Fort Pierce special magistrate orders 60-day compliance windows across multiple properties and denies key extension requests

The City of Fort Pierce special magistrate on Nov. 7, 2024 heard a full docket of code-enforcement cases and issued a string of compliance orders and rulings that will require owners to obtain permits, complete repairs and secure inspections within 30–60 days in most matters.

The hearing opened with city inspectors presenting evidence — photographs and inspection reports — in dozens of cases, from pool enclosures at the Hemingway Condo Association to defective windows, pest infestations and unsafe structural conditions at multifamily properties. Miles Keller, the city investigator, presented the Hemingway Condo case and asked the magistrate to find a violation; the magistrate said, “I find that the violation exists and that the violator be given 60 days,” setting the compliance standard repeated across the docket.

Why it matters: The magistrate’s orders typically require property owners to obtain permits, secure approval for all required inspections and cure any additional violations; failure to comply will expose owners to daily fines of $100 and the possibility of lien proceedings. For tenants and residents of affected properties, the orders aim to prompt timely repairs; for owners, they create a near-term timeline and potential financial penalty if work is not completed.

Several landlords and managers told the magistrate they are already working with contractors and plan to seek reinspections. Keisha Fidell, property manager for Sable Chase Essential Housing, said crews were on site and asked for additional time while work continued; the magistrate granted the standard 60 days where staff recommended it. Inspector Logan Wynne and other staff entered dated photographs and records tying the violations to inspections earlier in 2024.

A contested extension request: The Boardwalk Condominium Association, which owns 715 South Ocean Drive, asked the magistrate to pause fines and grant more time while it sought revised engineering plans and contractor estimates. Tiffany Ofamu, identified by city staff as the association president, said engineers had revised plans and provided a contractor estimate; staff noted one estimate in the file from American Environmental and Restoration for $89,228 and that the offer had limited validity. The magistrate sided with staff and denied the association’s request, stating, “I find that based on the testimony today, and the evidence presented, that there was no evidence of extenuating circumstances, and then, as such, the request for extension is denied, and the fines will continue to accrue.” The magistrate said a written order will follow.

Other rulings and continuances: The city moved two cases that required a Spanish interpreter and, by mutual agreement, continued them 30 days while parties pursue permit work. In several matters where respondents were not present, inspectors’ photographs and reports were entered into evidence and the magistrate found violations existed, generally giving respondents 60 days to obtain required permits and inspections. In at least one parking-lot paving matter, staff agreed to continue the case because the permit review remained pending.

Claims and disputed points: In the Aberfoyle Avenue solar case, the owner’s representative said the contractor initially claimed the work was a repair and therefore did not require a permit; city staff countered that the contractor later agreed permits were required and that resubmittal was already under way. In cases where owners said they lacked financing, staff cited prior extensions and liens and argued those circumstances did not meet the magistrate-rule standard for additional time.

What happens next: For most matters the magistrate established a 30- or 60-day compliance period; in some cases the building department retains discretion to grant administrative extensions of up to 90 days, and any owner denied by the department may seek further consideration from the magistrate. The magistrate reiterated that written orders will follow and reminded respondents of a 30-day right to appeal where applicable.

The hearing was adjourned after the docket concluded; city staff said they will mail and email orders and continue to process reinspections and permit reviews.