Special Magistrate Doug MacGibbon on April 9 held a special magistrate hearing for the Village of Royal Palm Beach that covered a slate of residential and commercial code-enforcement matters, imposing fines in some cases and setting compliance deadlines or follow-up fine hearings in many others.

The session encompassed violations including unpermitted construction, stained driveways and sidewalks, dead or dying landscape, vehicles parked in public view and missing or damaged traffic signage. Village attorneys and code officers presented evidence — often photographs, affidavit of service and property-appraiser records — and property owners or their representatives responded or requested additional time. "There will be a $150 fine assessed against the property," Magistrate MacGibbon said during one finding, emphasizing the hearing's procedural focus on compliance and documentation.

Why it matters: The magistrate hearing is the municipal forum for turning code notices and inspections into formal orders, fines or timelines for corrective work. For homeowners and businesses, the hearing can determine whether a fine accrues, how large it will be and whether the order will be recorded as a lien to be collected at sale or by other means. For the village, the hearing is a central enforcement mechanism to address recurring complaints about maintenance, public-safety signage and unpermitted building work.

Notable outcomes and deadlines

- 1302 Cortez Avenue (Juan C. Alsate / William G. Cifuentes): Magistrate MacGibbon found the prior order required compliance by March 27 and noted respondents complied on April 3. The magistrate assessed a $150 fine and stated it would not be continuing; he explained that for homesteaded property the lien remains until sale. (Order signed by magistrate; owner instructed to obtain a copy for closing/title.)

- Coral Sky Retail LLC / BJ’s Wholesale (Case on State Road 7): The village presented photographs and permit records alleging unpermitted painting and an unpermitted interior wall. BJ’s counsel and representatives said repainting had begun and that a building permit application (BLD 20629) had been uploaded the day before the hearing. The magistrate found the property out of compliance for 13 days at $50 per day and assessed $650 plus continuing, while noting BJ’s had started repainting and had applied for permit review.

- Repeat parking violation (case 25-121): The magistrate accepted GPS and other evidence showing a vehicle was parked on property for five days during the violation period and assessed a repeat-violation fine of $150 per day for five days, totaling $750, with no continuing fine.

- Stop-sign replacement dispute (commercial parking lot): A property manager testified that stop signs placed to address a safety issue were repeatedly removed; the magistrate granted a finding of violation and assessed $350 (not continuing) in that matter, while advising the owner to consider cameras to document theft or vandalism of signs.

- Multiple compliance dates set across properties: For many residential complaints (bare patches in lawns, stained driveways, missing house numbers, dead fronds, small unpermitted structures), the magistrate set compliance dates in mid-May (often May 15) or scheduled appearance at the June 11 fine hearing if work was not completed. The magistrate repeatedly told property owners to call code enforcement for a reinspection after making repairs.

Process notes and evidence used

Village staff routinely entered four types of exhibits into the record: the notice/order (with affidavit of service or posting), property-appraiser verification of ownership, dated photographs, and permit/AS400 records where applicable. Inspectors who presented evidence included Anthony Salin and Margaret Hancock; the village attorney on the record was Amity Barnard. Owners and managers frequently supplied photos, vendor invoices or permit applications during the hearing.

Several property owners said they had started corrective work and asked for mitigation; the magistrate granted reductions or findings of fact when evidence of correction was provided and set payment deadlines when monetary mitigation was approved. In a number of commercial cases the magistrate emphasized that where permits were filed late or incompletely, the village would not treat an incomplete submission as compliance and fines could continue until the permit and inspections were completed.

What happens next

The magistrate signed orders for the cases he closed and instructed respondents to use the code officer contact or the village supervisor for documentation that could be provided to title companies or contractors. Reinspection calls to code enforcement will halt continuing fines where work is accepted. Owners who sought fine mitigation were told to provide evidence (receipts, permit transmittals, vendor confirmations) and in some cases were given specific dates to pay reduced amounts.

Ending

Magistrate MacGibbon concluded the session after clearing through the agenda, reminding property owners that enforcement is driven by inspection evidence and that prompt, documented corrective work and timely responses to permit comments are the clearest routes to avoid or reduce fines.