Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Special magistrate orders permits, fees and deadlines in Pensacola code-enforcement hearings

2514515 · January 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a Jan. 14 Pensacola code-enforcement hearing, Special Magistrate Jason Onacki found multiple properties in violation for unpermitted construction, ordered $200 court costs in most cases and set permit deadlines with $25-per-day fines if work is not permitted by the new target dates.

Special Magistrate Jason Onacki on Jan. 14 heard a series of code-enforcement cases alleging unpermitted construction across Pensacola and entered findings of violation in multiple matters, setting permit deadlines and daily fines for noncompliance.

The proceedings centered on claims by the City of Pensacola’s Building Inspections Department that property owners had commenced construction without required permits. Jonathan Bilby, Building Inspections Director for the City of Pensacola, presented photographic evidence and certified-mail notices in each case. Onacki granted the city’s requested relief in most matters, while adjusting several compliance deadlines after hearing speaker requests and department recommendations.

Cases and outcomes

- 10 Palafox Place (case 24-184): Bilby told the magistrate the work consisted of enclosing an outdoor cooler with new wall and roof framing and siding. The city requested a finding of violation under Pensacola Municipal Code section 12-11-5, $200 in court costs and $25 per day in fines if the work is not corrected. The magistrate found a violation, ordered court costs of $200, and — after hearing from the tenant’s and landlord’s counsel — set a timetable that the city and parties clarified: permits are to be issued by March 10, 2025, and daily fines of $25 will begin on March 11, 2025 if corrective action or permitting has not occurred. Jonathan Bilby presented the stop-work order and certified-mail receipt; attorney Joe Pazaretti (representing the tenant, Bavaria restaurant) and attorney Haley Hatton (representing the landlord) asked for additional time before fines start.

- 419 West Gregory Street (case 24-205): The city described unpermitted fence posts and related work. Owner Del Sherburne attended and explained he removed and rebuilt posts after a neighbor removed trees; Sherburne asked the magistrate to waive the $200 fee. The magistrate said he lacked authority to waive the fee, ordered the previously requested relief, and set permitting and fine deadlines in line with the other cases: permits to be obtained by February 24, 2025, and $25 per day fines to begin February 25, 2025 if not corrected.

- 729 Gentian Drive (case 23-186): Inspectors reported an unpermitted basement-access addition. Justin Briers and Jenny Briers appeared and said they were unaware of the certified-mail notice and asked for guidance. Bilby advised they first submit a site plan to planning to confirm setbacks, then, if allowable, engage a licensed engineer and apply for permits. The magistrate found a violation, ordered $200 in court costs, and extended the permit deadline to February 24, 2025 with $25-per-day fines beginning February 25, 2025 if unresolved.

- 211 Areola Avenue (case 24-209): The magistrate treated this as a notification of noncompliance with a prior order. A prior finding required permits by Jan. 27, 2025, with fines to start Jan. 28, 2025. Bilby told the court no permit has been issued; the magistrate granted the city’s request to assess the daily $25 fines effective the date of this hearing (Jan. 14, 2025) and to continue collection until the violation is remedied.

- 517, 519 and 521 Ditmar Street (case 24-196): These contiguous properties were previously found in violation for unpermitted fence work. The city reported no permits had been issued; a representative from the property owner contacted the department that morning. The magistrate granted the city’s requested relief and said the prior corrective schedule would be enforced (permits and fines as set in the earlier order), and the city will re-notice the February 25 hearing for further review if needed.

- 1805 East Jordan Street (case 24-211): The city reported an accessory building where inspectors observed new roof sheathing, siding, electrical conduit, plumbing and interior finishes without permits. Bilby presented certified-mail receipts and on-site photos. The magistrate found a violation, ordered $200 in court costs, and set a compliance deadline of February 24, 2025; $25-per-day fines will begin on February 25, 2025 if permits are not issued.

- 1006 Bayou Boulevard (case 24-191): The city reported an accessory storage building constructed without permits. The magistrate found the violation, ordered $200 in court costs and set corrective action to be completed by February 10, 2025, with $25-per-day fines beginning February 11, 2025 if the work remains unpermitted.

- Case 24-171 (unaddressed property identified on the agenda): The city requested a continuance to the Feb. 25 meeting in order to correct noticing issues. The magistrate granted the continuance and instructed the city to re-notice the matter for the February 25 docket.

What happened in the hearing

Director Bilby repeatedly presented the same legal basis across cases: that permits were required under the Florida Building Code (section 105.1) and Pensacola Municipal Code section 12-11-5, and that certified notices had been mailed and posted. In several matters parties who appeared asked for extra time to secure permits or to coordinate landlord-tenant responsibilities; Bilby and the magistrate urged property owners to first confirm site-plan and setback issues with planning before spending on detailed engineering or construction documents. The City Attorney’s Office (Assistant City Attorney Kia Goldsmith and others) participated in procedural clarifications during the hearing. The magistrate noted limited discretion to waive statutorily authorized fees.

The court directed the Building Inspections Department and petitioning parties to prepare signed orders reflecting the amended deadlines and to return cases to the February 25 docket when continued, and to assess the $200 court cost in cases where it was requested and permitted by statute.

The hearing concluded after the magistrate signed the orders and adjourned.