Port St. Lucie magistrate certifies fines, grants short permit deadlines in Dec. 18 enforcement hearing

PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. — The Port St. Lucie special magistrate on Dec. 18 reviewed dozens of building‑permit and code‑enforcement cases, certifying fines where compliance had not been achieved and granting short windows for plan submission and permit applications.

The hearing covered both residential and commercial properties. The magistrate certified existing fines to begin immediately in multiple cases where the city’s records showed no compliance; those certifications generally carry daily penalties of $50–$100 and city investigation costs of $510, which are added to a lien if violations continue. The magistrate also granted staggered deadlines — commonly 30, 60 or 90 days — in cases where petitioners presented evidence they were actively pursuing permits or plan revisions.

One of the more detailed cases involved a fire‑damaged house at 556 Southwest Undalo Road (case 31461). Angela Denise Walden told the magistrate she had paid $25,000 to contractors who failed to complete demolition and repair work and that she subsequently changed contractors and submitted preliminary engineering and architectural plans. Walden said, “I paid them $25,000 to demo the property. They didn’t do anything,” and described switching contractors and pursuing new plans. City staff said the property remains out of compliance and requested daily fines; after hearing that new plans and a change‑of‑contractor had been filed, the magistrate gave the owner time to submit revised engineering drawings and permitted work and approved a 90‑day period for the permit process to move forward.

Commercial units also featured repeatedly. Inovo PSL Office LLC (case 31409, 10513 SW Meeting St., unit 104) presented evidence that plumbing and other interior corrections were in progress; Michael Roberts said architects were finalizing drawings and asked for 30 days to complete submissions. The magistrate granted 30 days for the owner to advance the application and plan review process.

Bayshore Industrial Properties appeared in multiple listings. For 1041 Southwest Biltmore (case 31589) the city said a loft and other interior work lacked permits; the magistrate allowed 60 days for reapplication and zoning/permit corrections. For an adjacent unit (case 30902 / 1057 SW Biltmore) staff reported an expired commercial alteration permit and missing sub‑permits; the parties described confusion about contractor licensing and a recent email re‑submission, and the magistrate set a 30‑day window to get proper permits into the city system and resume inspections.

Another residential case illustrated the limits of local zoning for certain home‑based businesses. The magistrate found that a family day care operating out of 1031 SW Bayshore Blvd. (case 31479) was exceeding the six‑child limit for a residential family day care and certified a $100‑per‑day fine (not to exceed $10,000) plus $510 in costs after staff explained zoning and building‑code constraints; staff told the resident she could either reduce enrollment to six children or move the operation to a commercially zoned facility.

Able First Realty (case 31192) said it had hired an architect and prepared plans for a sink and related plumbing in suite 120 at 2400 SE Veterans Memorial Parkway. The magistrate gave the owner until Jan. 29, 2025 to submit permits and come into compliance; if not completed by that date the daily fine structure applies.

City staff also read a long list of other cases without parties present; the staff reiterated notice procedures (certified mail, posting on the property and agenda posting at city hall) and confirmed photographic evidence and records are retained as public records.

The magistrate closed the hearing after directing parties who can show plan‑review progress and permit filings to return for lien modification or fine reduction only after demonstrating compliance. Cases that remain noncompliant will continue to accrue liens and fines and may be returned to the magistrate for further action.

The hearing record contains the city’s requested fines and the deadlines set for each property; parties seeking relief were repeatedly reminded to work with the permitting division and, when needed, planning and zoning. The hearing was adjourned with no public comment.

Next steps: property owners who received extensions must file permits and address plan‑review notes within the timeframes ordered; certified fines begin as stated in the magistrate’s findings and will accrue until compliance or further court action.