Magistrate orders compliance and fines in Fort Walton Beach code-enforcement cases; one homeowner given extra time

The Fort Walton Beach special magistrate entered orders and fines in multiple code-enforcement cases at a hearing on July 15, 2026, directing owners to correct violations ranging from unpermitted structures to accumulated debris and nonoperative vehicles.

Robert Rhodes, a city code inspector, told the magistrate that the property at 20 Bishop Avenue NW was found to have two unpermitted shed structures, setback problems and an occupied recreational vehicle; staff recommended issuance of Order 1, a $325 administrative fee and 15 days for compliance. "Staff recommends 15 days time for compliance," Rhodes said. The magistrate entered the order as requested and set a July 30 compliance deadline, while noting staff should work with the owner if there are genuine efforts to comply.

In a separate matter at 219 Moriarty Street NW, Rhodes said inspectors found prohibited accumulation of nonoperative vehicles. Staff recommended an order that included a $325 administrative fee and 10 days to comply; the magistrate admitted the exhibits and set an August 15/July 25 (as stated in the record) compliance date as requested by staff.

The hearing also addressed a longstanding maintenance case at 8 Prior Road SE, where Rhodes described overgrown grass, litter and debris piled on the roof. Rhodes said the owner on tax records is Kimberly Ann Hoff and that photographs show limb and debris accumulation on the roof. Hoff, who said she has lived at the house for 25 years and that a large, shaded oak makes grass growth unlikely, explained she had paid a landscaper and that she could not safely remove rooftop debris herself. After staff and board members discussed options including variance applications and community assistance, the magistrate extended the compliance period and entered an order. The magistrate told Hoff staff should be contacted before any enforcement escalation and granted an extended compliance period (60 days), with the administrative fee entered in the record.

For the unit at 208 1st Street, Unit D, the inspector described a shared-wall condition and evidence of rodents that a neighboring owner, who identified himself in the hearing, said had been observed. The magistrate admitted exhibits and set a compliance deadline and fee consistent with staff’s recommendation.

The magistrate repeatedly emphasized flexibility when respondents show good-faith progress, saying he would not immediately pursue harsher enforcement if staff and the property owner demonstrate efforts to remedy hazards or code breaches. Written orders and invoices will be mailed or emailed to respondents, and staff said they will coordinate with homeowners who report difficulties complying or request help.

What happens next: the written orders will spell out each compliance deadline and the administrative fee owed; the magistrate noted one case (CE2419LIT) was continued to Aug. 19 at 9 a.m. for a different magistrate because of his conflict of interest.