Magistrate issues compliance deadlines across multiple West Palm Beach building and business-tax cases

The City of West Palm Beach special magistrate heard a slate of contested building and code-enforcement cases on March 5 and set compliance deadlines and fines in multiple matters, ranging from 30 days to 150 days to obtain permits or other approvals, with daily fines assessed for noncompliance.

Highlights from the hearing include:

- CE23020178 (635 50th Street): Building inspector Saul Yamash testified the property showed a garage conversion to living space without required permits. The magistrate found a violation of the building code section cited for permit-required work and ordered compliance within 90 days or a $50-per-day fine thereafter. Yamash and the owner, David Aprea, confirmed a permit application had been resubmitted and review was underway.

- CEBLD24070614 (325 Valley Forge Road): Building inspector Kevin Pennington testified the owner, Peter Radler, replaced fence panels and repaired a pergola without permits. The magistrate ordered compliance within 30 days or a $50-per-day fine; Radler said he had submitted needed materials and expected plan review to complete in the timeframe.

- CEBLD24100658 (1830 Embassy Drive, Unit 609): Inspector Pennington described interior remodeling — kitchen and bathroom alterations and removal of walls — done without permits. The magistrate found violations and ordered compliance within 150 days or a $50-per-day fine; a contractor appearing for the owner said permits had been applied for and requested the extension.

- CEBLD23110464 (610 Tenth Street): Inspector Raymond Stevenson testified permits had been applied for, some inspections completed but not all. The magistrate ordered 150 days for compliance or a $25-per-day fine.

- CEBLD24080625 (815 Ninth Court): Work replacing wrought-iron columns with tile wrapping required historic-review comments. Respondents Chelsea Freeman and Denise Williams said historical-review comments were pending and the magistrate granted 150 days for compliance or a $25-per-day fine, noting the city would complete the historical review later the same day.

- CEBLD24020512 (507 Puritan Road): Inspector Kevin Pennington described a rear room addition with concrete slab and framing performed without permits. The magistrate ordered compliance within 150 days or a $50-per-day fine.

- CEBLD24100654 (700 North Tamarind Avenue): The magistrate handled this matter separately as an unsafe-structure case (see separate article). The magistrate ordered immediate abatement measures or a $250-per-day fine.

- CEBLD2420675 (411 Fourteenth Street): City inspector reported roof work done without permits. The magistrate ordered compliance within 60 days or a $50-per-day fine.

In nonbuilding code matters, the magistrate also addressed business tax receipt and certificate-of-use violations:

- CE25013270 (Crust and Company, 1401 Claire Avenue): City code officer Kevin Levine testified the business had not renewed its business tax receipt or certificate of use. Owner Jeremy O'Neil told the magistrate he was updating state registration (Sunbiz) and could complete the city forms afterward; the magistrate ordered compliance within 30 days or a $100-per-day fine for the COU and a one-time $250 penalty for delinquent business-tax receipts if not corrected in 30 days.

- CE25013298 (South Congress Ave parcel): Code staff reported commercial storage operations without a business tax receipt. No representative appeared at the hearing; the magistrate ordered compliance within 30 days or a one-time $250 fine.

- CE25013314 and other rental-license cases: Several rental-license and rental-license–related violations were heard; the magistrate ordered owners to obtain required rental licenses or correct code violations within deadlines between 21 and 60 days, with daily fines for noncompliance as noted on the record.

The magistrate repeatedly advised respondents to stay in contact with city staff when plan-review comments or historic-review schedules are delaying permitting, and to seek inspections promptly once permits are issued. Where respondents said permits were in process or had resubmitted documents the magistrate generally gave the deadlines the city recommended. Photographs and the case files were admitted into evidence in each contested matter without objection.

Several respondents confirmed they had applied for permits and described items outstanding — resubmitted surveys, plan revisions and fee payments. In some cases, owners said contractor or administrative delays had slowed the permit process; magistrate said communication with city staff could prevent fines if delays were beyond respondents’ control. The magistrate’s orders are effective immediately and will be mailed to respondents.