mr. Marini telling him he needed to cancel his inspection
because a window was leaking. In the picture sent by Mr. Marini you can see a reflection of him in the
window standing in front of it with the hose. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Marini why he was using the hose
on the window and he said he was “cleaning them”. Mr. Walker told Mr. Marini not to do that as the
sealant needed time to fully cure, and he told him he needed to proceed with inspection but that he
would look at the windows while he was there for the inspection to see if he could resolve the leaking
issue if any.
EXHIBIT 16 - MKW BUILDERS RESPONSE TO DBPR AFTER OWNER FILED A COMPLAINT WITH SIMILAR
ALLEGATIONS TO THOSE MADE BY WAYNE ESELTINE.
This is where the situation starting getting bizarre. On 4/28/25, Mr. Walker was on the portal waiting for
his inspection to be assigned and listed on the inspectors schedule so that he could plan to be on site
to meet the inspector per normal protocol for him. His inspection was not listed on the schedule, but
around 10am Mr. Walker saw there was an inspection report completed at 7:30am. The inspection had
failed and many of the items listed in the report were not part of his window replacement permit (such
as window bucking, and the owner claimed his windows were leaking) Mr. Walker called the inspector
to discuss what had happened and why the inspection was completed without the schedule even
being posted that early. The inspector, John Parker, is friends with the Marini’s and he coordinated the
inspection with the owner prior to him leaving for work. Mr. Walker, the contractor was never notified of
this. The inspector became rude and defensive with Mr. Walker and they exchanged words.
Exhibit 3 - Inspection report from 4/28/25
Mr. Walker was unaware of Mr. Marini’s relationship with the building inspector and found the
inspectors behavior to be highly unprofessional and out of line. Mr. Walker went back to the job to
correct the minor issues on the inspectors report and planned to meet the inspector for the reinspect
to discuss the items that were not part of his inspection or related to building code violations. On
5/8/25 Mr. Walker had scheduled the reinspect and it was assigned to inspector Andrew Yacko. Mr.
Walker was checking his schedule throughout the day to prepare to be on site to meet him. Around
2pm, Mr. Walker received a call from inspector John Parker, the owner’s friend, that he was there but
no one was home and the owner left a note on the door saying to call a phone number. Mr. Walker
asked why he was calling him and not the assigned inspector Mr. Yacko and again Mr. Parker became
rude and defensive. Mr. Walker told him he wanted to be there for the inspection and that he had
notified the owner he would need access to the home for inspection. Again, Mr. Marini had contacted
his friend Mr. Parker to interfere with Mr. Walker’s inspection. Mr. Parker told Mr. Walker he had to
upload pictures from his last inspection and that he wouldn’t be doing the inspection that day and he
was cancelling it. Mr. Walker was stunned by this situation as this has never happened in his 25 years
of experience in construction. It is unprecedented for a building inspector to bypass the contractor as
the permit holder for inspections and be in communication solely with the homeowner.
Exhibit 4 - Letter to building official with pictures attached
Mr. Marini then texted Mr. Walker demanding he come to his house to “fix” the “leak” in one of the
windows. Mr. Walker told Mr. Marini he would not be coming there and that it was impossible for his
window to be leaking from the installation. He explained to Mr. Marini that it was possibly a defective
window and if that was the case he would need to have that fixed through the warranty department of
the window company. Mr. Marini continued to make excuses on why Mr. Walker could not have
access to the home for his inspection. On May 28th the Marini’s sent MKW Builders a lengthy email
with numerous complaints and false claims. Mr. Walker responded right away. They sent a copy of the
emails with their complaint and you will see from our responses, we were firm but fair. Their lengthy
complaints boiled down to them not being satisfied with the drywall finish on 1 or 2 of the window
jambs, and that 1 window was “leaking”. We asked for pictures of the window to assess what the
issue could be and they demanded Mr. Walker see the window in person. Mr. Walker has installed
hundreds of windows over 25 years. He can see if there is a sealant issue or improper installation that
would cause the leak. The truth was, there was NO LEAK or they were “creating a leak” by applying
water pressure to uncured/unsealed stucco and weep holes which are an exit only system designed to
relive the window frame from excess water. These homeowners simply did not want to pay for the
work MKW Builders had completed, and they believed that by stonewalling the final inspection, they
would not have to pay their final invoice.
Mr. Marini texted Mr. Walker on 5/30/25 that he saw his permit was going to expire on Sunday. Mr.
Walker responded to let him know that was not the case and his permit was active and in the
inspection phase. He explained that a permit would expire after 180 days if the project had been
abandoned or had not commenced within that time period. On Monday, 6/2/25, Mr. Walker received
an email from the City of Sebastian building official Wayne Eseltine notifying him that his permit had
expired. Mrs. Walker (Co-Owner of MKW Builders) contacted the building department to find out what
was going on. The building official Wayne Eseltine was out of the office until Thursday, however, a staff
member was the person who sent the email. She notified Mrs. Walker that the homeowner had been
EXHIBIT 16 - MKW BUILDERS RESPONSE TO DBPR AFTER OWNER FILED A COMPLAINT
WITH SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS TO THOSE MADE BY WAYNE ESELTINE.
contacting the building department about “this situation”. Mrs. Walker asked her what situation she
was referring to and she was told she would have to speak with Dan Hainey, the second in charge of
the department. Mrs. Walker contacted him immediately. Mr. Hainey was curt with her on the phone
and told her that the homeowners had been calling them constantly, telling them we had abandoned
their job and we refused to fix the problems they had etc. Mrs. Walker spent hours on the phone
straightening him out and told him that this job was very much active and the issue we had was the
homeowners were obstructing us from getting our reinspection. Further, she made it abundantly clear
that expiring this permit was NOT appropriate and requested he correct the permit status immediately.
Mr. Hainey did not do so, and Mrs. Walker sent a letter via email and the MGO contractor portal
demanding this be corrected. Again, the Marini’s called the building department making false claims
that their project had been abandoned and used the contacts there to have our permit placed in an
expired status. Mrs. Walker then contacted Mr. Hainey and told him he would need to intervene with
the owner to provide us access for the inspection. Mr. Hainey offered to send the owners inspector
friend, John Parker, out for the inspection and she refused as it was now clear this inspector was
compromised due to his conflict of interest with the Marini’s. Mr. Hainey agreed to perform the
inspection personally after Mrs. Walker explained the history with this inspector.
Exhibit 5 - Expired permit letter
Exhibit 6 - MKW Builders response to expired permit
The Marini’s again tried to stall the inspection, however, Mr. Hainey was successful in scheduling the
reinspection. On 6/5/25, the inspection took place. Mr. And Mrs. Walker, two crew members, Dan
Hainey (Inspector), Wayne Eseltine (Building Official) and the Marini’s were present. Mr. Marini was
belligerent, telling the inspector his window was leaking, etc. and Mr. Hainey professionally told him he
was not there to discuss that, he was there to inspect the windows for code compliance and that was
it. The results of the inspection were that the mull clips on 3 of the windows were not observed and
needed to be attached, some of the screws in a window were concrete application screws instead of
wood frame application and needed to be switched, and the inspector wanted Mr. Walker to put
additional silicone on the door threshold (which the crew took care of during the inspection).
