Fort Pierce special magistrate orders compliance in multiple code‑enforcement cases

Jamie Barrow, the special magistrate for the City of Fort Pierce, heard a slate of code‑enforcement and nuisance cases on Nov. 19, 2025 and ordered multiple property owners to bring properties into compliance or face daily fines.

The hearing covered parking citations, non‑operable vehicles, lot‑clearing and vacant‑building cases. In one of the more consequential rulings, Barrow found a violation at 2634 Mohawk Ave. and ordered the owner to repair or replace rotting wood, repair the roof and obtain required permits within 60 days; the magistrate warned that failure to comply would result in a $250 per‑day fine. Barrow also accepted city evidence and testimony leading to fines or compliance timelines in a series of nuisance and lot‑clearing cases.

Why it matters: These rulings enforce Fort Pierce’s code and nuisance‑abatement program and create financial penalties and potential city abatement costs that can be assessed to property owners if violations are not fixed. Several respondents described barriers to immediate compliance, including difficulty securing architectural plans and limited personal resources.

City evidence and orders Heather Dubuffick, a city code enforcement officer, presented photographs and a notice of violation for 2634 Mohawk Ave. She testified that the city issued the NOV on July 15, 2025 for exterior‑structure and roof/drainage violations (IPMC 304.1; 304.7). The magistrate found a violation and ordered 60 days to repair rotting wood, fix the roof and obtain permits; the order carries a $250 per‑day fine for noncompliance and allows 30 days to appeal.

Respondent Yasaka Osorio told the magistrate she had applied for a permit but had been unable to obtain timely plans from two architects. "He verbally promised we would get the permit or get the plans within 6 to 8 weeks. That never happened," Osorio said, explaining delays in proceeding with roof work. The magistrate acknowledged the circumstances but still issued the 60‑day compliance order.

Parking citation at JC Park Fort Pierce Police Officer Lawrence presented a parking citation from Aug. 24, 2025, involving a white Ford dually with a boat trailer that lacked a tag and occupied five regular parking spaces at JC Park. Photographs were admitted into evidence. The magistrate found a violation and assessed a $78 fine; the order states that failure to pay within 15 days will forward the matter to the county court system.

Cases using interpreters and accessibility Several cases involved respondents needing language assistance. The city used LanguageLink prompts and a sworn Haitian Creole interpreter (provided on the record) to translate testimony for a 118 Garden Ave. case. After the interpreted respondent agreed to remove vehicles from the front yard, Barrow ordered 30 days to refrain from parking on the lawn and imposed a $100 per‑day fine for failure to comply.

First‑time homeowner explains hardship In the 2609 Citrus Ave. case, code officer Charmaine Kirkland said the NOV was issued July 25, 2025 and served via certified mail. Respondent Anchise Hector described being a first‑time homeowner with medical issues and limited resources, saying partial work had been done but some items — including an inoperable vehicle and a trailer — remained. "I am a first time property owner, and I do have medical issues," Hector said. The magistrate gave 30 days to cut grass, remove nonoperable vehicles and debris, and repair or remove the damaged fence; a $100 per‑day fine applies for continued violations and the owner has 30 days to appeal.

Lot‑clearing and nuisance abatement rulings The magistrate found nuisance conditions in multiple lot‑clearing cases across the city and issued orders typically requiring 7–14 days to cut grass, trim vegetation and remove trash. Officers testified to photographic evidence and, in some cases, no contact with owners. The magistrate repeatedly warned that the city may abate conditions and assess costs to the property if owners do not comply; the standard fine for these orders was $100 per day.

Vacant building: board‑up order For a vacant building at 2015 S. 3rd St., the city presented evidence that mail had been returned and that postings were placed at the property. The magistrate found a nuisance condition and ordered the property secured by painted exterior‑grade plywood or similar materials within 10 days, with $100 per‑day fines and possible abatement costs assessed to the property.

Administrative matters and next steps Clerk Calderon read a list of additional cases that were rescheduled or in compliance and described the city’s notice and posting procedures, including international registered mailing when necessary and posting on the property when green cards are not returned. Barrow adjourned the hearing after reading the list of rescheduled and compliance cases.

Votes at a glance 2634 Mohawk Ave. (CE2025‑414): 60 days to repair roof/structure, obtain permits; $250 per‑day fine for noncompliance; 30 days to appeal. JC Park parking citation (PK2025‑348): $78 fine; failure to pay within 15 days forwarded to county court. 118 Garden Ave. (CE2025‑486): 30 days to remove cars from front yard; $100 per‑day fine for noncompliance; 30 days to appeal. 2609 Citrus Ave. (CE2025‑439): 30 days to complete landscaping, remove inoperable vehicles and debris and repair/remove fence; $100 per‑day fine; 30 days to appeal. 126 Garden Ave. (CE2025‑484): 10 days to stop parking in front yard; $100 per‑day fine; 30 days to appeal. Multiple lot‑clearing cases (LTCL series): 7–14 days to cut grass and remove debris; $100 per‑day fine; city may abate and assess costs; 30 days to appeal. 2015 S. 3rd St. (NUIS2025‑28): 10 days to resecure openings with painted exterior‑grade plywood; $100 per‑day fine; 30 days to appeal.

The hearing record shows the city introduced photographic exhibits and notices of violation in each matter, respondents spoke or were represented, interpreters were sworn where required, and the magistrate issued time‑limited orders with stated fines and appeal windows. Several respondents said they were working to comply but cited delays due to difficulty securing architects or limited personal resources; the magistrate allowed some flexibility in timelines where the record supported it.

The magistrate adjourned the hearing after reading identification of rescheduled and in‑compliance cases. Several respondents were advised to contact the code enforcement department if they needed additional time before the ordered deadlines.