Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pensacola magistrate sets compliance deadlines and $25-a-day fines for multiple properties
Summary
The city’s code enforcement special magistrate found multiple properties in violation of sanitation, nuisance and maintenance codes, ordering $25-per-day fines to begin either immediately or after an August 4 compliance deadline. Court costs of $200 were ordered for several cases.
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At a City of Pensacola code enforcement hearing, the special magistrate found multiple properties in violation of municipal and international property maintenance rules and set compliance deadlines and daily fines.
Officer testimony and photographic evidence led the magistrate to order fines where owners had not remediated previously cited violations. Several cases shared a common compliance timeline: corrective actions are due by Aug. 4, 2025, with a $25-per-day fine to commence on Aug. 5, 2025, if not corrected. For several cases the magistrate also ordered court costs of $200.
Case highlights and formal orders presented at the hearing included:
• Case CE252430 — 3209 North Gilmore Street (owner: Michael Shapiro). Officer Jason Hendricks presented photos and testified the property remained in violation of Pensacola ordinances listed in the July 1 order. The magistrate ordered the previously directed $25-per-day fine to commence immediately.
• Case CE252779 — 106 Alta Monte Road (owners: Leslie Ann Mitchell Frierson; Marco and Sherrilyn Cromati). Tom Lucia, code enforcement specialist, testified the property remains out of compliance with the city’s required use of solid-waste collection services (Pensacola Municipal Code §4-3-41). The magistrate ordered a $25-per-day fine to begin; the owner was not present.
• Case CE252651 — 4455 Devereaux Place (owners: Dean and Devin Altenhoven). Officer Kevin Smith testified that the screen enclosure at an in-ground pool had collapsed and the pool contained stagnant water. The magistrate found violations of the International Property Maintenance Code and set a compliance date of Aug. 4; a $25-per-day fine will begin on Aug. 5 if unresolved, and court costs of $200 were ordered.
• Case CE252942 — 3004 East Lakeview Avenue (owners: Diantha Massey and Dale Parrish). Tom Lucia testified sanitation service was not active and the property appeared occupied. The magistrate set Aug. 4 as the compliance date, ordered a $25-per-day fine to start Aug. 5 if not corrected, and awarded court costs of $200.
• Case CE252931 — 7639 Glen Crossing (owner: James Rumschlag). Officer Kevin Smith testified the public right-of-way contained vegetation over 12 inches and low tree limbs obstructing travel lanes. The magistrate ordered compliance by Aug. 4, fines of $25 per day starting Aug. 5 if not corrected, and $200 in court costs.
• Case CE253060 — 3214 North Sixth Avenue (owner: Doris Travis). Tom Lucia testified sanitation service remained delinquent though neighbors reported occupancy. The magistrate ordered compliance by Aug. 4, fines of $25 per day beginning Aug. 5 if uncorrected, and awarded $200 in court costs.
• Case CE251599 — 6571 Allen Way (owner: Terrence Wilson). Officer Kevin Smith presented photos showing a large accumulation of items on the property. Smith testified there had been “significant improvement” since earlier inspections: IPMC §308.1 (accumulation of rubbish/garbage) was observed to be in compliance, but a municipal nuisance violation (Pensacola Municipal Code §14-4-3) remained. The magistrate set Aug. 4 as the compliance date, with a $25-per-day fine to begin Aug. 5 and $200 in court costs if not corrected.
In most cases the owners were not present; code officers produced photographic evidence and certified mail or posted-notice documentation showing prior notice and opportunity to comply. The magistrate repeatedly relied on the officers’ site-inspection testimony and ordered fines and costs consistent with previously issued orders when violations persisted.
The hearing concluded after the magistrate issued the orders and confirmed compliance dates and payment procedures.
