Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Permit Violation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate finds unpermitted work at 705 (Grape/Great) Avenue; sets June 13 compliance and $250-per-day fine
Summary
The City of St. Cloud's special magistrate found a property in violation for installing work without a permit and ordered a compliance deadline of June 13, 2025, with a $250-per-day fine to be assessed after that date if the owner does not obtain the required permit.
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Permit Violation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City of St. Cloud's special magistrate found a property in violation for installing work without a permit and ordered a compliance deadline of June 13, 2025, with a $250-per-day fine to be assessed after that date if the owner does not obtain the required permit.
Court officer Bennett presented the case for the property recorded as 705 Grape Avenue in the staff narrative (the clerk announced the address as "705 Great Avenue" in an earlier case announcement). Bennett entered multiple items of evidence, including a code compliance observation form, courtesy notice, notice of violation sent by certified mail, a statement of violation and notice of hearing, an affidavit of postings and photographs. Bennett told the magistrate that she visited the property several times, took photos, supplied a permit application for windows to a person identified as Robert, and advised that work should cease until a permit was obtained.
"It is the city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation ... and be given until June 6 to obtain the permit or in the amount of $250 a day be assessed until compliance is met," Court officer Bennett said during her presentation; the magistrate adjusted the compliance date and timeline during the hearing and set June 13 as the compliance deadline. The magistrate explained the decision in part by noting hurricane-season risks: unpermitted windows may become windborne if not properly installed.
The city entered costs incurred associated with the enforcement action. In the evidence packet the city cited administrative costs of $267.77; the magistrate's order, as read on the record, imposed administrative costs recorded as $257.77 and ordered that amount to be paid within seven days of the written order. The transcript contains both figures; the record in the city clerk's office should be consulted for the official amount.
The magistrate found the property in violation as cited and set the compliance date to June 13, 2025; if the respondent does not obtain the required permit and demonstrate compliance by that date the magistrate ordered the daily fine of $250 to begin running. The magistrate additionally directed the administrative cost payment and the payment of costs to be included in the written order.