Exhibit 7 - Reinspection report from 6/5/25 inspection
Mr. Walker took the time to show Mr. Marini why his window could not possibly be leaking due to the
install. He also explained to Mr. Marini that since he chose to save money and take care of the painting
himself, he needed to waterproof, seal, and paint the new stucco bands around the windows. He
explained this again in great detail in an email sent to him as well and let him know that if he was
having a leak issue then it was extremely likely it was due to that work not being completed.
Exhibit 8 - Copy of email sent to Mr. Marini
Mr. Walker contacted Mr. Marini the next day via email and notified him that Mr. Walker had scheduled
a meeting with the City of Sebastian City Manager, Brian Benton, and Mr. Wayne Eseltine to discuss
the issues and interference he has dealt with on this project. The building official, Wayne Eseltine told
Mr. Walker he would have to complete a full window framing inspection, with the framing exposed on
the windows in order to pass inspection. Mr. Walker argued with him at length as this was NOT part of
a window/door replacement permit and it was not work he had accounted for in his contract with the
owners. Mr. Eseltine was completely in the wrong, however, he did not like being challenged and was
defensive regarding the many mistakes made by his staff in our situation so he was intentionally
making things difficult. (We are preparing to file our own complaint against Mr. Eseltine and Mr. Parker
with the DBPR.)
Exhibit 9 - Letter from building department extending the permit for 90 days
Due to Mr. Eseltine’s new “requirements”, we had to inform the Marini’s that while we would correct
the minor issues in the inspectors report at no additional charge, we attached a change order which
covered the “framing work” we were being made to do per Mr. Eseltine. We also let them know that
this work would need to be paid for upfront (which is standard operating procedure with Change
orders). The Marini’s had a fit, and instead of contacting us to discuss why this was needed and see if
we could resolve this issue, they hired a legal representative and sent us a demand letter. (Copies of
those letters and our responses are included). We tried to negotiate with them, we tried to explain they
EXHIBIT 16 - MKW BUILDERS RESPONSE TO DBPR AFTER OWNER FILED A COMPLAINT
WITH SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS TO THOSE MADE BY WAYNE ESELTINE.
were making a big mistake as our permit was “extended” for 90 days and we have every intention of
finishing their job. Failing an inspection is not the end of the world. We told them that’s how the
process works. When an inspection is failed, there are corrections to the work that need to be made
and once that is done, the work is reinspected and most likely will pass. The Marini’s were acting as if
the failed inspection meant the work was uncorrectable. A complete misunderstanding on their part,
which we knew and tried to tell them. Unfortunately they could not be reasoned with and they stated
that they would be hiring another contractor for the windows and they would not be paying us for the
materials and labor we provided on their project. They also demanded we complete the inspection on
the work that was covered under their MSFH grant. The demands were laughable honestly. We offered
two resolutions in our first response. Their lawyer said they were not negotiating with us and they
wanted their demands met. We explained why their demands were not possible, and again we
provided detailed explanations for all of their claims. Their lawyer stated numerous times that the
Marini’s had been informed by “city building officials” that they had to completely remove their
windows and redo them and we would have to pay for that. These comments were very unsettling as
the lawyer was now claiming that staff at the City of Sebastian Building Department was providing
misinformation and and bad advice to these owners. We have provided a copy of the inspection report
from 6/5/25 which clearly states the corrections the inspector needed us to make. Furthermore, a
building inspector is authorized to inspect the contractors work to ensure it meets building code, they
are not authorized to inform a contractor or homeowner on the process for how that work is
accomplished! This behavior from the inspectors/building department staff was outrageous and it has
directly led to the dispute we have with this owner.
Exhibit 10 - Change order sent to the Marini’s
Exhibit 11 - Demand letter from Marini’s attorney
Exhibit 12 - MKW Builders response to demand letter
Exhibit 13 - Second letter from Marini’s attorney
Exhibit 14 - MKW Builders response to second letter
In the final letter we received from the Marini’s lawyer, she stated that they “were working to remedy
our mistakes” which indicated that they were doing work under our permit or were allowing another
contractor to work under our permit. This letter also let us know the Marini’s were firing us. We
responded to this letter with a warning that they are not allowed to do any work under our permit and
that we would be contacting the building department to alert them to this issue. We also provided
them with a copy of our final invoice and a warning that if they failed to pay for the labor and materials
for their project we would be filing a construction lien against their property. (Which we did and a copy
is attached)
Exhibit 15 - Third letter from Marini’s attorney
Exhibit 16 - MKW Builders response to third letter
Exhibit 17 - MKW Builders Final Invoice
Exhibit 18 - Copy of Construction Lien Filed
On 6/26/25, we sent a letter to the City of Sebastian Building Department through the MGO portal and
via email to Wayne Eseltine and Dan Hainey alerting them to the improper actions of the owner with
regards to doing work under our permit without supervision or oversight by Mr. Walker, the licensed
contractor on the permit. We also demanded that their staff Cease and Desist providing false
information and bad advice to the homeowners. (A copy of the letter is attached).
We received no response to our emails or letters from the building department. On 7/14/25, we called
to follow up on our letter. Mr. Walker was hung up on twice then sent to voicemail by the disrespectful
staff answering the phone. Mr. Walker then looked on the MGO portal and discovered that a second
permit application WITH THE EXACT SAME SCOPE OF WORK was pending approval on the Marini’s
home while OUR PERMIT IS STILL ACTIVE. The next day, Mr. Walker spoke with Wayne Eseltine who
informed him that Mr. Walker couldn’t “hold the owners hostage” and that he would be approving the
second permit and once the work was inspected and completed he would VOID MR. WALKER’S
PERMIT. This was an incredible and unfathomable statement by this building official. Mr Walker
demanded that his permit be closed as his permit documents, product approvals, the installation of
the products etc were paid for and completed by MKW Builders, and to allow another permit to be
opened was not appropriate. This is beyond improper, its illegal and equates to the building official
EXHIBIT 16 - MKW BUILDERS RESPONSE TO DBPR AFTER OWNER FILED A COMPLAINT
WITH SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS TO THOSE MADE BY WAYNE ESELTINE.
assisting the homeowner with committing fraud and theft. (Attaching an email from a City of Sebastian
council member stating Mr. Eseltine told him the same thing.) This action by Wayne Eseltine will be
part of MKW Builders complaint against his license with the DBPR.
Exhibit 19 - Letter sent to building official 6/26/25
Exhibit 20 - Email from Ed Dodd, City of Sebastian Council Member
In addition to all of this drama, we are actively pursuing actions against the City of Sebastian Building
Department and will be filling our own complaints with the DBPR against Mr. Parker and Mr. Eseltine.
These false claims from this homeowner are beyond fraudulent and they know that. We are currently
working with a City Council Member to get to the bottom of this. The Sebastian Construction Board
has not been active in years according to one of the members we contacted to request a hearing
regarding this situation. He had issues with Mr. Eseltine himself, and said Mr. Eseltine’s behavior was
unacceptable and in his professional opinion it was going to lead to a legal situation like the one we
have now. Apparently there was some sort of kerfuffle between the construction board and Mr.
Eseltine that led to the board becoming inactive in 2022. We had no idea as the city manager and city
clerk provided us with the Construction Board member information as if everything was business as
usual. When I questioned why there were no meeting minutes beyond the year 2022, I was told the
board only meets when Mr. Eseltine deems it necessary, although the duties and powers of the
construction board state otherwise. Just another mess we are left to sort out.
