Pensacola special magistrate orders fines, hears multiple property violation cases; several properties found in compliance

Special Magistrate Matthew Hargraves of the City of Pensacola Code Enforcement Authority ordered daily fines to begin in multiple property cases at a June 3, 2025 hearing and granted compliance findings or continuances in others.

The hearing addressed notices of noncompliance and requests to find code violations under Florida Statute chapter 162 and the International Property Maintenance Code. Hargraves reviewed each file, heard testimony from city code officers and, in one case, from the property owner, then issued rulings that ranged from finding properties compliant to ordering fines to begin if violations are not corrected by specified dates.

Hargraves opened by explaining procedure and swore in witnesses. City of Pensacola code enforcement officers presented photographic and mailing evidence for each case and recommended findings consistent with prior orders or new notices. Officer Kevin Smith and Officer Ron Bowden, among other city staff, testified about inspections, certified-mail returns and current conditions.

In the most contested case, concerning 4231 Langley Avenue (case CE251201), property owner Gary Hendricks testified he had made significant efforts to remove debris, dismantle a shed and arrange for bulky-item pickup but asked for a continuance to obtain legal representation. Assistant City Attorney Janette Richardson objected to a continuance, noting prior opportunities to comply. After hearing testimony and reviewing photographs, Hargraves denied the continuance and ruled: “I am going to order that the daily fines for this case of $50 per day will commence as of 06/03/2025.” The order reflects an earlier May 6 compliance date and a $50-per-day fine if noncompliance continued after June 2.

For 718 West Zaragoza Street (case CE251005), Officer Ron Bowden testified the house remained occupied without power and presented photographs showing no meter on the service box and continued occupancy. Hargraves found the May 20 order had not been complied with and ordered daily fines of $25 to begin 06/03/2025 and court costs of $200 as permitted by Florida statute and City of Pensacola ordinances.

Several properties were found to have been brought into compliance before the hearing, and Hargraves awarded court costs of $200 to the city but declined to impose continuing daily fines: 867 Berkeley Drive (CE245738) was found compliant as of the compliance date; 918 North Balfour Street (CE252349) was corrected before the hearing and will not incur further fines; and 1700 West Romana Street (CE252057) was found corrected as of the reinspection and will only have court costs assessed.

Other findings and deadlines ordered by Hargraves included: - 4005 King Arthur Drive (CE252593): Magistrate found the property in violation, ordered $200 in court costs to the city to be paid within 30 days, and set a new compliance deadline of 06/16/2025; if not corrected, $25 per day fines will begin 06/17/2025. - 5835 Sanders Avenue (CE252162): Magistrate found violations (overgrown vegetation, inoperable van, dilapidated shed), ordered the property be brought into compliance by 06/16/2025, $200 court costs to the city, and $25 per day fines to commence 06/17/2025 if not corrected.

One matter, 6220 Keating Road (CE251140), was continued to the July 17 (06/17/2025 in the hearing calendar) hearing because the city discovered the notice of hearing had not been properly mailed and requested continuance to obtain proper service; Hargraves granted that request.

Magistrate Hargraves noted a prior long-running substandard-structure case affecting the same owner tied to CE251201, indicating an earlier abatement and a previous daily fine that had accrued for years; city staff testified that the longstanding substandard case included an abatement and that fines previously had accumulated to a substantial figure. Hargraves emphasized that the hearing’s focus is whether each named property complied with the specific previously issued orders and that requests for continuances to obtain counsel will be weighed against notice and prior opportunities to cure.

The hearing record shows the city relied on mailed notices, posted notices and photographic inspections for the cited addresses. Where certified mail or posting could not be verified, the city reposted notices and proceeded with hearings. Hargraves repeatedly noted his findings were based on the evidence presented at the hearing and left open the property owners’ ability to seek counsel thereafter to resolve outstanding issues.

The hearing concluded after disposition of all listed matters; Hargraves adjourned the session once no further business remained on the docket.