Fort Pierce hearing continued after removal of two live oaks at 1240 Carlton Court

A Fort Pierce code enforcement hearing on removal of trees at 1240 Carlton Court was continued to June 4, 2025, after the respondent’s agent and city staff said replacement plantings are already on the property and staff should inspect them before a final fine is set.

The continuation came after city staff presented photographs and a notice of violation showing trees removed from the property and an urban forester described the trees as two live oaks and one exotic. Special Magistrate Jennifer Peschke said the matter should be continued so staff can assess what has been planted and then return with a remedy recommendation.

The city’s case file lists the matter as case number CE2025-167. A city code enforcement officer submitted photographs dated March 17, 2025, and a notice of violation; the packet also included an email and closing documents indicating the property ownership had recently changed to 1240 Carlton Court LLC. The city introduced those materials into evidence as “City’s Composite 1.”

Edwin Shao, who identified himself as an agent for 1240 Carlton Court LLC and principal of Rx Construction Management, testified the buyer had recently purchased the property and that the person who cut the trees did so because of perceived structural risks to paving and foundation. Shao said the new owner has planted four palm trees and other vegetation and has retained the firm to assist with compliance. “He cut it down, and I am aware that, you know, you need a permit for this,” Shao told the magistrate.

Jose Sanchez, the city’s urban forester in Parks and Grounds, testified he inspected the site and said two live oak trees were removed (estimated at 61 inches and 36 inches diameter at breast height, DBH) and a third tree was an exotic species. Sanchez said a permit likely would have been granted if one had been applied for and recommended a lesser fine combined with replacement plantings rather than the maximum fine. “I would recommend not the maximum, but a lesser fine, but with also stipulation of adding trees in place,” Sanchez said. He described the city’s minimum standards for replacement hardwoods as 12 feet overall height and a 2.5-inch minimum DBH, and said palm trees do not meet the hardwood standard; palm planting minimums were described as a 14-foot clear trunk for palms to meet city guidance.

Magistrate Peschke read the city’s potential fine calculations into the record: the city’s fee schedule yields fines of $15,250 for the larger oak and $9,000 for the smaller oak, though the city told the magistrate it would recommend a reduced assessment of $5,000 per tree (total $10,000) to be deposited into the city’s tree fund. Because replacement plantings were already on the property and their compliance could not be determined from photos alone, Peschke continued the hearing to give city staff time to meet the owner or owner’s agent at the property, inspect the new plantings, and return with a replacement recommendation and a fine recommendation.

Peschke ordered the case continued to the code enforcement docket on June 4, 2025, and instructed staff to coordinate an on-site assessment with the owner’s agent before that date. The magistrate also noted the parties have the usual appeal rights from any eventual order.

The city and the respondent did not reach an agreed monetary penalty at the May 7 hearing; the magistrate’s continuance preserves the department’s authority to set or adjust a fine after inspection and recommendation by staff. No fine was imposed at the May 7 session.