We apologize for the lengthy letter, however, we feel it necessary to be very thorough in our response
to this complaint due to the many false accusations we have been the receiver of from Mr. & Mrs.
Marini (and the City of Sebastian Building Department staff) Mr. & Mrs. Walker take their business
reputation extremely seriously. It was a lengthy, difficult and expensive process to become a Certified
Building Contractor and a Registered Roofing Contractor in Florida. MKW Builders is a new company
that holds themselves to a high standard and plays by the rules. The despicable people involved in
this situation, from the Marini’s to the Building official and their staff will not succeed in defaming and
slandering our company or our hard earned license. The Marini’s are an example of the type of people
that are the reason why contractors won’t take on work for low income individuals with the SHIP and
MSFH programs. Many of the MSFH grant recipients could not find a contractor who was willing to
take on their project, and now we understand why. We felt sorry for the Marini’s, and we did everything
we could to help out a family we thought was in need and all we got in the end was a nightmare. When
it comes to our business, we will fight tooth and nail to protect it.
While we understand this complaint process comes with the territory, we also want to express our
frustration with the amount of time we have spent responding to this unfounded nonsense from them.
This complaint, our response and exhibits are being shared with our legal counsel.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions, or if you need additional documentation from us.
Regards,
_____________________________________________
Mark Walker
______________________________________________
Kelli Walker
Mailing Address: 4113 Abington Woods Cir. Vero Beach, FL 32967
Phone: (772) 360-8980 Email: Contact @MKWbuilders.com
License # CBC 1267842
EXHIBIT 16 - MKW BUILDERS RESPONSE TO DBPR AFTER OWNER FILED A COMPLAINT
WITH SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS TO THOSE MADE BY WAYNE ESELTINE.
Florida Department of Professional Business Regulation
RE: Complaint against Building Official Wayne Eseltine
Wayne Eseltine
Building Code Administrator License #: BU1390
Standard Inspector License #: BN778
Plans Examiner License #: PX586
Date: July 31, 2025
Complaint Summary:
Mr. Eseltine is the Building Official for the City of Sebastian Building Department. He has
engaged in misconduct as follows: failed to correct improper inspection reporting by an
inspector under his supervision, failing to provide permit and inspection requirements on the
building department website and permit applications, allowing staff to issue an expired permit
notice with his signature while he was out of the office for a week with no grounds for expiring
the permit, requiring the contractor to perform work outside of the scope of work on the
building permit issued, violating numerous Florida Building Codes, allowing a homeowner to
influence his decision making and failing to act as required by FBC and Florida Statute, making
false claims to the contractor and the homeowner, failing to issue stop work order to
homeowner engaging in work that was covered under the contractors active and open permit,
failing to release portions of the work under the contractors permit and close out the permit
prior to issuing a second permit for the same work to another contractor, taking a plan and
product approval documents from MKW Builders permit package and attaching those
documents to a second permit for our work without the knowledge of the other contractor,
threatening, harassing and intimidating the contractor, exhibiting disrespectful and
unprofessional conduct. Mr. Eseltine has made false statements to the homeowner with
regards to corrections needed to the work and continued to do so even after the contractor
sent a cease and desist letter. The Construction Board for the City of Sebastian has been
inactive for 3 years, however we have a hearing date scheduled for August 26, 2025 to appeal
Mr. Eseltine’s decision to issue a second permit for the work completed by MKW Builders and
discuss the issues above. We also plan to appeal to the Building Code Administrators and
Inspectors Board and the state Construction Board.
Violations of Florida Building Code & Florida Statute By Wayne Eseltine:
Section 1:
(I)FBC 110.3.13 Impact-resistant coverings or systems - Where impact-resistant
coverings or systems are installed to meet requirements of this code, the building official
shall schedule adequate inspections of impact-resistant coverings or systems to
determine the following:
1. The system indicated on the plans was installed.
2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation
instructions and the product approval
(III) F.S. 553.79 (b)
EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR
A local enforcement agency shall post each type of building permit application,
including a list of all required attachments, drawings, or other requirements for
each type of application, on its website. A local enforcement agency must post and
update the status of every received application on its website until the issuance of the
building permit. Completed applications, including payments, attachments, drawings, or
other requirements or parts of the completed permit application, must be able to be
submitted electronically to the appropriate building department.
(IV) F.S. 553.79 (e)
A local enforcement agency must post its procedures for processing, reviewing, and
approving submitted building permit applications on its website.
On 11/22/2024 MKW Builders applied for a Window / Door Replacement permit. The scope of
work for the project falls under FBC Existing Building, Level 1, and the required inspections per
FBC 110.3.13 for impact-resistant coverings or systems consists of 1. Determining the system
indicated on the plans was installed, and 2. the system was installed in accordance with the
manufacturer’s installation instructions and the product approval. The permit application
posted on the city of Sebastian Building Department website is a general permit application,
and the corresponding documentation requirements for the application are basic and
incomplete. No where on the permit application form or the documentation list does it require a
“framing inspection” including window bucking and skylight framing, or a list of pictures
required of the work in progress. There is no notice that the building official requires an
exposed framing inspection for this permit which would be a major deviation from Florida
Building Code and every other jurisdiction.
Since there is no separate permit application for window / door replacement available, a
“Standard Permit Application” is used. The documentation requirements sheet available on the
website is under “Residential Additions & Alterations”. This documentation sheet only
references the following that pertains to window/door replacement:
Two (2) complete sets of product approval for all new doors, garage doors, windows,
soffits, siding, hurricane protection, and roofing.
MKW Builders has pulled numerous window/door replacement permits in many jurisdictions
and although not specified or required by this building official, we submitted a window/door
schedule that included the existing opening size, the new opening size (which remained the
same), egress requirements and a plan that indicated the location of each window/door that
was being replaced.
The permit was issued on 12/03/24, and due to material delivery delays, the work was
completed in phases. Phase 1 began 12/16/24 and consisted of front entry door, garage door
and skylight replacement. Phase 2 was the window replacement and that began the first week
of January 2025. 3 windows were delivered in the incorrect size, so new windows had to be
ordered. Those windows were installed in March 2025. A window was cracked during install, so
the final window was installed on 4/25/25. The inspection was called for on 4/28/25. The
inspectors report listed numerous “deficiencies” that were not part of the required inspections
per FBC 110.3.13. The inspector cancelled the reinspect called for on 5/8/25 as he refused to
perform the inspection without documentation of the window bucking, skylight framing and
mull clips. There is no requirement for any of these items per the permit application, permit
documentation or FBC.
EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR
Mr. Eseltine, and the inspector he oversees, failed to adhere to the required inspections per
FBC 110.3.13 and also violated Florida Statute F.S. 468.604. Mr. Eseltine has also violated F.S.
553.79 (b) and F.S. 553.79 (e) which requires the local enforcement agency (under direction of
the Building Official) shall post each type of building permit application, including a list of all
required attachments, drawings, or other requirements for each type of application, on its
website, and must post its procedures for processing, reviewing, and approving submitted
building permit applications on its website
Exhibit 1 - Permit Application
Exhibit 2 - Required Documentation list
Exhibit 3 - Copy of permit application docs window/door schedule & location plan
Exhibit 4 - Signed Permit Application
Exhibit 5 - Copy of the permit issued to MKW Builders
Exhibit 6 - Copy of the inspectors report from 4/28/25
Section 2 Violations of F.S. and FBC by Wayne Eseltine:
(I)FBC 110.6 Approval Required - Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in
each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official.
