Delray Beach’s special magistrate heard more than a half dozen code‑enforcement cases on Jan. 7, 2026, and issued deadlines, fines, and a temporary pause on lien accrual in a high‑dollar tent case.

The magistrate found that 114 Southwest 9th Ave had undergone bathroom and plumbing work that lacked a required permit and granted the owner 45 days to obtain an approved permit or face fines up to $150 per day. Code Enforcement Officer Reggie Williams introduced four photographs and cited the Florida Building Code (Plumbing, 7th Ed., Section A105.1) and Delray Beach Land Development Regulation 2.4.13(b).

In a separate case involving 200 South Ocean Blvd, Unit B‑133 (Jordan Del Mar condos), Officer Latoya Thompson presented photographs that she said showed demolition of the old dock and installation of a new dock without a permit. Owners and representatives told the magistrate they had discussed the work with property management and believed a permit was unnecessary. Patrick Lyons, a City plan reviewer, testified staff would require a building permit for the scope of work shown in the photos. The magistrate found a violation and ordered 45 days to come into compliance or risk up to $150 per day in fines.

For 911 Southwest 6th Ave, Officer Williams said a new fence had replaced a prior chain‑link fence without a permit; the owner had applied but the application was on hold pending an owner‑builder affidavit. The magistrate ordered 30 days to secure the required permit or face up to $100 per day in fines.

At 123 East Atlantic Ave, Clean & Safe Officer Connor Lee reported an unpermitted restaurant sign and awning for True Vegan. City staff said permit applications had been submitted and recommended 30 days to finish approvals. The magistrate granted 30 days to comply or face $100/day fines.

The hearing also addressed zoning and interior‑work concerns at Kapow Noodle Bar (32 Southeast 2nd Ave). Officer Lee said the restaurant’s approved floor plans and life‑safety plan did not show a DJ booth and that some interior changes could affect egress and permitted use. Cornelio Severino, director of operations for the restaurant group, said the booth was removed and staff had filed a revised zoning certificate of use and life‑safety plan; the magistrate allowed 30 days to complete the filing and plan updates or impose $100/day fines.

A commercial parking‑lot restriping at 245 Northeast 2nd Ave was found to have been done without permits; the owner’s representative said permit fees had been paid and the application was under review. The magistrate ordered 30 days for permitting or $100/day fines.

In the most consequential enforcement matter, the magistrate heard a noncompliance case for property at 400/404 West Atlantic Ave where an oversized tent remained without permits. City staff reported the case had accrued $21,300 in fines. Owner James Thomas described tenant and rental losses and asked for relief; City staff recommended pausing further accrual while the owner worked toward compliance. The magistrate agreed to a 30‑day stay of additional accrual and set a status check in 30 days, with the condition that the property be brought into compliance (either by permitting the tent or removing it) before further relief would be considered.

Several long‑running commercial cases involving liens, plat and permit sequencing were discussed later in the docket. Attorney Jeff Costello and other representatives described pending conditional‑use approvals, plat/plan certification and the difficulty that a certified city lien posed for refinancing. City staff and the magistrate clarified that obtaining an approved permit is a necessary step toward compliance but that the magistrate cannot unilaterally remove certified city liens; any release or modification of liens must be handled through the City’s administrative processes or by agreement with City officials.

The magistrate’s orders were procedural and remedial: most respondents were given 30 or 45 days to obtain permits or updated zoning/certification documents, and fines were set to accrue if compliance was not achieved. In one tree‑related case the magistrate found the owner had not met with staff as required by a prior board order and directed compliance within 10 days or a $100/day fine would begin.

The hearing reflected recurring compliance issues citywide: work performed without permits (decks/docks, fences, signage, restriping), zoning‑use discrepancies for restaurants, and the downstream financial effects when liens block refinancing. City staff repeatedly urged prompt coordination with development services and life‑safety reviewers to expedite plan reviews and avoid fines.

What’s next: respondents with orders were given the stated deadlines to obtain required permits or correct the violations; the tent noncompliance matter was set for a status hearing in about 30 days with the city pausing additional accrual during that period pending progress toward compliance.