Fort Pierce special magistrate dismisses sign citation, issues 30–60 day compliance orders across dozens of code cases

The Fort Pierce special magistrate hearing on June 18, 2024, reviewed a docket of code-enforcement and parking cases and issued a mix of dismissals, compliance orders and reduced penalties.

The most prominent early decision dismissed a sign citation at 2777 South U.S. Highway 1 after the city’s code officer testified she removed 20 signs from the right-of-way and presented time-stamped photographs. The Special Magistrate said, "I'm gonna dismiss it," noting the respondent acted promptly after being notified and removed the signs. The city had initially cited 22 signs on its summary sheet but staff corrected the record to 20 signs on the citation itself.

The hearing covered several residential and commercial maintenance cases. In a property case involving 11240 Bennet Drive, trustee Mary Susan Nunn told the magistrate the property is part of a complicated estate and that the trust lacks funds for immediate roof repairs. The city requested that, if a violation is found, the trustee be ordered to obtain a permit and begin repairs. The magistrate found a violation and ordered 30 days to pull the required permit; staff noted that, after a permit is issued, the work window is six months under the applicable permit conditions.

A repeat-violation case for a commercial building on Orange Avenue resulted in fines being set to accrue from March 15, 2024, but the magistrate reduced the daily accrual to $25 per day (down from the statutory maximum) to encourage completion. The magistrate explained the reduction was intended to balance statutory tags for repeat violations with a realistic path to compliance given ongoing repair activity.

Several respondents received compliance windows of 30 to 60 days for issues ranging from peeling paint and rotted trim to overgrown landscaping and nonoperable vehicles. For example, a property at 33005 Dunbar Street (Lily M. Jones Estate) was given 60 days to remedy multiple violations — an extension the magistrate credited to recent and forecasted inclement weather — with a warning that a $250-per-day fine would begin if the property remains out of compliance.

The hearing also addressed routine parking citations across downtown blocks. Time-stamped photos were entered in evidence for multiple parking cases from March; in several instances the magistrate found the violations but waived administrative or late fees where respondents demonstrated a timely attempt to pay or provided mitigating circumstances (one respondent cited limited parking on the day of a presidential visit). Most parking fines were assessed at $50, with the magistrate typically waiving additional fees and giving respondents 14 days to pay or 30 days to appeal the decision.

City staff repeatedly instructed respondents to keep code officers informed of progress and to notify named staff (for example, Officer Debadec or Officer Kirkland) when permits are pulled or repairs are underway to schedule inspections. The magistrate emphasized the 30-day right to appeal for parties unhappy with a finding and said written orders will be mailed to owners and listed agents where applicable.

What happens next: respondents ordered to comply in 30–60 days must notify the assigned code officer so the city can inspect; fines noted in orders (commonly $250/day for property-maintenance failures, reduced exceptions for repeat cases) will begin to accrue from the dates specified in each order if compliance is not achieved. Parties retain a 30-day right to appeal the magistrate’s findings.

Cases requiring additional hearing or those rescheduled were read into the record at the end of the session; the magistrate then adjourned the hearing.