Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Pierce special magistrate orders repairs, sets deadlines and reduces several liens
Summary
At a July 11 special magistrate hearing, the City of Fort Pierce found building-code violations at multiple properties, set deadlines (30–90 days) to obtain permits and complete repairs or face $100/day fines, approved several lien reductions to administrative costs payable by Sept. 11, 2024, and continued a few matters for permit submittal.
FORT PIERCE, Fla. — The city’s special magistrate on July 11 found code violations in a slate of property cases, setting timelines for repairs or permit closings and approving several lien reductions to administrative-cost amounts payable in 60 days or by a Sept. 11, 2024 deadline.
The hearing addressed dozens of enforcement matters. Inspectors detailed unpermitted renovations, unsafe structures and damaged building components that, in several cases, staff said required permits and signed plans from licensed contractors. The magistrate entered standard compliance orders in most matters: 30 days for pool and spa handrail repairs, 60 days for more extensive structural, electrical or fire-damage work, and a 90-day timeline in one large redevelopment matter.
Why it matters: The orders impose both deadlines and a continuing financial penalty for noncompliance — $100 per day in most cases — and give property owners a 30-day right to appeal. The decisions affect tenants, nearby residents and property owners who must secure permits, licensed contractors and inspections to bring properties into compliance.
Among the actions: the magistrate continued Case 23-3076 (306 Mockingbird Ave.) to allow the owner to submit engineering revisions and promised staff assistance with permit submittal; granted 30 days to SP Pine Creek Village LP (Case 24-529, 2801 Avenue L, Bldg. 4-35) to start required repairs and permits; and set 60 days for Saint Mary’s Hospitality Group LLC to obtain permits and complete handrail corrections. A large industrial property at 1450 Bell Avenue was given a new order with a 90-day timeline for site-plan and permitting work after new ownership signaled progress toward compliance.
The magistrate also approved multiple lien reductions to administrative-cost amounts after staff calculations and argument from property representatives. For example, staff recommended — and the magistrate approved — reducing a lien for 2005 Avenue P to $1,055.05 and giving the owner 60 days to pay; similar reductions to $1,265.05, $1,304.55 and $1,052.95 were ordered for other properties, all with a Sept. 11, 2024 due date specified in the order to avoid reversion to the original lien amounts.
City staff and property representatives described the practical obstacles in several matters. Perry Postlethwaite, the owner involved in the 306 Mockingbird Avenue matter, told the hearing that he has the engineer’s drawings on his phone but lacks experience using email to submit them and that the engineer he had retained previously died; he said, “But the truth is I’ve never ever sent an email in my entire life.” Staff offered in-person help at City Hall to upload the required documents.
Contractor and owner representatives frequently told the magistrate they were actively working with the building and engineering divisions. Scott Holmes, identifying himself as the general contractor and owner’s representative on the 1450 Bell Avenue project, said the team had submitted site plans and been through the DPCR review and that they hoped “we’d enjoy the permit tomorrow” if pending items were resolved. City building staff confirmed permit rejections and revision requests in several matters.
The hearing included a telephonic appearance where a would-be representative lacked written authorization from the property owner; the magistrate continued that case 30 days so proper documentation could be filed. In the final major matter, the owner of 400 South Ocean Drive (Case 23-2632) received a 60-day extension — to Sept. 11 — for final contractor retention and permit closure; fines remained stayed during the extension but would resume if the permit was not issued by the deadline.
What happens next: Orders typically require permit submittal and inspections and carry standard enforcement consequences if deadlines are missed. Several cases were continued to allow permit revisions or to permit staff to work directly with owners. Property owners retain a statutory right to a 30-day appeal in each case.
