West Palm Beach special magistrate sets compliance deadlines, fines businesses after underage-alcohol stings

The City of West Palm Beach special magistrate on Feb. 18 heard dozens of code-enforcement and police cases, issuing time-limited orders for property owners and fines for businesses that failed to comply with city and state rules.

The magistrate opened the session by outlining procedure, evidence and oath requirements, then heard presentations from city code officers and police. Building inspector Joe Valdez testified that at 413 North Weir Drive he observed work — new windows and doors, an electrical panel and interior renovations — done without completed inspections; Valdez said permits had since been issued but remained open. "Permits have been applied for, and they have been issued since this had started," he said, recommending 60 days to finish inspections. The magistrate found the property in violation and granted 60 days; a fine of up to $50 per day may issue if compliance is not achieved.

City officers presented scores of residential-property cases alleging missing sod, outdoor storage, inoperable vehicles, trash and paint or weatherproofing deficiencies. Across these matters the magistrate routinely adopted officers' testimony, granted owners 30–60 days to remedy violations and reserved authority to assess daily fines (commonly $100 per day) or one-time fines (commonly $250) where appropriate. In one case involving a driveway built without the required permit, the city’s assistant director of engineering recommended 60 days to obtain surveys and permit documentation; the magistrate accepted that timetable.

Police testimony centered on undercover alcohol compliance operations on Clematis Street. Sgt. James Degrassi said undercover officers and confidential informants entered downtown bars and were sold alcoholic beverages while appearing under age. "I noticed a male who appeared to be under the age of 21 consuming a Michelob Ultra canned beverage," Degrassi said of one stop. The city sought $500 fines for the violations; after hearing from a manager and the businesses' representatives the magistrate issued one-time $500 fines under the applicable city ordinance and ordered compliance. The magistrate noted repeat violations can raise penalties.

The hearing also resolved long-standing lien cases at a single property on Handy Avenue. The city reported cumulative fines in the six figures from earlier years but presented negotiated settlements; the magistrate approved reduced payoff amounts and set 30-day payment deadlines, restoring higher balances if payment is not received.

Orders and timeframes issued at the hearing ranged by case. For example, the magistrate gave respondent James Allen 30 days to correct rental-license and certificate-of-use deficiencies at 6907 69th Way or face a $250 one-time fine and up to $100 per day for ongoing certificate-of-use violations. For multiple properties cited for missing sod or outdoor storage the typical remedy was 30 days or a $100/day fine. For the food-truck matter at 534 Clematis, city staff said zoning approval existed but the property owner lacked a required business tax receipt; the magistrate gave the owner a short window (15 days was suggested) to obtain the receipt or face a $250 one-time fine.

Most code officers entered photographs and case files into evidence without objection; in several matters respondents acknowledged receipt of notices and asked for the standard compliance windows. When respondents described delays attributable to tenants, access issues, or mail delivery, magistrate rulings typically preserved the city's notice findings but allowed the standard cure period instead of immediate fines.

The magistrate closed the session after adopting findings and issuing orders on the listed cases; several matters were continued or set for collection actions if ordered payments are not made. The hearing record and written orders will be mailed to respondents and become the official orders of the special magistrate.

The city clerk will issue written orders; property owners and businesses receiving fines or reduced payment agreements were given procedural instructions about payment and further compliance steps.