Fort Pierce special magistrate orders repairs, cleanups and fines in May 21 hearing

The Special Magistrate for the City of Fort Pierce on May 21 ordered property owners at multiple addresses to make repairs, remove outside storage and clear vegetation within set deadlines or face daily fines; several orders included instructions to obtain any required permits and noted a 30-day right to appeal.

The hearing addressed a series of short code-enforcement, lot-clearing, nuisance and parking cases. The magistrate repeatedly cited city code and the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) in finding violations and set compliance deadlines that ranged from seven days to 90 days depending on the case and whether building permits would be required.

CE2024-135, 1703 Miami Court — Owner listed as Anthony Frangelo (estate): The magistrate found violations for deteriorated window and door frames and exterior walls (cited as IPMC 304.13 and IPMC 304.6). The owner’s family representative, Wesley Frangelo, said probate to transfer the property is underway and that family members have been clearing and repairing what they can; he told the magistrate, “I’m getting the probate going and everything. I got my case all here. We’re gonna try to rehabilitate the entire house.” The magistrate granted 90 days to repair deteriorated window frames and doors, repair rotten wood throughout the house and obtain any necessary permits; failure to comply will result in a $100-per-day fine and the usual 30-day appeal period was stated.

CE2025-146, 3205 Kentucky Avenue — Owner: Idris Kineas: Code enforcement cited protective treatment violations (IPMC 304.2). The city recommended 15 days but the magistrate extended that to 30 days to pressure-wash and, if necessary, paint areas showing chipping, molding or deterioration. The order carries a $250-per-day fine for failure to comply and a 30-day appeal right.

CE2025-70, 123 N. 15th Street — Owner: Ahan Mullins: The magistrate found protective-treatment violations (IPMC 304.2). After discussion the magistrate set a 30-day deadline to pressure-wash and paint where needed; noncompliance will trigger a $100-per-day fine and a 30-day appeal period.

CE2025-58, 326 N. 15th Street — Owners: Earl Stewart and Earl Stewart Jr.: Violations included landscape maintenance, outside storage and accumulation of tires, and roof/drainage issues (city code 123-37(12), 24-19(6)(a)/(b), IPMC 304.7). The magistrate gave 30 days to cut grass and landscaping, remove trash and tires, and to obtain any permit required to repair roof deterioration; once a permit is approved the property has 180 days to complete permit-related repairs. Failure to comply will result in a $100-per-day fine; a 30‑day appeal right was stated.

LTCL2025-83 and LTC0D2025-84, Tumbling Kling Road / 815 Tumbling Kling Road — Owner: Yin’s Properties, Inc. (Isabelle Tian): These adjacent lot-clearing cases cited nuisances and landscaping requirements for parcels under three acres (city code 24-19 subsections 11(a) and 11(b)). Isabelle Tian said hauling and trimming costs quoted by contractors exceeded $10,000; she told the magistrate, “They charged me over $10,000 just for trim the trees.” After discussion the magistrate granted 40 days for each parcel to cut grass and weeds, trim trees and shrubs to code standards and remove landscape debris; noncompliance will result in a $100-per-day fine and the city may abate the nuisance and assess costs to the property.

LTCL2025-79 and NUIS2025-8, 2610 Avenue B — Owner: Estate of Willie Jacobs Jr.: The magistrate handled two linked matters at the same address (lot clearing and a vacant-building nuisance). Photographs and a city complaint led to findings that the property presented nuisance conditions. The magistrate ordered seven days to cut grass, trim trees and remove debris for the lot-clearing case (LTCL2025-79) and seven days to secure openings on the vacant building with painted exterior-grade plywood or similar product for the nuisance-vacant-building case (NUIS2025-8). Each order carries a $100-per-day fine for ongoing violations and the city may abate and assess costs; both orders include a 30‑day appeal right.

CE2025-57, 429 N. 15th Street — Owner: Affordable Affordable Housing of Bridal LLC (as listed): The magistrate found multiple violations including landscape maintenance, indoor furniture stored on a carport, outside storage, containers, accessory-structure and exterior-wall deficiencies (city code and IPMC sections cited in the record). The magistrate ordered the owner to cut grass, move indoor furniture inside, remove trash and miscellaneous items, repair fences, pressure-wash and paint where needed and repair rotten wood; the order gave 10 days to comply and stated a $250-per-day fine for failure to comply and a 30‑day appeal period. The city noted tenants had been informed but that no communication had been received from the listed owner.

Parking citations — Several parking citations were adjudicated as uncontested: PK2025-106 (1 Avenue A, owner Yessi Armatos), PK2025-120 (JC Park, owner Ashton Lee Lane) and PK2025-125 (South Causeway Park, owner Kendra Irene Basilere). Each citation assessed a $50 fine, $10 administrative fee and an $18 late fee (total due $78), with payment required within 15 days or referral to the county court system; each citation carries a 30‑day right to appeal.

Magistrate rulings repeatedly reminded respondents to contact the appropriate City departments to confirm whether building permits would be required before beginning repairs; in permit-required cases staff noted a typical 180-day window to finish work after permit approval. The magistrate also reminded respondents that failure to comply would trigger daily fines and potential city abatement with costs assessed to the property.

The hearing also included administrative identifications and rescheduling of several additional code, parking and nuisance cases; the magistrate adjourned the session after completing the docket.

Why this matters: Fort Pierce’s enforcement actions are intended to address neighborhood blight, structural hazards and public‑health concerns, and the magistrate’s orders set enforceable deadlines and potential financial consequences for noncompliance.

Ending — Appeals and next steps: The magistrate repeatedly stated that respondents have a 30‑day right to appeal the orders. For cases that require permits the city’s code and building departments were identified as the contacts to answer questions about permit requirements and timelines.