The building official, upon notification, SHALL MAKE THE REQUESTED
INSPECTIONS AND SHALL EITHER INDICATE THE PORTION OF THE
CONSTRUCTION THAT IS SATISFACTORY AS COMPLETED, OR NOTIFY THE
PERMIT HOLDER OF HIS OR HER AGENT WHEREIN THE SAME FAILS TO
COMPLY WITH THIS CODE. ANY PORTIONS THAT DO NOT COMPLY SHALL BE
CORRECTED AND SUCH PORTION SHALL NOT BE COVERED OR CONCEALED
UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
(II)FBC 110.3 required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the
permit holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall
RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE
PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE
CORRECTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES.
(III)F.S. 468.604 responsibilities of building code administrators, plans examiners, and
inspectors. -
1.It is the responsibility of the building code administrator or building official to
administrate, supervise, direct, enforce, or perform the permitting and inspection
of construction, alteration, repair remodeling, or demolition of structures and the
installation of building systems within the boundaries of their governmental
jurisdiction, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida
Building Code and any applicable technical amendment to the Florida Building
Code. The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform
these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON. These
responsibilities include:
(b). The inspection of each phase of construction where a building or other construction
permit has been issued, The building code administrator or building official, or
person having the the appropriate building code inspector license issued under this
chapter, shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is
performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code.
EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR
2. It is the responsibility of the building code inspector to conduct inspections of
construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or demolition of structures and the
installation of building systems, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with
the Florida Building Code and any applicable local technical amendment to the Florida
Building Code. Each building code inspector must be licensed in the appropriate
category as defined in s. 468.603. The building code inspector’s responsibilities
must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or
building official without interference from any unlicensed person.
Inspection by Building Inspector John Parker on April 28, 2025 (Wayne Eseltine oversees this
inspector as an employee of his department.
On April 28, 2025 Mr. Parker (inspector) was assigned to perform the inspection MKW Builders
requested on a window and door replacement permit. The City of Sebastian Building
Department improperly assigned this permit with a FRAMING inspection. Per FBC 110.3.13,
the required inspections for Impact-Resistant coverings or systems is to determine:
1. The system indicated on the plans was installed.
2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions
and the product approval
The inspector completed this inspection prior to it being assigned and viewable on the MGO
Portal after speaking to the homeowner who is his acquaintance. The inspector arranged to
complete the inspection at approximately 7:30am with the homeowner and denied the
contractor the opportunity to meet the inspector on site. The homeowner did not want MKW
Builders to schedule this inspection and tried to prevent it from happening. The inspector was
assisting the homeowner in interfering with MKW Builders permit/inspections and did so on
multiple occasions. In the inspection report, he notes:
Provide photos of mull bar clip attachments (a). Provide photos of new window
bucks for framing inspection. (b) Garage door OK.(c) Front door missing screws at
hinges and strikes. (d) Provide photos of skylight framing and fasteners. (e) All
windows are missing fasteners and home owner claims some windows are leaking.
(f) Remove all trim strips at concealed fasteners. (g) Inspection stopped. (h)
(a) The inspector failed to inspect the 3 windows with mull bar clips to ensure proper
installation. These fasteners are observable after window installation. The inspector apparently
did not know that and failed to cite that they were missing on his report. This failure led to
MKW Builders not finding out about the missing mull clips until the reinspection on June 5,
2025.
(b) Per FBC 110.3.13, new window bucks for framing inspection IS NOT REQUIRED for a
Impact-Resistant Covering or System permit. All original window/door openings remained in
same location and replaced with the same size products.
(c) The inspector says “Garage door OK”. This is not proper language to indicate this work was
approved. Mr. Parker’s failure to properly acknowledge this work as “Approved” led to the City
of Sebastian Building Official Wayne Eseltine claiming that MKW Builders permit on this project
“Expired” due to not having an “approved” inspection in 180 days. Mr. Parker’s failure to
perform his duties according to Florida statute and Building code have caused MKW Builders
EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR
to spend time, money and resources to correct the record in addition to a legal dispute with the
homeowner, and a hearing with the City of Sebastian Construction board to dispute the actions
of this inspector and Wayne Eseltine and voice our concerns regarding their actions and
behavior that are direct violations of FBC and F.S.
(d) The inspector falsely noted that the front door was “missing screws at hinges and strikes”.
The installation instructions called for 1 3” screw at the top of each hinge. The screws were all
there, and the 3 screws that were the incorrect length were installed as per manufacturer
instructions after the inspection. The inspector again failed to properly cite the deficiency in his
report and made a false claim that the front door was “missing” screws. The screws were not
missing, there were 3 screws that were the incorrect length. No deficiency in the screws at the
strikes was found. Another false claim by the inspector.
(e) Per FBC 110.3.13, skylight framing is not part of an Impact-Resistant Covering or System
permit. The inspector is required to inspect the skylight to ensure the product installed
matched the product approval provided in the plan documents and that the skylight was
installed per manufacturer installation instructions. It is not the responsibility of MKW Builders
to perform the inspection, nor is it required that pictures be provided to the inspector. The
inspector failed to complete this inspection per FBC 110.6. In addition, a third permit
application for the skylight, front entry door and garage door is under review by Wayne
Eseltine’s department and I have attached that document as an exhibit that shows only a Final
inspection is required and a framing inspection is not listed. Another example of Mr. Eseltine’s
failure to follow state statute and Florida building code for required inspections and
documentation for permit applications.
(f) The inspector claimed ALL windows are missing fasteners. This was another false claim. All
windows were not missing fasteners. A couple of windows had screws that were for a concrete
block application, instead of the wood frame application. The inspector failed to note the
specific windows from the plan provided that he observed “missing fasteners” resulting in
MKW Builders having to check hundreds of screws to find the handful that were the incorrect
size. There were NO MISSING FASTENERS. Only incorrect size fasteners.
The inspector stated “home owner claims some windows are leaking”. This was a false claim
made by the homeowner, and any leaking was due to the homeowner not completing the
waterproofing and painting on the stucco bands they had installed. MKW Builders did not
contract with the homeowner for painting and stucco work. Per FBC 110.3.13, window leaks
are not part of the inspection for impact-resistant systems, and there is no FBC that applies to
this statement. The windows were all sealed per manufacturer installation instructions, and the
inspector did not note the sealing as a deficiency is his report because there wasn’t one. The
inspector failed to perform this inspection per FBC, and failed to cite a corresponding code to
his noted deficiencies.
Mr. Eseltine is required by Florida Statute and FBC to ensure the inspectors working under him
execute their job duties as required. He has failed to do so. Mr. Eseltine is in violation of Florida
Statute 468.604 1. …..The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform
these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON, and F.S. 468.604.2
……..The building code inspector’s responsibilities must be performed under the
direction of the building code administrator or building official without interference from
any unlicensed person.
This inspection report clearly shows that Mr. Eseltine was allowing the homeowner to interfere
with executing his duties and the oversight of his inspector as required per Florida Building
Code and Florida Statute.
EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR
Mr. Eseltine is also in violation of F.S. 468.604.1.b. …..shall inspect the construction or
installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections
of the code. The inspector cited numerous items in his report that were not violations of
Florida Building Code, and repeated false claims made by the homeowner. Mr. Eseltine failed
to correct the report of his inspector.
