Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Port St. Lucie magistrate hears about 100 code-enforcement cases; dozens get compliance deadlines or abatement orders
Summary
Special Magistrate Keith Davis presided over a Dec. 10 hearing that covered roughly 100 code-enforcement cases; he set compliance dates, continued several hearings to early 2026 and authorized the city to abate properties that remained out of compliance.
Port St. Lucie’s special magistrate, Keith Davis, presided Dec. 10 over a long docket of code-enforcement cases and issued a mix of continuances, compliance deadlines and abatement or fine orders.
The hearing, which opened at 9 a.m., began with the clerk swearing in city code officers and the magistrate noting an agenda of about 100 cases. The city’s neighborhood services staff read a long list of postponements and abatements before the court moved through individual property matters.
In many cases the city presented inspection photos and testimony showing violations such as high grass and weeds, open storage, unmaintained or unsecured pools, inoperable vehicles and accessory-structure deficiencies. Where respondents were absent or the evidence showed noncompliance, Davis repeatedly found proper notice, set short compliance deadlines (most commonly Dec. 11 or Dec. 17, 2025) and authorized the city to abate remaining violations and assess costs.
Several respondents who testified in person sought more time because of medical or financial hardship. Matthew Peloton asked for an extension; Davis granted a continuance to Feb. 11, 2026. Kimberly Bigelow told the magistrate she was undergoing chemotherapy and struggling financially; the court accepted the city’s recommendation to certify fines and administrative costs consistent with the code officer’s request. Other respondents (including Paul McLaughlin, Warner McComb and the owner of a large rural parcel) received continuances to February or March to allow time to work with city staff or pursue repairs.
The magistrate also certified abatement costs in cases where the city had already performed work. For example, the magistrate ordered payment of $2,500 in abatement costs plus $411 in administrative fees where the record showed the city had abated a hazardous condition and provided similar orders in other matters with lower abatement amounts (records in the hearing cite examples of $395, $225 and $125 abatement costs plus $411 in administrative fees in specific cases).
Magistrate Davis repeatedly emphasized public-safety concerns when ordering abatement authority, particularly for unsecured pools, which he described as presenting a direct risk. The clerk read the city’s standard notice procedure into the record, including certified-mail mailings and property postings when signatures were not obtained.
Several cases were continued to give respondents time to work with planning and zoning staff or arrange repairs. The magistrate set March 18, 2026 for further proceedings in at least one commercial/site-plan matter involving a storage container at a private school, and February 11, 2026 for a number of residential continuances.
At the hearing’s close the magistrate signed orders for the matters addressed and the clerk entered dozens of remaining cases into the public record with the city’s requests for compliance by Dec. 17, 2025 and certification of fines if noncompliance continued. The hearing concluded with the magistrate adjourning the session and wishing attendees happy holidays.
What happens next: Respondents given compliance dates must either cure the violations by the deadline or contact city staff to request additional time; if violations remain, the city can abate and later recover abatement costs plus administrative fees, or the magistrate can certify fines as recorded at today’s hearing.
