Pensacola code enforcement orders permits, fines and continuances across multiple properties
Loading...
Summary
The cityof PensacolaCode Enforcement Authority on a March hearing ordered owners of several properties to obtain building permits by March 24, 2025, or face $25-per-day fines; one matter was continued to April 22, 2025; two other properties were continued to March 25 to allow corrected plans to be submitted.
The Code Enforcement Authority of the City of Pensacola on a March 2025 docket ordered owners of several properties to obtain required permits by March 24, 2025, or face a $25-per-day fine, and granted continuances in other matters so owners can seek variances or submit engineering drawings.
The rulings affect multiple addresses, including 6480 Hermitage Drive; 10 Palafox Place; two cases on Windhurst Street (fence and larger structural/alteration work); 722 South J Street; and 130 South L Street. In each matter the authority found work had been performed without required permits and ordered corrective steps, court costs of $200 where specified, and the daily fine if the work is not permitted and brought into compliance by the deadline.
Why it matters: The decisions formalize deadlines and financial penalties for unpermitted construction that city inspectors said created safety and code concerns, and they give owners an explicit path to compliance via permit application or variances.
6480 Hermitage Drive: continuance pending variance Special Magistrate Ralph Peterson granted the city's request to continue the enforcement hearing for 6480 Hermitage Drive until April 22, 2025, to allow the Board of Adjustment to consider a setback variance for an exterior addition that was built without permits. Officer Bilby told the authority that the court previously ordered corrective action and that, "as of today, there's no permit issued for the work. However, a permit application has been received, and the owner is required to obtain a variance on the setbacks if he wishes to keep the addition that was built without permits." The owner, identified in the hearing as Steven Henry Matatat, did not object to the continuance. The magistrate said the order will be entered to reflect the continuance and that fines will be deferred until the new date if compliance is pending.
10 Palafox Place: immediate fines ordered to begin For the property at 10 Palafox Place, the authority found no permit had been issued and ordered daily fines of $25 to begin immediately and continue until the violation is remedied. Officer Bilby summarized the prior finding on Jan. 28, 2025, and asked the court to assess daily fines effective that day; the magistrate found there was no compliance and ordered the fines and court costs as described.
Windhurst Street (fence at 550 Windhurst Street): permit required, deadline set In a case about a new wood privacy fence at 550 Windhurst Street, inspector Ryan Aldrich's stop-work order and site photographs were entered into evidence. Aldrich had posted a stop-work order after crews bored fence posts in the front yard. Officer Bilby told the authority that notice was mailed and later posted, and that "as of today, a building permit has not been issued for the fence, so the violation still exists." The magistrate found a violation and ordered the owner to obtain a fence permit; the officer said the fence permit can be issued the same day an owner applies and does not require a contractor. The authority set a compliance deadline of March 24, 2025; if corrective action is not completed by that date, a $25-per-day fine will begin to accrue on March 25, 2025, and court costs of $200 will be assessed and payable within 30 days of the written order.
Windhurst Street (structural/alteration work at 550 Windhurst Street): alteration permit required A separate case on Windhurst Street involved more extensive interior work at the same parcel: structural alterations, plumbing, electrical, windows and soffit work. Building inspector Glenn McPherson's photographs showing exposed floor framing, new beams and work on joists were entered. Officer Bilby cited the Florida Building Code and Pensacola Municipal Code requirements for permits, noted that notices were mailed and posted, and said no building permit had been issued. The authority found a violation and ordered the owner to submit and obtain an alteration permit; the magistrate set a compliance deadline of March 24, 2025, with $25-per-day fines to start March 25 if compliance is not achieved, and court costs of $200.
722 South J Street (mother-in-law suite and related work): continuance to allow drawings At 722 South J Street the building inspector reported removal of a second floor (demolition of an upper structure) and substantial masonry and structural work without permits. The property ownerrepresented by counsel Miss Lockettprovided engineer receipts and a new contractor contract and said corrected permit drawings were being completed. The attorney asked for a continuance to allow those drawings to be submitted; Special Magistrate Peterson granted a continuance and continued hearings on two related case numbers on the parcel to March 25, 2025, to permit the applicants to submit engineering drawings and updated permit applications.
130 South L Street: found in violation, compliance deadline set For 130 South L Street, inspector Lindsay Pearson's reports and exterior photographs were entered; Officer Weekly testified a permit had not been issued. The authority found a violation of the permitting ordinance, ordered correction and compliance by March 24, 2025, and imposed a $25-per-day fine to begin on March 25, 2025, if compliance is not achieved. Court costs of $200 were ordered to be paid within 30 days of the written order.
Discussion, compliance and next steps Respondents in several cases told the authority they had begun work to address safety issues (for example, roofing and remediation of termite damage) and that they had applied or intended to apply for trade permits. Several owners said they had submitted some trade permits (for example, roofing) but not an overall alteration permit, and inspectors said an alteration permit or the specific building permits are required before work may proceed. Officer Bilby repeatedly advised that a successful permit application or, where required, a variance from the Board of Adjustment, is the path to resolving the enforcement matters. The magistrate repeatedly noted orders will be entered in writing and that fines and court costs would be assessed consistent with the notices and municipal code if compliance deadlines are missed.
The authority closed the docket after entering continuances and orders. The next scheduled hearings or continuances mentioned in the record include March 25, 2025 (continuances for the South J Street matters) and April 22, 2025 (continuance for the Hermitage Drive matter to await a Board of Adjustment decision).
