The City of Fort Pierce Special Magistrate on April 2 found that Beach Bowls Fort Pierce LLC was operating without a required certificate of use and ordered the business to obtain the certificate within 10 days or cease business operations.

Code Enforcement Officer Heather Dubovic presented photographs dated Dec. 4, 2024, the posted notice of violation, and a clerk's office affidavit showing no certificate of use on file. Ms. Ditra Kidwell and Ms. Aubrey Maddalina appeared at the hearing and said they represented property owner James Hatfield; no one appeared on behalf of Beach Bowls itself.

Special Magistrate Jennifer De Peschke entered a finding that the violation exists and ordered the violator to obtain the certificate of use within 10 days or cease all business activities. The magistrate cited city ordinance sections referenced in the record stating that failure to comply will result in a $250-per-day fine and that utility services to the business premises may be suspended while the violation continues.

City staff said the clerk's office transitioned from a prior "business tax receipt" system to the certificate-of-use permit last year; some businesses did not complete the new steps and remain without the required certificate. Code enforcement reported that an application for a certificate of use was in process since January but that required building- and fire-department inspections had not been scheduled.

Ms. Kidwell and Ms. Maddalina said they represent Mr. Hatfield, the property owner; they noted they would notify staff and the tenant. A person identified in the record as Dallas Wesley was mentioned as an employee associated with the business; Dallas Wesley was not present.

The magistrate's order specified the 10-day deadline and repeated the possible $250-per-day fine and utility suspension for continuing violations. The order names the violator as Beach Bowls Fort Pierce LLC and advises coordination with the city clerk's and building departments to complete the certificate process.

No further penalties were assessed at the hearing, but the magistrate left the matter open to enforcement if the business failed to comply within the ordered timeline.