Fort Pierce special magistrate orders compliance, fines and deadlines in multiple code-enforcement cases

Special Magistrate Jamie Barrow on June 4 issued compliance orders, deadlines and fines in a series of City of Fort Pierce code-enforcement and citation-appeal cases heard at a special magistrate session.

The magistrate found violations in cases ranging from improper parking at JC Park to lot-clearing and structural-repair orders for multiple residential properties. Most respondents were given between seven and 60 days to correct violations; the magistrate set daily fines for failures to comply and advised respondents about appeals and permitting where relevant.

The hearing mattered because the orders set enforceable deadlines and potential daily fines that the city can assess against properties. In several cases the magistrate tied continued noncompliance to the city's nuisance-abatement process and to assessments of abatement costs against property owners.

The magistrate handled a short parking-citation appeal and more than a half-dozen property-code cases. In the citation appeal at JC Park, the magistrate reduced the recommended penalty after hearing from the vehicle owner. Charmaine Kirkland, a City of Fort Pierce code- and parking-enforcement officer, testified to photographs documenting the vehicle's placement. The vehicle owner, Arthur Burgess, said he was making a delivery at a stand-up paddle-board event and acknowledged the car was not parked properly. As Special Magistrate Jamie Barrow said during the hearing, "I'm not inclined to impose the full fine that's being recommended here," and ordered a reduced assessment.

Key rulings and orders (cases at a glance):

- PK2025-124 (JC Park, Arthur Burgess) — Finding: violation for improper parking. Order: assessed a $10 fine (administrative fee), reduced from the full recommended penalty; failure to pay within 15 days will result in referral to county court and exposure to the higher $60 penalty listed on the citation. Evidence: city photographs and the citation were admitted into evidence.

- CE2025-111 (2402 Oleander Blvd., Nicholas and Pamela Kapsis) — Finding: multiple property maintenance and building-code violations (IPMC 304.1, 304.13, 304.2, 304.3, 304.7). Order: 45 days to pressure-wash and paint discolored areas, replace missing or broken siding and windows, repair the shed roof and fascia, and obtain any necessary permits; failure to comply will result in a $100-per-day fine. The magistrate noted some corrections were already underway and scheduled a 45-day compliance window.

- NONOP2025-115 (1002 Hickory St., Lizzie M. Duncan Estate / Maddie C. Smith) — Finding: nuisance/nonoperable vehicle (code 24-19 subsections cited). Order: 30 days to make the white Chrysler PT Cruiser roadworthy or remove it; failure to comply will permit the city to abate (including towing) and assess costs to the property. The magistrate said property owners may contract a tow company if they choose.

- NONOP2025-108 (1002 Hickory St., same owners) — Finding: a second nonoperable-vehicle violation at the same address. Order: identical ruling — 30 days to ensure all vehicles are safely and legally operable or face city abatement and assessment of costs.

- CE2020-?924 (2404 Oleander Blvd., Joan Stevenson Estate / Antonio Tyrone McArthur speaking) — Finding: dead-or-diseased trees and yard debris. Order: 30 days to remove fallen trees; failure to comply will trigger a $100-per-day fine and potential city abatement costs.

- CE2025-108 (2404 Oleander Blvd., Joan Stevenson Estate / Antonio Tyrone McArthur) — Finding: multiple exterior-structure, accessory-structure and window violations; previous fines were noted for roof issues. Order: 60 days to move waste bins to the side or rear of the home, repair the fence and cement planter, replace rotted wood and broken window(s), obtain any required permits and comply with permit conditions; $250-per-day fine will be assessed for failure to comply. The magistrate noted that once permits are issued permit timelines (e.g., the building permit term) apply, and encouraged the respondent to check for grant assistance through the city.

- CE2025-133 (625 S. U.S. Highway 1, MJG Investments LLC) — Finding: vacant-premises signage, overgrowth and shuttered windows; cited provisions included sign and landscaping requirements and IPMC 702.4. Order: 15 days to remove outdated business signage, remove weeds, remove window shutters and obtain required permits; $250-per-day fine for noncompliance.

- LotClearing 2025-68 (805 Texas Ct., Vanessa Ewan) — Finding: overgrown grass and landscaping violations. Order: 7 days to cut grass and weeds, trim trees/shrubs to notice standards, remove trash and landscape debris; $100-per-day fine for continued violation.

- LotClearing 2025-704 (534 S. Fifth St., Ellen Velour LLC) — Finding: overgrown grass and fence-line debris. Order: 7 days to cut grass, trim vegetation, clean fence lines and remove trash; $100-per-day fine for continued violation.

- LTCL2025-95 (1411 Avenue M, Stevie Anderson) — Finding: remaining trash and debris after partial mowing. Order: 7 days to remove trash and debris and finish cutting/trim work; $100-per-day fine for noncompliance.

- LTCL2025-88 (N. 20 Fifth St., Julia Richardson Estate and others) — Finding: overgrowth and debris. Order: 7 days to cut and trim vegetation, remove trash and debris and clean fence lines; $100-per-day fine for continued violation.

Several respondents told the magistrate they were actively working to correct violations or had applied for permits. Antonio Tyrone McArthur said he had been working on the property after a family bereavement and told the magistrate, "I've been trying to do my best." Code officers repeatedly advised respondents to obtain building permits when structural repairs are required and suggested they contact the city's grants or building-permit staff for assistance or guidance.

The magistrate read standard appeal instructions at the end of each ruling; most orders noted a 30-day right to appeal. For cases that the magistrate ordered to abatement, the city may assess abatement costs against the property if the city performs the work.

The hearing concluded after the magistrate read a list of cases that were in compliance or rescheduled for a later date.