Special magistrate orders fines, findings in wave of property‑maintenance cases in Royal Palm Beach

Special Magistrate Doug Macgibbon ordered multiple fines and findings of fact at a Village of Royal Palm Beach special magistrate hearing on June 11, addressing stained structures and driveways, overgrown landscaping and prohibited parking that village inspectors said remained out of compliance.

The hearing covered dozens of property‑maintenance cases. Macgibbon said some properties had been out of compliance for weeks and that fines would continue until a reinspection confirmed repairs. “You fixed it, call them so we can stop the fines from going,” Macgibbon told several respondents. “It’s just gonna sit there on the property if it’s homesteaded.”

Why it matters: The decisions affect homeowners and commercial property owners across Royal Palm Beach and show how the village enforces its municipal code through fines and reinspection procedures. For homesteaded parcels, magistrate noted, liened fines remain on property records until sale or probate.

Most important outcomes reported at the hearing included: - A $525 fine was assessed against the respondents in case 25‑00081116 (Grandview Circle) after inspectors recorded a 21‑day noncompliance period; the magistrate said the fine will remain a lien on the property until it is satisfied or the property changes hands. - A commercial property (case 24‑0708, 1271 North State Road 7) that complied 10 days late received a $250 one‑time fine and no continuing daily fine after the village confirmed compliance on June 9. As co‑inspector Andrew Amianti told the bench, “they complied on June 9,” which the magistrate accepted when determining the penalty. - Several other residential properties with prolonged noncompliance were assessed the ordinary continuing fine rate after inspectors documented 41 days out of compliance in multiple files; magistrate rulings in those matters imposed the assessed sums and instructed property owners to request reinspections to stop accruing daily fines.

Hearing procedure and advice repeated by the magistrate: Macgibbon repeatedly explained how village notice works (regular mail, certified mail, posting) and urged property owners to call code enforcement for a compliance reinspection when work is done. He also noted that the village’s orders require compliance by specific dates and fines run from the date set in the order, not from the date a property owner appears at the hearing.

Selected speakers at the hearing included Amity Barnard of the magistrate’s office and Andrew Amianti, a co‑inspector for the Village of Royal Palm Beach; their testimony and the magistrate’s rulings formed the factual basis for the fines recorded.

The magistrate set follow‑up reinspections and future hearing dates for several properties and repeatedly encouraged owners to secure documentation (dated photos, messages, invoices) showing when corrective work was completed so the reinspection can stop continuing fines.