(h) The inspector states “inspection stopped”. The inspector stopped his inspection against
FBC 110.3 Required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit
holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT
PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR
HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES.
Neither Mr. Eseltine nor his inspector acknowledged the portions of the work that were
approved or should have been approved per FBC. They also did not cite the code violations
that pertained to the noted deficiencies in the report.
See exhibit 6 - Inspection report from 4-28-25
Section 3 Violation of FBC by Wayne Eseltine:
FBC 110.3 Required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit
holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall
RELEASE THAT PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT
HOLDER OR HIS OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED
IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES.
Misconduct by inspector and Eseltine engaging in harassment, threats and intimidation
during inspections.
Reinspection requested May 8, 2025
MKW Builders returned to the project site to correct the minor issues on the inspectors report
and planned to meet the assigned inspector for the reinspect to discuss the items that were
cited by the inspector that were unrelated to building code violations and items that were not
part of the FBC required inspections. On 5/8/25 MKW Builders had scheduled the reinspect
and it was assigned to inspector Andrew Yacko. The contractor checked the inspectors
schedule throughout the day to prepare to be on site to meet him. Around 2pm, the contractor
received a call from the inspector John Parker, (who performed the first inspection on 4/28/25).
The inspector claimed he was on site but no one was home to let him in and the owner left a
note on the door saying to call a phone number. The contractor asked why he was calling him
and not the assigned inspector Mr. Yacko, as he had been watching the schedule all day. The
inspector became rude and defensive. The contractor told him he wanted to be there for the
inspection and that he had notified the owner he would need access to the home for the
inspection however, since the inspector was never assigned this inspection, he had no idea he
was coming.
The homeowner had contacted the inspector to interfere with the inspection and it switched
from Inspector Yacko to Parker. The inspector told Mr. Walker he had to upload pictures from
EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR
his last inspection and stated he would not complete the inspection MKW builders requested
and he was cancelling it. The contractor was stunned by this situation as this has never
happened in his 25 years of experience in construction. It is unprecedented for a building
inspector to bypass the contractor as the permit holder for inspections and solely
communicate with the homeowner. The contractor told the inspector there were concerns
regarding the improper citing of “deficiencies” that are not code violations, and not part of the
inspections for a window and door replacement permit, no building code references, and he
was not following protocol with the inspections, denying the contractor on two separate
occasions the opportunity to be present on site with the inspector. The inspector was
disrespectful to the contractor, and engaged in threatening behavior insinuating he was in full
control of the inspections for this permit and he could act any way he pleased. This is a
violation of the FBC and F.S. stated above.
The homeowner has stated numerous times that they have received “advice and information”
from “city building officials” about the corrections needed to the work, the construction
methods used to complete the work, and the work required to make the corrections. This
homeowner is currently in a legal action with MKW Builders, and MKW Builders has filed a
construction lien against this homeowner for nonpayment. This situation could have been
avoided if the inspector and Mr. Eseltine had performed their jobs according to Florida Statute
and Florida Building Code.
Exhibit 7 - Screenshot of cancelled inspection
Exhibit 8 - Lien filed against homeowner
Section 4:
Violations of FBC and F.S. by Wayne Eseltine with regards to an “expired permit”
(I)FBC 105.4.1 Permit Intent
A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as
authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor
shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of
errors in plans, construction or violations of this code. Every permit issued shall become
invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within 6 months after
its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a
period of 6 months after the time the work is commenced
(II)FBC 105.4.1.1
If work has commenced and the permit is revoked, becomes null and void, or expires because
of lack of progress or abandonment, a new permit covering the proposed construction shall
be obtained before proceeding with the work.
(III)FBC 105.4.1.3
Work shall be considered to be in active progress when the permit has received an
approved inspection within 180 days. This provision shall not be applicable in case of civil
commotion or strike or when the building work is halted due directly to judicial injunction, order
or similar process.
EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR
The permit for the work completed on this project was issued 12/3/25 under permit # 24-4148.
The work commenced on 12/16/2024. The skylight, garage door, and front entry door were
replaced at that time. Homeowner requested to hold on replacing windows until he was on
vacation from work over the holidays. We did not work over the holidays so the window
replacement began in the first week of January.
The contractor observed unforeseen conditions that prevented him from removing the windows
as planned in the proposal while removing the first window, which would require additional
labor and costs to complete the work. The contractor stopped the work and he had a
conversation with the homeowner showing him the situation and explaining what he would
need to do in order to complete the window replacement. He made the homeowner aware that
there would be additional costs associated with the additional work. The contractor
understood these clients were low income, due to the MSFH grant and they obtained financing
through our website for the cost of the work. The contractor told the homeowner he would
cover half the cost of the stucco repairs to help him out, (Total cost for stucco was around
$4,000.00, and MKW Builders covered $1,900.00) but that the owner would need to pay the
additional labor and material costs, along with the other half of the stucco work. The
homeowner wanted to proceed with the window replacement and agreed to the additional
costs. The contractor then proceeded with the removal and replacement of the windows. (The
additional cost to the owner in total was $3,000.00) MKW Builders did not charge a builder fee
and was not making a profit on this work. This job was was not about profit, it was an
opportunity for MKW Builders to give back to someone they felt needed a little help.
This project was never abandoned and MKW Builders was on site from the date work
commenced until June 5, 2025 when we had to arrange through a second City of Sebastian
Building Official to complete the reinspection the original inspector refused to do and the
homeowner refused to provide MKW Builders with access to the home.
The homeowner texted the contractor on 5/30/25 that he saw his permit was going to expire
on 6/1/25. The contractor responded to let him know that was not the case and his permit was
active and in the inspection phase. He explained that a permit would expire after 180 days if
the project had been abandoned or had not commenced within that time period. On Monday,
6/2/25, MKW Builders received an email from the City of Sebastian building official Wayne
Eseltine notifying him that his permit had expired. MKW Builders contacted the building
department to find out what was going on. The building official Wayne Eseltine was out of the
office, however, a staff member was the person who sent the email with Mr. Eseltines signature.
The staff member notified MKW Builders that the homeowner had been contacting the building
department about “this situation”. MKW Builders asked her what situation she was referring to
and she was told she would have to speak with Dan Hainey, the second in charge of the
department. MKW contacted him immediately. Mr. Hainey advised that the homeowners had
been calling constantly, telling them we had abandoned their job and we refused to fix the
problems they had etc. MKW explained the situation in great detail and notified him that the
homeowners were obstructing the contractor from scheduling the reinspection. Further, MKW
stated that expiring this permit was NOT appropriate and requested the permit status be
correct immediately. MKW sent a letter via email and through the MGO contractor portal in
response to the expired permit letter. MKW then contacted Mr. Hainey and told him he would
need to intervene with the owner to provide us access for the inspection. Mr. Hainey agreed to
perform the inspection personally after MKW explained the history with the other inspector.
Mr. Eseltine was present at the reinspection on 6/5/25, and the permit had been extended for
15 days. After a meeting with City of Sebastian Manager Brian Benton and Mr. Eseltine, the
permit was extended 90 days. Mr. Eseltine was disrespectful, unprofessional and out of line
during this meeting.
EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR
The permit should never have been expired to begin with. The permit was active, work had
commenced within 2 weeks of permit issue and the inspection was requested on 4/25/25. The
failure of the inspector to notate the approved work, failure to adhere to the required
inspections for the permit, false statements about the work on the report and failure to cite
building code violations were disregarded by Eseltine and he claimed he could expire the
permit because the inspection was not passed. Mr. Eseltine has purposely misinterpreted the
FBC with regard to expired permits to justify the actions of his department placing our permit in
an expired status based on false claims by the homeowner. This is a violation of F.S. 468.604.1
Exhibit 9 - Expired permit letter sent to MKW Builders, Reponse by MKW Builders to
Expired permit letter, & Letter extending permit for 90 days
Exhibit 10 - Reinspection report from 6/5/25
Section 5 violations by Wayne Eseltine:
F.S. 468.604 responsibilities of building code administrators, plans examiners, and inspectors.
1.It is the responsibility of the building code administrator or building official to
administrate, supervise, direct, enforce, or perform the permitting and inspection
of construction, alteration, repair remodeling, or demolition of structures and the
installation of building systems within the boundaries of their governmental
jurisdiction, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida
Building Code and any applicable technical amendment to the Florida Building
Code. The building code administrator or building official shall faithfully perform
these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON. These
responsibilities include:
(b). The inspection of each phase of construction where a building or other construction
permit has been issued, The building code administrator or building official, or
person having the the appropriate building code inspector license issued under this
chapter, shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is
performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code.
2. It is the responsibility of the building code inspector to conduct inspections of
construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or demolition of structures and the
installation of building systems, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with
the Florida Building Code and any applicable local technical amendment to the Florida
Building Code. Each building code inspector must be licensed in the appropriate
category as defined in s. 468.603. The building code inspector’s responsibilities
must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or
building official without interference from any unlicensed person.
F.S. 553.79 (4) (b)
After the local enforcing agency issues a permit, the local enforcing agency may not
make or require any substantive changes to the plans or specifications except
changes required for compliance with the Florida Building Code, the Florida Fire
Prevention Code, or the Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto. If a local
enforcing agency makes or requires substantive changes to the plans or
specifications after a permit is issued, the local enforcing agency must identify the
specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the
EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR
specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide
the information to the permit holder in writing.
F.S. 553.79 (4)(2)
A building code administrator who fails to provide a permit applicant or permitholder
with the reasons for making or requiring substantive changes to the plans or
specifications is subject to disciplinary action against his or her certificate under s.
468.621(1)(i)
Wayne Eseltine told the contractor he would have to complete a full window framing
inspection, with the framing exposed on the windows in order to pass inspection. The
contractor argued with him at length as this was NOT part of a window/door replacement
permit per FBC 110.3.13 and it was not work he had accounted for in his contract with the
owners. Mr. Eseltine failed to provide the specific plan features that do not comply with the
applicable codes, failed to identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which his
finding was based and failed to provide this information in writing to MKW Builders.
This is a violation of F.S. 553.79 (4) (b), After the local enforcing agency issues a permit, the
local enforcing agency may not make or require any substantive changes to the plans or
specifications except changes required for compliance with the Florida Building Code, the
Florida Fire Prevention Code, or the Life Safety Code, or local amendments thereto. If a local
enforcing agency makes or requires substantive changes to the plans or specifications
after a permit is issued, the local enforcing agency must identify the specific plan
features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific code
chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide the information to
the permit holder in writing.
Due to Mr. Eseltine’s new “requirements”, we had to inform the homeowner that while we
would correct the minor issues in the inspectors report at no charge to them, we sent a change
order for the “framing work” Mr. Eseltine was requiring MKW Builders to complete in order to
close out this permit.
The homeowner’s lawyer stated numerous times that the owners had been informed by “city
building officials” that they had to completely remove their windows and redo them and we
would have to pay for that. These comments were very unsettling as the lawyer was now
claiming that staff at the City of Sebastian Building Department officials were providing
misinformation and making false claims about the work MKW Builders completed. A copy of
the inspection report from 6/5/25 states the deficiencies the inspector observed but again
failed to report on the portions of the work that were approved. A building inspector or Building
Official is authorized to inspect the contractors work to ensure it meets building code, they are
not authorized to inform a contractor or homeowner on the process for how corrections to the
work are made, nor was the framing work Mr. Eseltine was requiring noted on the inspection
report and the report did not include any statement that the windows had to be removed and
replaced. 3 windows needed to have the mull clips installed that were mistakenly left off of the
window mull bars. This work was easy to correct, and MKW Builders had every intention of
making the corrections and having the windows reinspected once that was completed. Due to
Mr. Eseltine’s numerous violations of F.S. and FBC, he created confusion and chaos between
the contractor and the owner.
EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR
A third permit was issued to the owner acting as the contractor for a portion of the work
completed by MKW Builders. This permit does not show a framing inspection required for the
skylight which is contradictory to Wayne Eseltines requirements that MKW builders undergo a
full framing inspection.
Exhibit 10 - Inspection report 6/5/25
Exhibit 11 - Communications between owner attorney and MKW Builders stating “City
Building Officials” told them their windows had to be removed and replaced to make the
corrections in the inspection report.
Exhibit 12 - A third permit application issued to the owner acting as the contractor that
shows no framing inspection required for the skylight, front door and garage door that
was already purchased and installed by MKW Builders. Eseltine demanded MKW Builders
complete the framing work and undergo a full framing inspection including the skylight,
however a framing inspection is not a requirement on the owner builder permit.
Section 6: Violations by Wayne Eseltine
Mr. Eseltine ignored a letter sent by MKW Builders informing him that the owners were actively
engaging in work that was under the permit issued to MKW Builders and requested Mr.
Eseltine issue a stop work order to the owners until the permit was closed and the situation
resolved. Mr. Eseltine ignored the multiple requests of MKW Builders. The Contractor
discovered that a second permit application WITH THE EXACT SAME SCOPE OF WORK was
approved on this project while OUR PERMIT IS STILL ACTIVE. The contractor finally spoke
with Eseltine on July 15, 2025 and he informed the contractor that he couldn’t “hold the
owners hostage”. He approved and issued the second permit and stated that once the work
was inspected and completed under this second permit, he would VOID MKW Builders
PERMIT. The contractor demanded that his permit be closed as his permit documents, product
approvals, the installation of the products etc were paid for and completed by MKW Builders,
and issuing another permit on this work was not appropriate. This action by Wayne Eseltine is
illegal and equates to the building official assisting the homeowner with committing fraud and
theft.
A records request was made 7/28/25 for the documents related to this second permit. It was
discovered that the plan and product approvals submitted by MKW Builders with their permit
application were transferred over to the second permit under a new contractor. After speaking
with the contractor listed on the second permit, MKW builders was informed she did not
submit those documents with her application, it was the building department that added MKW
Builders documents to her permit. This is an unfathomable action by Wayne Eseltine and highly
illegal.
Exhibit 13 - Letter sent to Wayne Eseltine requesting stop work order be issued to owner.
Exhibit 14 - Email from City Council Member stating Mr. Eseltine confirmed to him he
planned to issue a second permit to another contractor for work completed by MKW
Builders and void our permit when the second permit was closed.
Exhibit 15 - Permit documents related to second permit issued to another contractor
which included a Plan drawn by MKW builders and the product approvals for the
materials purchased and installed by MKW Builders included in the documents.
EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR
Section 7:
Mr. Eseltine has recently sent a letter to MKW Builders accusing them of 1. Committing
incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting, 2. Committing mismanagement or
misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer, and 3.
