Loxahatchee Groves magistrate orders property owners to comply with new RV rules; dozens of cases continued to June

Special Magistrate Amity Barnard ordered multiple property owners in the Town of Loxahatchee Groves to comply with the town's RV permit and maintenance rules by April 18, 2025, and set fine assessments and administrative costs for noncompliance during a March 19 code enforcement hearing.

The ruling followed the town's presentation of photographic evidence and service records for properties cited under the town code's RV permit, inspection and maintenance provision (section 92-010). Jeff Kurtz, project coordinator for the town, told the magistrate the town passed Ordinance 2024-07 in September 2024 and has begun a townwide sweep to identify unpermitted RVs. "We anticipate over the next 4 meetings to have approximately 250 cases that'll be presented to you in 1 form or another," Kurtz said.

Why it matters: The magistrate's orders create a near-term compliance deadline for the named respondents and set a consistent enforcement posture for cases tied to the 2024 RV ordinance. The town also sought and obtained continuances for an initial block of cases to allow respondents time to register or otherwise document compliance.

Most urgent facts: For the cases where the magistrate made findings at the March 19 hearing, respondents were ordered to comply on or before April 18, 2025, or appear at a May 5 fine-assessment hearing. In the event of noncompliance, the magistrate assessed fines of $100 per day and awarded the town administrative costs of $234.05, payable within 30 days. The magistrate also allowed the town to pull and reschedule a block of matters; Jeff Kurtz asked that "cases 1 through 35 on the agenda" and the first new-business violation (Dancing Crane Farms LLC, case number 25020143) be continued to the June 2 magistrate hearing.

What happened in the hearing: Town compliance staff presented individual case files that typically included a combined notice of violation and notice of hearing, photographs, and proof of posting or certified-mail service. Code compliance officers John Suarez and John Torres presented multiple cases to the magistrate; D'Angelo Campbell was identified as the officer who had taken reinspection photographs in at least one file but was not present.

For each case where the magistrate issued a finding at this hearing, the order followed the same structure: the town's composite exhibit 1 was admitted without objection, the magistrate found that the town had provided legally sufficient service (typically an affidavit of posting and/or certified-mail return), found the respondent in violation of section 92-010 (RV permit, inspection and maintenance requirements), required compliance by April 18, 2025, and set the May 5 hearing for fine assessment if compliance did not occur. The magistrate also awarded administrative costs to the town in the amount of $234.05.

Examples from the record: In case number 25020145 (property at 1180 A Road), the magistrate said, "I'll find based on the testimony of the code enforcement officer as well as the photographs in the case file that the respondent's in violation of section 92 dash 0 1 0, and I'll require respondents to comply on or before April 18 or appear at the May 5 fine assessment hearing." In several other matters the magistrate made identical findings and orders after staff testimony and photographic evidence.

Continuances and docket management: The town asked the magistrate to continue a block of earlier-listed cases so staff could process applications and affidavits of compliance. Kurtz explained many property owners had begun the compliance process, filing affidavits that an RV was unoccupied or starting site-permit applications. He requested blanket handling of those agenda items; the magistrate agreed to allow the town to pull those matters and reschedule them. Kurtz said the town expects roughly 250 RV-related cases will appear over the next four meetings.

Other procedural notes: Several cases were pulled from the agenda after staff confirmed compliance on reinspection (for example, one case was noted as complied and pulled). In multiple matters staff initially reported no direct communication with respondents; service was established by posting and certified mail. On at least one case the presenting officer was asked to confirm whether a separate notice or corrected posting had been made; the magistrate paused that case to allow staff to confirm the paperwork before completing the record.

What comes next: The magistrate and town staff scheduled follow-up hearings: the town will renotice pulled cases for the June 2 magistrate hearing; cases with April 18 compliance dates were set for potential fine assessment on May 5. Town staff were asked to include the code section alleged to be violated on future agendas to streamline drafting of magistrate orders.

Violations and orders at a glance (selected from the hearing record): - Cases 1'35 on the agenda: town requested, and the magistrate allowed, those matters to be pulled from the March 19 docket and renoticed for the June 2 magistrate hearing (continuance requested by Jeff Kurtz; continued to June 2). - Dancing Crane Farms LLC, case 25020143: requested continued to June 2 (continued). - Case 25020145 (1180 A Road): respondent found in violation of section 92-010; compliance by April 18, 2025; $100/day fine for ongoing violation; administrative costs $234.05 (order entered). - Case 25020166 (14220 Biddick's Road): respondent found in violation; compliance by April 18, 2025; $100/day fine; administrative costs $234.05 (order entered). - Case 25020169 (1666 C Road): respondent found in violation; compliance by April 18, 2025; $100/day fine; administrative costs $234.05 (order entered). - Case 25020179 (13009 Collecting Canal Road): respondent found in violation; compliance by April 18, 2025; $100/day fine; administrative costs $234.05 (order entered). - Case 25030004 / 25030002 (13265 Eleventh Lane North) [case referenced in the record as 25030004]: respondent found in violation; compliance by April 18, 2025; $100/day fine; administrative costs $234.05 (order entered). - Case 25030016 (15347 Okeechobee Boulevard): respondent found in violation; compliance by April 18, 2025; $100/day fine; administrative costs $234.05 (order entered). - Case 25030023 (3995 A Road): respondent found in violation; compliance by April 18, 2025; $100/day fine; administrative costs $234.05 (order entered). - Case 25030063 / 25030060 (2868 A Road) [case referenced as 25030063]: respondent found in violation; compliance by April 18, 2025; $100/day fine; administrative costs $234.05 (order entered). - Case 2503025 / 2503025x (14405 Tangerine Drive) [referenced as 2503025]: respondent found in violation; compliance by April 18, 2025; $100/day fine; administrative costs $234.05 (order entered). - Case 25030015 (1493620 Second Road North / 14920 Second Road North): upon reinspection staff reported that the RV was removed and the case was pulled as complied (pulled/complied).

Ending: The magistrate adjourned the hearing at 10:15. Town staff said they will renotice continued matters and were asked to add the specific town-code sections alleged to be violated on future agendas to help the magistrate's office draft orders.

(Quotes and attributions come from the March 19, 2025 Town of Loxahatchee Groves code enforcement hearing transcript.)