Fort Pierce special magistrate orders permits, sets 60- and 90-day deadlines in multiple code cases

Special Magistrate Jamie Barrow on April 10 found violations in a series of Fort Pierce code-enforcement cases and issued orders requiring owners to obtain permits and complete repairs within set deadlines, or face fines and other enforcement. The magistrate gave most respondents either 60 or 90 days to obtain required permits and instructed the building department to inspect or re-inspect properties as work progressed.

The orders covered a block of adjudications including unpermitted driveway and renovation work, structural damage from vehicle collisions, and properties judged unfit for human habitation. Barrow said, “The court finds that a violation does exist” when formally announcing outcomes and then set compliance deadlines and appeal rights for each respondent.

Why it matters: the magistrate’s orders set concrete deadlines and potential daily fines that can materially affect property owners, tenants and landlords, and they give the city a path to ensure unsafe or unpermitted work is corrected. In several cases the magistrate extended timelines to 90 days after staff said more time was reasonable.

Key outcomes (selected cases):

- Kennard properties (North Ninth Street and Avenue B): The court found violations for driveway work performed without permits at two parcels owned by Kenneth Kennard (cases BB2024-00055209 and BB2024-00056903). Miles Keller, city investigator, testified and submitted photographs. The magistrate ordered 60 days to obtain permits, inspections at least every 180 days while permits remain open, cure of other nonpermit violations, and warned that a $100-per-day fine would be assessed for ongoing noncompliance; owners have 30 days to appeal.

- Gate ITL Enterprises / Ranish Isidore (304 and 306 North 20th Street): The city presented photographs and listed multiple renovation items done without permits (driveways, soffits, siding, windows, electrical). The magistrate found violations and gave 60 days for permit application and corrective inspections.

- 506 South Eighth Street (Angel Rafael / Leister Brooks): Inspector testimony documented missing or damaged windows, trim and exterior elements. The magistrate ordered 60 days to obtain permits and make repairs; roofing permits previously issued were noted in the file.

- Claudia Gonzalez, 719 South 20th Street (Case 24-1277): Staff reported an earlier order determining violation and an affidavit of noncompliance; inspectors cited missing smoke detectors and lack of hot water at the time of inspection. Staff recommended staying accrual of fines if the city could verify that smoke alarms were reinstalled and hot water restored. The magistrate agreed to stay the accrual of fines for 90 days conditioned on timely verification; the order will be recorded and Gonzalez was told she has 30 days to appeal. Staff asked to re-inspect and the respondent was instructed to coordinate reinspection with Building Department staff (Miraval Luna).

- 2302 Florida Avenue (Juan Raya): The property was damaged when a vehicle hit the structure. Inspector Joel Smith testified the damage resulted from that incident and no permits had been applied for; the magistrate allowed 90 days to obtain permits and required inspections and compliance or assessment of $100-per-day fines; 30 days to appeal was noted.

- 1232 Easter Avenue (Rosa Vasquez): Multiple interior and exterior violations including infestations and structural items were listed. The city reported progress on demolition and window/door permits in review. The magistrate allowed 90 days to obtain required permits, inspections and corrections, and noted occupants should not reoccupy the property until remedied.

- 1703 Miami Court (estate of Anthony Frangela): The building inspector described conditions rendering the structure unfit for habitation and noted elderly occupants. Wesley Frangela, representing the family, described probate and caretaker issues. The magistrate allowed 90 days for permitting and repairs in light of the pending probate and the family’s representations.

- 705 South 20th Street, Apt. 11A (Orange Apartments LLC): The city reported tenant complaints about windows, water heater and drainage, and that no permits had been applied for. The magistrate found violations and ordered 60 days to obtain permits and inspections or face $100-per-day fines.

- Felipe Ramos, 1901 South Eighth Street (fine reduction): Staff reported accrued fines of $9,050 and calculated administrative costs of $864.95. The magistrate reduced the outstanding amount to administrative costs ($864.95) in recognition that the property was brought into compliance; Ramos was given six months to pay before prior fines could be reinstated.

- 602 North Ninth Street (Lizette Miranda): The property previously had a determination of violation and accrued fines. Miranda explained delays tied to obtaining a certificate of appropriateness and permit portal uploads. City staff said the certificate needed to be uploaded by the contractor; the magistrate stayed accrual of fines for 45 days to allow the permit review to proceed.

- 2510 South Ocean Drive (Pie Hole LLC / restaurant tenant): Respondent Wade Watson said two tiki huts and a shipping container required permits and drawings. Staff and the magistrate granted a 90-day extension to resolve permit submittals and compliance.

- 111 Osceola Avenue (Juan Hernandez & Margarita Ruiz): Respondent sought to replace windows; staff confirmed owner-builder permitting is allowed if the owner or immediate family will occupy the dwelling for at least a year. Fees due on a window permit were paid the morning of the hearing; the magistrate ordered a stay of fines to permit 60 days to obtain the permit and granted a 90-day extension where appropriate.

Discussion vs. orders: Inspectors from the building department and city investigators presented photographs and timelines of when cases were initiated; respondents gave explanations ranging from contractor miscommunication to insurance disputes. Building department staff repeatedly emphasized that permit review and issuance requires document uploads to the city’s portal and, in some cases, sealed drawings from an architect or engineer. Where staff said a short extension was reasonable, the magistrate generally granted 60- or 90-day timelines. In cases involving life-safety issues staff recommended occupants vacate until repairs were completed.

What’s next: Each order includes an appeal period (30 days) and, in most cases, a compliance deadline; property owners are responsible for coordinating inspections through the building department and complying with permit conditions. The magistrate noted that fines will resume or be assessed ($100 per day was the figure cited in orders) if compliance is not achieved.

Ending: The magistrate closed the docket after entering orders; most matters were continued to allow permitting and inspections to proceed.