Knowingly or deliberately disregarding or violating any applicable building codes or laws of the
state, county or the city. Mr. Eseltine has no evidence that MKW Builders did any of those
things, and these allegations are nothing but retaliation for filing complaints against him, his
inspector and the City of Sebastian Construction Board. Coincidentally, this letter coincides
with a complaint made to the DBPR against MKW Builders by the homeowner and the
accusations are very similar in nature. A copy of the response to that complaint has been
attached to this complaint as well.
Exhibit 16 - Copy of retaliation letter to MKW Builders from Wayne Eseltine on behalf of
the City of Sebastian Construction Board which has not been active since May of 2022.
Exhibit 17 - Copy of MKW Builders response to the DBPR complaint.
Mr. Eseltine’s blatant disregard for the statutes and building codes he is required to follow
along with his explosive anger management issues makes him a liability to the City of
Sebastian Building Department and the Florida DBPR. As a state certified building contractor,
we are required to follow all Florida Statutes and Florida Building Codes, and so is Mr. Eseltine
as a state licensed Building Official. Mr. Eseltine is not above the law and he must be held
accountable for violating the statutes and codes outlined in this complaint.
Please contact MKW Builders if you require additional information or documentation during
your investigation. Thank you in advanced for taking the time to review this case.
Warm regards,
_______________________________________ _______________________________
Mark Walker Kelli Walker
CBC 1267842 (772) 360-9144
MKW Builders LLC Kelli@mkwbuilders.com
(772) 360-8980
mark@MKWbuilders.com
EXHIBIT 17 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WAYNE ESELTINE WITH THE DBPR
Building Inspector
John Parker
License Type: Standard Inspector
License # BN6511
Florida Department of Professional Business Regulation
RE: Complaint against Building Inspector John Parker
Date: July 26, 2025
Complaint Summary:
Mr. Parker engaged in misconduct during inspections by failing to conduct an inspection,
failing to conduct the inspections properly, citing incorrect violations, requiring contractor to
show pictures of work and to complete work that was not part of the required inspections for
the permit, allowing interference with the contractors permit and in inspections by the
homeowner who is an acquaintance of the inspector, making false claims on the inspection
report, failing to cite Florida Building Code in his inspection report, deny the contractor the
opportunity to be present during two different inspections, and engaging in unprofessional
conduct. This inspector has made false statements to the homeowner with regards to
corrections needed to the work and continued to do so even after the contractor sent a cease
and desist letter to the building official.
Violations of Florida Building Code By John Parker:
1.Failure to complete inspection per Florida Building Code.
(I)FBC 110.6 Approval Required - Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in
each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official.
The building official, upon notification, SHALL MAKE THE REQUESTED INSPECTIONS
AND SHALL EITHER INDICATE THE PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION THAT IS
SATISFACTORY AS COMPLETED, OR NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OF HIS OR HER
AGENT WHEREIN THE SAME FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS CODE. ANY PORTIONS
THAT DO NOT COMPLY SHALL BE CORRECTED AND SUCH PORTION SHALL NOT
BE COVERED OR CONCEALED UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
(II)FBC 110.3 required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit
holder or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT
PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS
OR HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES.
(III)FBC 110.3.13 Impact-resistant coverings or systems - Where impact-resistant coverings
or systems are installed to meet requirements of this code, the building official shall
schedule adequate inspections of impact-resistant coverings or systems to determine
the following:
1. The system indicated on the plans was installed.
2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation
instructions and the product approval
EXHIBIT 18 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST JOHN PARKER WITH THE DBPR
Violations of Florida Statutes by John Parker:
(I)F.S. 468.604 responsibilities of building code administrators, plans examiners, and
inspectors. -
1.It is the responsibility of the building code administrator or building official to
administrate, supervise, direct, enforce, or perform the permitting and inspection of
construction, alteration, repair remodeling, or demolition of structures and the
installation of building systems within the boundaries of their governmental jurisdiction,
when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code and
any applicable technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. The building code
administrator or building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT
INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON. These responsibilities include:
(b). The inspection of each phase of construction where a building or other construction
permit has been issued, The building code administrator or building official, or
person having the the appropriate building code inspector license issued under this
chapter, shall inspect the construction or installation to ensure that the work is
performed in accordance with applicable sections of the code.
(II) F.S. 468.604
2. It is the responsibility of the building code inspector to conduct inspections of
construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or demolition of structures and the
installation of building systems, when permitting is required, to ensure compliance with
the Florida Building Code and any applicable local technical amendment to the Florida
Building Code. Each building code inspector must be licensed in the appropriate
category as defined in s. 468.603. The building code inspector’s responsibilities
must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator or
building official without interference from any unlicensed person.
Complaint:
Inspection by John Parker on April 28, 2025
On April 28, 2025 Mr. Parker was assigned to perform the inspection MKW Builders requested
on a window and door replacement permit. The City of Sebastian Building Department
improperly assigned this permit with a FRAMING inspection. Per FBC 110.3.13, the required
inspections for Impact-Resistant coverings or systems is to determine:
1. The system indicated on the plans was installed.
2. The system is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions
and the product approval
Mr. Parker completed this inspection prior to it being assigned and viewable on the MGO
Portal after speaking to the homeowner who is his acquaintance. Mr. Parker arranged to
complete the inspection at approximately 7:30am with the homeowner and denied Mr. Walker
the opportunity to meet the inspector on site. The homeowner did not want MKW Builders to
schedule this inspection and tried to prevent it from happening. Mr. Parker was assisting the
homeowner in interfering with MKW Builders permit/inspections and did so on multiple
occasions. In Mr. Parkers inspection report, he notes:
EXHIBIT 18 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST JOHN PARKER WITH THE DBPR
Provide photos of mull bar clip attachments (a). Provide photos of new window
bucks for framing inspection. (b) Garage door OK.(c) Front door missing screws at
hinges and strikes. (d) Provide photos of skylight framing and fasteners. (e) All
windows are missing fasteners and home owner claims some windows are leaking.
(f) Remove all trim strips at concealed fasteners. (g) Inspection stopped. (h)
(a) Mr. Parker failed to inspect the 3 windows with mull bar clips to ensure proper installation.
These fasteners are observable after window installation. Mr. Parker apparently did not know
that and failed to cite that they were missing on his report. This failure led to MKW Builders not
finding out about the missing mull clips until the reinspection on June 5, 2025.
(b) Per FBC 110.3.13, new window bucks for framing inspection IS NOT REQUIRED for a
Impact-Resistant Covering or System permit. All original window/door openings remained in
same location and replaced with the same size products.
(c) Mr. Parker says “Garage door OK”. This is not proper language to indicate this work was
approved. Mr. Parker’s failure to properly acknowledge this work as “Approved” led to the City
of Sebastian Building Official claiming that MKW Builders permit on this project “Expired” due
to not having an “approved” inspection in 180 days. Mr. Parker’s failure to perform his duties
according to Florida statute and Building code have caused MKW Builders to spend time,
money and resources to correct the record in addition to a legal dispute with the homeowner,
and a hearing with the City of Sebastian Construction board to dispute the actions of this
inspector and the building official and voice our concerns regarding their actions and behavior
that are direct violations of FBC and F.S.
