Fort Pierce special magistrate finds violations at multiple properties; most owners given 60 days to pull permits

FORT PIERCE, Fla. — At a Feb. 13 special magistrate hearing, Special Magistrate Jamie Barrow found that violations existed at a series of properties across Fort Pierce and issued orders requiring owners to obtain permits or complete repairs within court-ordered time frames.

The most-common remedy in the hearing was a 60-day window for property owners to obtain or renew building permits and to secure required inspections; most orders also warned that a $100-per-day fine would be assessed if compliance was not achieved. For larger redevelopment sites and complex permit streams, the magistrate granted 180-day continuances or longer stays of fine accrual. In one case the magistrate reduced assessed fines to administrative costs and gave the respondent 30 days to pay that reduced amount.

Why this matters: The hearing dealt with long-running code-enforcement matters affecting vacant industrial parcels, commercial storefronts and multiple residential rental properties. The rulings set deadlines that trigger permit review and inspections, and they pause — temporarily in many cases — the accrual of enforcement fines while owners pursue required permits.

The city presented evidence, typically photographs and inspection summaries, and building inspectors identified code sections allegedly violated. Inspectors and owners described whether permits had been applied for, whether work had already been done without permits, and whether reinspection requests had been filed. In many cases the magistrate credited the city’s recommendations to give owners limited time to pull permits and close work out.

Notable outcomes (by case)

- Case 23-982 (2134 N. U.S. Highway 1; Dover Neal Development Inc.). Building inspector Logan Wynne testified that the permit had expired and no inspections had been completed. Magistrate Barrow found a violation and ordered the owner to obtain or renew the expired permit within 60 days and to call for inspections at least every 180 days until the permit is closed; otherwise a $100-per-day fine may be assessed.

- Case 24-719 (1102 S. U.S. Highway 1; Jeff Beagan Holdings LLC). Staff reported the permit application was ready to be issued pending final fee payment. The magistrate agreed to stay accrual of fines for 30 days to allow issuance and to reconvene on any contested notice-of-service issues later.

- Case BV2024-0005 (309 Hernando St.; D & D Keys Holding LLC). Inspector Joel Smith described deterioration of porch posts and recommended a 60-day compliance period. The magistrate found a violation and ordered 60 days to obtain required permits and inspections, with the same $100-per-day penalty if not cured.

- Case BV2024-00009 (811 N. 20th St.; Earl Gardner). Inspector Frank Remling presented photographs showing plumbing, appliance and interior-surface problems. Gardner said he had begun repairs and expected to comply. The magistrate found a violation and ordered 60 days to obtain permits or otherwise cure the listed issues, with fines to begin thereafter if work is not completed.

- Case BV2024-000399 (901 Avenue D; 901 Avenue D, LLC). The city described unsafe-structure concerns and recommended vacating occupants until repairs are done. The magistrate found a violation and ordered a 60-day period to obtain permits and inspections; the order included the standard 180-day inspection cadence and the $100-per-day fine warning.

- Case BV2024-00043 (202 N. 30th St.; Jean Elozian). Inspector Wynne said a storage shed had been converted to living space with plumbing and electrical, without permits. The owner said he received engineered plans the morning of the hearing and expected to submit them; the magistrate ordered 60 days to obtain permits and inspections.

- Case BV2024-00046 (1001 N. 16th Ct.; Gabriela Embas). Miles Keller described numerous interior, plumbing, electrical and infestation issues and recommended permits and pest treatment. The magistrate found a violation and ordered 60 days for permits and inspections.

- Case BV2024-00058 (909 Boston Ave.; Kazim and Svejtim Polatani). The city reported an electrical permit had been issued but did not cover the full scope; the owner said remaining permits were under review and indicated hurricane damage and undergrounding of services. The magistrate found a violation and ordered 60 days to complete permitting and inspections.

- Case 17-894 (2504 Avenue G; New Covenant Prayer Center). This property dates to earlier enforcement actions. Contractor Lloyd Constance and Bishop Fisher described health issues and delays. City staff recommended staying accrual of fines; because there were no life-safety issues, the magistrate allowed a 90-day stay of fine accrual (longer than the typical 60 days) and urged the parties to work diligently to close the outstanding roofing, soffit and plumbing items.

- Case 17-898 (1450 Bell Ave.; 1450 Bell Avenue Owner LLC). A large former industrial site whose violations predate the current owner was the subject of extended permitting work. The city reported the land-development review was approved and the land-development permit was in final checks. The magistrate granted a 180-day continuance tied to active permitting; staff said the case would not need to return to the magistrate so long as the permit remained active and progress continued.

- Case 19-3145 (4060 Selvitz Road; Bobby and Wanda Johnson). New ownership and an active pending permit were described; the magistrate granted a 180-day continuance to allow the permit-review process (which involves South Florida Water Management and county right-of-way reviews) to proceed.

- Case 24-1365 (100 Corner Drive, Building E; Sable Chase Essential Housing). The property manager said revisions would be submitted; the magistrate granted a 60-day stay of fines to allow corrected, digitally signed plans and permit issuance.

- Case 24-438 (308 Hernando St.; Joyce Cohen Kroll). The respondent’s son said an engineer would deliver signed drawings within about a week and a local contractor was lined up. City staff recommended a 60-day extension for permit issuance and 180 days to complete work; the magistrate adopted the recommendation.

- Case BV2024-00057 (102 Pomelo Place). A screen room and associated electrical work had been done; the contractor was aware of outstanding electrical permitting. The magistrate ordered 60 days for permit issuance and the usual inspection timeline.

- Case 22-2294 (2514 Avenue Q; AG JM LLC). This hearing concerned a request to reduce fines. Staff calculated administrative costs of $1,106.35 and recommended reducing the assessed fines to that amount (staff opposed the respondent’s requested $500). The magistrate reduced the fines to $1,106.35 and set a 30-day deadline for payment; she warned that the full $4,730 total would be reinstated if the reduced amount was not paid on time.

What the magistrate said: Special Magistrate Jamie Barrow repeatedly framed orders around permitting: “This court finds that a violation exists,” Barrow said in multiple findings, and then outlined the compliance window and the $100-per-day fine if requirements are not met. City inspectors provided photo exhibits and chronology for each case.

What happens next: Most owners were given a limited period (commonly 60 days) to obtain permits and schedule inspections; larger redevelopment matters were continued for 180 days or given stays tied to active permits. If permits are not obtained within the ordered time frames, the fines will resume and the magistrate may schedule further hearings. In the fine-reduction case, the reduced amount is due within 30 days.

The hearing record shows the city used photographs and inspection reports as evidence and repeatedly recommended limited stays of accrual to allow owners to regularize permits. The magistrate emphasized public-safety-sensitive matters when denying longer extensions and urged owners to act promptly to avoid reinstatement of fines.