Magistrate gives time for parklet fixes, mold remediation and permits in West Palm Beach hearings

During the April 15 special magistrate session, multiple respondents told the court that permitting or funding processes — not opposition to compliance — had delayed corrective work. The magistrate consistently weighed those procedural constraints against the need to protect neighbors and public rights-of-way.

City Planner and code officers explained that parklet and sidewalk-café approvals require ADA-compliant decking before a parklet permit will pass. At least one downtown business said it had applied for CRA assistance and sought roughly $10,000 of an estimated $20,000 deck cost; city staff told the magistrate that, pending funding, the owner could either remove the parklet and outdoor seating or secure a deck to achieve ADA compliance. The magistrate granted 90 days for permit resolution in that case or a $200 per day fine until compliance.

In housing units, the magistrate reviewed competing mold reports and ongoing remediation at a Flagler Drive unit where a tenant reported ongoing moisture and growth between a bathroom and kitchen wall. The property manager said a restoration company had done remediation and produced a clean report but building issued a stop-work order because no permits were pulled for the interior work. The magistrate ordered 120 days for remediation completion and permit issuance or a $150-per-day fine.

For other common property issues — rental licenses, certificates of use, unpermitted fences and driveway surfacing — the magistrate generally required between 30 and 180 days depending on procedural complexity (licensing and inspections: 30–45 days; historic-review- or multi-property driveway projects: up to 180 days). Magistrate AMD Bernard repeatedly reminded respondents that filing an affidavit of compliance with code enforcement was the mechanism to stop fines.

The magistrate also entered mitigation decisions in several fine reduction requests; while reductions were granted in select cases, the magistrate emphasized that reductions do not negate the obligation to comply with code and to file proof of compliance.

Next steps: Respondents are expected to coordinate with city permitting, planning and code enforcement offices to obtain permits and submit affidavits of compliance by the magistrate-imposed deadlines.