(d) Mr. Parker falsely noted that the front door was “missing screws at hinges and strikes”. The
installation instructions called for 1 3” screw at the top of each hinge. The screws were all
there, and the 3 screws that were the incorrect length were installed as per manufacturer
instructions. Mr. Parker again failed to properly cite the deficiency in his report and made a
false claim that the front door was “missing” screws. The screws were not missing, there were
3 screws that were the incorrect length. No deficiency in the screws at the strikes was found.
Another false claim by Mr. Parker.
(e) Per FBC 110.3.13, skylight framing is not part of an Impact-Resistant Covering or System
permit. Mr. Parker is required to inspect the skylight to ensure the product installed matched
the product approval provided in the plan documents and that the skylight was installed per
manufacturer installation instructions. It is not the responsibility of MKW Builders to perform
the inspection, nor is it required that pictures be provided to the inspector. Mr. Parker failed to
complete this inspection per FBC 110.6.
EXHIBIT 18 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST JOHN PARKER WITH THE DBPR
(f) Mr. Parker claimed ALL windows are missing fasteners. This was another false claim. All
windows were not missing fasteners. A couple of windows had screws that were for a concrete
block application, instead of the wood frame application. Mr. Parker failed to note the specific
windows from the plan provided that he observed “missing fasteners” resulting in MKW
Builders having to check hundreds of screws to find the handful that were the incorrect size.
There were NO MISSING FASTENERS. Only incorrect size fasteners.
Mr. Parker stated “home owner claims some windows are leaking”. This was a false claim
made by the homeowner, and any leaking was due to the homeowner not completing the
waterproofing and painting on the stucco bands they had installed. MKW Builders did not
contract with the homeowner for painting and stucco work. Per FBC 110.3.13, window leaks
are not part of the inspection for impact-resistant systems, and there is no FBC that applies to
this statement. Mr. Parker failed to perform this inspection per FBC, and failed to cite a
corresponding code to his noted deficiencies.
Mr. Parker is in violation of Florida Statute 468.604 1. …..The building code administrator or
building official shall faithfully perform these responsibilities WITHOUT INTERFERENCE
FROM ANY PERSON, and F.S. 468.604.2 ……..The building code inspector’s
responsibilities must be performed under the direction of the building code administrator
or building official without interference from any unlicensed person.
Mr. Parker’s report made it clear that he was allowing the homeowner (his acquaintance) to
interfere with him executing his duties as required per Florida Building Code and Florida
Statute.
Mr. Parker is also in violation of F.S. 468.604.1.b. …..shall inspect the construction or
installation to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with applicable sections
of the code. Mr. Parker cited numerous items in his report that were not violations of Florida
Building Code, and repeated false claims made by the homeowner.
(h) Mr. Parker states “inspection stopped”. Mr. Parker stopped his inspection against FBC
110.3 Required Inspections - The building official upon notification from the permit holder
or his or her agent shall make the following inspections and shall RELEASE THAT
PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION or SHALL NOTIFY THE PERMIT HOLDER OR HIS OR
HER AGENT OF ANY VIOLATIONS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL CODES
Reinspection requested May 8, 2025
At the time, MKW Builders was unaware of Mr. Parker’s relationship with the homeowner and
found the inspectors behavior to be highly unprofessional and unusual. MKW Builders returned
to the project site to correct the minor issues on Mr. Parker’s inspection report and planned to
meet the assigned inspector for the reinspect to discuss the items that were cited by Mr.
Parker unrelated to building code violations. On 5/8/25 MKW Builders had scheduled the
reinspect and it was assigned to inspector Andrew Yacko. The contractor checked the
EXHIBIT 18 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST JOHN PARKER WITH THE DBPR
inspectors schedule throughout the day to prepare to be on site to meet him. Around 2pm, the
contractor received a call from inspector John Parker, (the owner’s friend). Mr. Parker claimed
he was on site but no one was home to let him in and the owner left a note on the door saying
to call a phone number. The contractor asked why he was calling him and not the assigned
inspector Mr. Yacko as he had been watching the schedule all day. Mr. Parker became rude
and defensive. The contractor told him he wanted to be there for the inspection and that he
had notified the owner he would need access to the home for the inspection however, since Mr.
Parker took over the inspection from the assigned inspector, he had no idea he was coming.
The homeowner had contacted his friend, Mr. Parker, to interfere with the inspection, which is
why it was switched from Inspector Yacko to Parker. Mr. Parker told Mr. Walker he had to
upload pictures from his last inspection and stated he would not complete the inspection that
day and he was cancelling it. The contractor was stunned by this situation as this has never
happened in his 25 years of experience in construction. It is unprecedented for a building
inspector to bypass the contractor as the permit holder for inspections and solely
communicate with the homeowner. The contractor told Mr. Parker there were concerns
regarding the improper citing of “deficiencies” that are not code violations, and not part of the
inspections for a window and door replacement permit, no building code references, and he
was not following protocol with the inspections, denying the contractor on two separate
occasions the opportunity to be present on site with the inspector. Mr. Parker was disrespectful
to the contractor, and engaged in threatening behavior insinuating he was in full control of the
inspections for this permit and he could act any way he pleased. This is a violation of the FBC
and F.S. stated above.
The homeowner has stated numerous times that they have received “advice and information”
from “city building officials” about the corrections needed to the work, the construction
methods used to complete the work, and the work required to make the corrections. This
homeowner is currently in a legal action with MKW Builders, and MKW Builders has filed a
construction lien against this homeowner for nonpayment. This situation could have been
avoided if Mr. Parker had performed his job according to Florida Statute and Florida Building
Code.
Evidence included with this complaint to substantiate the claims are as follows:
Exhibit 1 - Copy of the building permit showing a framing inspection improperly added on the
permit.
Exhibit 2 - Mr. Parker’s inspection report from 4/28/25
Exhibit 3 - Screenshot of MGO Portal showing inspection cancelled by Mr. Parker
Exhibit 4 - Letter to building department with pictures in response to Mr. Parker’s demand
Exhibit 5 - Documents from homeowner stating they have spoken with “city building officials”
and received false information. Also included are MKW Builders responses to these claims.
Exhibit 6 - Expired permit letter and response letter
EXHIBIT 18 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST JOHN PARKER WITH THE DBPR
Exhibit 7 - Letter to building official requesting staff cease and desist providing false
information to the homeowner.
Exhibit 8 - Screenshot showing a SECOND PERMIT for the work already completed by MKW
Builders has been issued. Will make a public records request to find out who applied for this
permit and if the permit documents from MKW Builders permit were illegally provided to the
homeowner for the second permit to be issued.
Please contact MKW Builders if you require additional information or documentation during
your investigation. Thank you in advanced for taking the time to review this case.
Warm regards,
_______________________________________
Kelli Walker
MKW Builders LLC
Mark Walker
MKW Builders LLC
(772) 360-9144 (772) 360-8980
Kelli@MKWbuilders.com Mark@MKWbuilders.com
EXHIBIT 18 - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST JOHN PARKER WITH THE DBPR
EXHIBIT 19 - EXAMPLES OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS THAT LIST THE INSPECTIONS
PER FBC REQUIREMENTS ALSO SHOWS A FRAMING INSPECTION IS NOT
REQUIRED FOR WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT.
EXHIBIT 19 - EXAMPLES OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS THAT LIST THE INSPECTIONS PER FBC REQUIREMENTS
ALSO SHOWS A FRAMING INSPECTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT.