Pensacola code enforcement magistrate orders compliance, fines and costs across multiple property cases

The City of Pensacola Code Enforcement Authority on Feb. 25, 2025 found multiple properties in violation for starting construction without required permits and set compliance deadlines, court costs and potential daily fines.

The magistrate ordered owners or owners’ agents to achieve compliance for several properties by March 24, 2025, and said a daily fine of $25 would begin to accrue if corrective actions were not completed thereafter. In most cases the judge also awarded $200 in court costs, payable within 30 days of the order.

Why it matters: The hearing addressed repeated instances where work — including structural repairs, additions, accessory buildings, windows, roofing and electrical work — proceeded without issued permits. The orders establish deadlines, monetary penalties and, in some cases, recognized that owners corrected violations by obtaining permits or by demolishing unauthorized work.

Key findings and outcomes

- 710 North Seventh Avenue (case 2341): The magistrate found the property in violation of Pensacola Municipal Code section 12-11-5 for performing structural repairs and interior alterations without an issued permit. The owner (recorded as BNE Holdings; representative Richard Bankich) was ordered to come into compliance by March 24, 2025. The court awarded $200 in court costs, payable within 30 days; if corrective actions are not completed by the deadline, a $25-per-day fine will begin to accrue.

- 3350 Marcus Drive (case 23-1603350): The property owned by (recorded) Moore was represented by George Long. Inspectors documented unpermitted work including windows, doors, siding, plumbing, roofing and framing. The magistrate ordered compliance by March 24, 2025; $200 in court costs were assessed, payable within 30 days, and a $25-per-day fine will start if compliance is not achieved.

- 808 South I Street (case 23167): Owner Israel Reynolds had an unpermitted accessory structure. The owner demolished the structure and the inspector verified removal during a site visit on Feb. 21, 2025. The magistrate found the violation but concluded the case was corrected; no fines were imposed. The court nevertheless assessed $200 in court costs, payable within 30 days.

- 131 South End Street (case 24149) and 121 South End Street (case 24150): Both properties previously found in violation were reported by the inspections department to have obtained permits on Feb. 14, 2025. The magistrate found both matters corrected and closed the cases; the record shows no fines for timely compliance in these matters.

- 729 Gentine (case 23186): The structure previously identified as unpermitted work was demolished and removal was confirmed by a site visit Feb. 20, 2025. The magistrate found the respondents in compliance; court costs on this matter had been paid, and the case was closed.

- 1805 East Jordan Street (case 24211): The owner obtained a permit on Feb. 21, 2025. Court costs were paid and the magistrate closed the case as corrected.

- 1112 North C Street (case 23591): Inspectors documented a new addition, siding, windows, roofing, electrical work and plumbing without a permit. The magistrate ordered compliance by March 24, 2025; awarded $200 in court costs, payable within 30 days; and said a $25-per-day fine will commence if the property is not brought into compliance.

What the magistrate and staff said

Officer Bilby, presenting inspection evidence in multiple cases, identified stop-work notices, photographic evidence and certified-mail notices of violation that the department said were served in accordance with the department’s procedures. In several matters the inspector confirmed subsequent site visits that either verified demolition of unpermitted structures or issuance of a permit.

Property representatives, including Richard Bankich (710 North Seventh), George Long (representing Ms. Moore, 3350 Marcus Drive) and Israel Reynolds (808 South I Street), told the magistrate they either discovered prior unpermitted work after purchase, attempted to apply for permits, or had removed structures and in a few cases were attempting to sell properties rather than complete repairs. The magistrate repeatedly encouraged respondents to communicate with Officer Bilby and the building inspections department to resolve outstanding plan-review comments or fee issues.

Ending

The magistrate closed several corrected cases and set compliance deadlines and financial penalties in other matters. Owners who do not meet the stated deadlines face $25-per-day fines; most cases also include a $200 court-cost award payable to the city within 30 days of the magistrate’s order. The authority adjourned after disposition of the listed enforcement items. The city will enter written orders memorializing the deadlines, costs and remedial requirements.