Pensacola magistrate finds multiple properties in violation; permits required or fines to start

Special Magistrate Matthew Hargraves presiding at the City of Pensacola Code Enforcement Authority hearing on Feb. 11, 2025, found multiple properties in violation of the Pensacola municipal code for performing work without required permits and set compliance deadlines with daily fines for noncompliance.

The magistrate ordered owners of several properties to obtain the required building permits by specific dates or face daily fines of $25. The most immediate deadlines are Feb. 24, 2025, for two South N Street units and Feb. 24, 2025, or March 10, 2025, for others, with fines commencing the day after each deadline. One property, 111 South N Street, was dismissed from violation after a permit was produced at the hearing.

Why it matters: Code-enforcement findings carry financial and administrative consequences for property owners and can lead to continuing daily penalties until corrective action is documented. The rulings affect multiple small rental or residential units in Pensacola and illustrate the enforcement timeline and the city's reliance on permit records and certified-service notices.

Deputy Building Official Robbie Weekley presented evidence that stop-work orders were placed in June and July 2024 for unpermitted installation of mini-split HVAC systems and structural or enclosure work at several addresses, and he cited the Florida Building Code section 105.1, Florida Statute 553.791(a), and Pensacola Municipal Code section 12-11-5 as the basis for requiring permits. Weekley told the magistrate that inspectors photographed the work and that notices of violation and notices of hearing had been mailed or posted.

On the record, Special Magistrate Matthew Hargraves said, "I do have to find that the property is in violation as of today. I am not going to order the $200 court costs" for certain properties where the owner represented they were actively obtaining permits and promised compliance by the magistrate's deadline.

Key case outcomes (ordered/findings and deadlines): - 131 South N Street (Case 24-149): Found in violation for unpermitted HVAC work; permit required by Feb. 24, 2025; fines of $25 per day will begin Feb. 25, 2025, if not in compliance; court costs were not ordered at this hearing. Weekley testified a stop-work order was issued on 06/08/2024. - 111 South N Street (Case 24-148): Dismissed at the hearing because a mechanical permit had been issued and the property was currently in compliance. - 121 South N Street (Case 24-150): Found in violation for unpermitted HVAC work; same compliance date and penalty schedule as 131 South N Street (permit by Feb. 24, 2025; $25/day from Feb. 25, 2025 if not compliant); court costs not ordered at this hearing. - 6480 Hermitage Drive (Case 24-171, Steven H. Matutat): Found in violation for an enclosed porch and addition built without permits. Magistrate Hargraves ordered compliance by March 10, 2025; if the correct permit is not issued by that date, fines of $25 per day will commence on March 11, 2025. Matutat testified he resubmitted applications after earlier rejections and that a correct application was in the review queue. He said, "I submitted the permit and evidently I applied for the wrong type of permit." - 317 West Intendencia Street (Case 24-142, Robert Belanova): Found in violation for windows, door, foundation work, new subfloor sheathing, siding replacement and deck work performed without permits. The magistrate ordered a compliance date of Feb. 24, 2025; fines of $25 per day will begin Feb. 25, 2025 if not compliant. Magistrate Hargraves ordered court costs of $200 payable within 30 days. Belanova testified, "I never got any permits. I contracted the contractor. This is basically a storage unit. There's no plumbing." - 1006 Bayou Boulevard (Case 24-191): The magistrate found that an earlier order had not been complied with and ordered daily fines of $25 to commence on Feb. 11, 2025. - 219 West Gregory Street (Case 24-205 listed under 419 West Gregory in the agenda): The enforcement officer reported the owner obtained a permit on Feb. 10, 2025, and paid penalties and costs; the magistrate recognized the case as previously closed and dismissed from the docket.

City building inspector testimony and recordkeeping mattered in the decisions. Inspector "Mister Bilby" told the magistrate that, for some properties, permit applications were in the city's application queue but not yet issued. Bilby testified, "It is my understanding that there is an application in the queue," and the magistrate used that representation to set dates for final compliance rather than imposing court costs in some cases.

The magistrate distinguished between properties currently in compliance (111 South N Street) and those with outstanding violations where permits had not been issued. Hargraves repeatedly emphasized that if the ordered permits were not in place by the stated compliance date, daily fines would begin and future hearings could assess court costs if necessary.

Votes at a glance (magistrate rulings): - Case 24-149, 131 South N Street: Found in violation; compliance due 02/24/2025; $25/day begins 02/25/2025 if noncompliant; court costs not ordered at this hearing. - Case 24-148, 111 South N Street: Dismissed (permit on file). - Case 24-150, 121 South N Street: Found in violation; compliance due 02/24/2025; $25/day begins 02/25/2025 if noncompliant; court costs not ordered at this hearing. - Case 24-171, 6480 Hermitage Drive (Steven H. Matutat): Found in violation; compliance due 03/10/2025; $25/day begins 03/11/2025 if noncompliant; court costs not ordered at this hearing. - Case 24-142, 317 West Intendencia Street (Robert Belanova): Found in violation; compliance due 02/24/2025; $25/day begins 02/25/2025 if noncompliant; $200 court costs ordered within 30 days. - Case 24-191, 1006 Bayou Boulevard (Christopher and Heather Phillips): Previously ordered; noncompliance found; $25/day ordered to commence 02/11/2025. - Case listed as 24-205 / 219 (419) West Gregory Street: Previously closed (permit obtained and fees paid).

Next steps and practical effect: The magistrate's orders require property owners to secure the proper building permits and to document compliance by the stated deadlines. If permits are not issued by those dates, daily fines will be assessed and further hearings may include assessment of court costs. City staff repeatedly told respondents that voluntary cooperation with the building-permit office and clear contact information for notices would be used to avoid future service issues.

Ending: The hearing adjourned after the magistrate entered the findings and set compliance dates. Several respondents said they were working with the city's building-permit office to submit or correct applications; the magistrate urged respondents to stay in close contact with building staff to secure the correct permit and avoid fines.