Fort Pierce special magistrate orders $5,000 fine for protected-tree trimming, reduces lien and sets cleanup deadlines across multiple properties

Special Magistrate Jamie Barrow ordered a $5,000 fine for unpermitted trimming of a protected tree at 1408 Zephyr Avenue and imposed a series of cleanup and abatement orders across multiple Fort Pierce properties during a special magistrate hearing on Aug. 20, 2025.

The court found that the trimming at 1408 Zephyr Avenue was “irreparable and irreversible in nature,” cited a state statute, and accepted the city’s recommendation to assess the maximum penalty. Mark Green, Parks and Grounds Division manager for the City of Fort Pierce, testified that the tree was a live oak and that his field measurements showed a circumference of 148.5 inches, which converts to a diameter at breast height of about 47.3 inches. Green said the tree’s canopy had been drastically reduced and that, in his opinion, “it’s at least 1 half of the canopy removed and potentially 5 eighths total volume of canopy been removed.”

Addy Soler, who identified herself as a friend of the property owner, said the owners had recently bought the house, cut branches that were over the roof and replaced the roof, and “we apologize. We were not aware that we had to ask for a permit.” Barrow replied that she sympathized but that “I’m not allowed to take ignorance of the law as an excuse,” and ordered the $5,000 fine to be paid to the Tree City fund within 30 days. The magistrate noted the owner has 30 days to appeal.

At the same hearing the magistrate handled a lien‑reduction request for 2420 Sunrise Boulevard. Alexandria Holland, who said she is associated with the property, told the court that the work to bring the property into compliance was completed quickly after the owners learned of the case and described financial hardship. The city staff recommended reducing the lien only to the staff authority limit of $5,000. After discussion, the city agreed to a further reduction to administrative costs, and the magistrate ordered the outstanding lien reduced from $21,820 to $1,264.65, payable within 30 days; Barrow said the lien will revert to the full amount if that payment is not made and that the owners have 30 days to appeal.

Other enforcement orders and deadlines issued at the hearing included:

- CE2025‑244 (911 Atlantic Avenue): The magistrate found nuisance and code violations and ordered 30 days to cut grass and weeds, trim trees and shrubs, remove trash and debris, repair fence sections, pressure wash or paint as needed and make house numbers visible. Failure to comply will trigger a $100-per-day fine.

- CE2025‑254 (1107 Hemlock Circle): Two items were found in compliance; remaining violations (outside storage and protective treatment) must be corrected within seven days or incur a $100-per-day fine.

- CE2025‑332 (3107 Atlantic Avenue): The property was ordered to correct landscape and storage violations within seven days or face a $100-per-day fine.

- LTCL2025‑120 (3101 Louisiana Avenue): A lot‑clearing nuisance was found; the owner was given seven days to abate or the city may abate and assess costs to the property, plus a $100-per-day fine for continued violations.

- LTCL2025‑135 (1835 Sandridge Road) and LTCL2025‑136 (1839 Sandridge Road): The owner, Jason Merritt, requested 14 days to finish work on both parcels; the magistrate granted 14 days and warned of $100-per-day fines and the city’s abatement authority if the properties remain noncompliant.

Most other matters on the agenda were routine readings of cases listed as in compliance or rescheduled. Barrow opened the session explaining the hearing process and reminding parties they may present evidence, cross‑examine witnesses and that decisions are based on competent and substantial evidence.

The hearing included testimony from code enforcement officers and city staff. City witnesses introduced photographs, notices of violation and, in the tree case, measurements and species identification. For the tree case the magistrate specifically referenced city code section 123‑64 and a state statute cited in the record when describing the legal basis for assessment of the penalty.

The orders issued at the hearing carry standard appeal rights; the magistrate repeatedly informed respondents of 30 days to appeal specific decisions. Several respondents asked for additional time or explained circumstances; the magistrate sometimes granted extensions (notably the 14‑day requests for the Sandridge properties) and in other cases set the firm deadlines stated above.