Greenacres magistrate finds shutter violation but waives fine after owner opens shutters

Special Magistrate Amity Barnard on Feb. 26 found that the owner of a home at 6089 Peachtree Lane had violated Greenacres’ shutter ordinance but did not impose a fine after the property was brought into compliance.

The city presented photographs and a notice of violation for the property owned by Sylvia Perlmutter. Michael McGee, identified as a code compliance officer for the City of Greenacres, told the magistrate the property had been cited for section 7-4-23 (shutters and impact protection) and that photographs in the case file showed shutters closed on Jan. 20. McGee said the city’s records indicated the compliance date in the notice had passed and that the city had posted notices and mailed the required documents.

Why it matters: The hearing shows the city is enforcing an ordinance tied to fire-department access and neighborhood appearance. The magistrate emphasized safety and consistency while noting the officer’s role was enforcement rather than punishment.

During the hearing, Peter Bodnerchuk, who identified himself as the husband of the owner, told the magistrate and city staff that the family had been out of the country when the initial notice was left and that they opened all shutters except two small ones on the morning of the hearing. Bodnerchuk said his family has owned the home for about 45 years and expressed confusion about enforcement consistency in the community. He said a city officer had told them, "if you don't like it, you should just move," which Bodnerchuk described as a veiled threat and said made him feel intimidated.

Barnard reviewed the city's evidentiary packet, including the notice of violation, affidavits of posting and photographs, and told the respondents the city would investigate additional examples they provided of other homes whose shutters remained closed. She said the origin of the ordinance could be provided by city staff and explained generally that fire-department access and aesthetics commonly underlie such rules.

Barnard said the photos and testimony supported a finding that respondents did not comply by the date specified in the notice. She signed a finding of fact reflecting violation of section 7-4-23 subpart p but noted the property was in compliance on the day of the hearing. "There's no fine that starts today," Barnard said, urging the respondents not to repeat the violation.

The magistrate advised the family to contact city staff for a copy of the ordinance and for any further procedural questions. The city also agreed to look into the other properties the respondents identified to check whether separate cases existed.