Magistrate orders permits, dismisses duplicate manure citation and sets compliance deadlines in Loxahatchee Groves

LOXAHATCHEE GROVES, Fla. — A special magistrate on Friday ordered property owners to obtain town receiver permits or remove manure piles and dismissed a newly filed duplicate enforcement case, following a day of contested testimony about unpermitted manure deposits and whether state agricultural protections apply.

Special Magistrate Amity Barnard ruled after hearing from town staff, the town manager and property owners that the evidence supported violations of the town's ordinance 20-12-03, which requires a permit for receiving manure. "I'm going to dismiss 26Dash32, having found that there is already a running fine," Barnard said, explaining the town already had an earlier order addressing the same deposit activity. For a separate case involving Leonardo Vega and tenants (CE26-40), Barnard found a violation and ordered respondents to obtain the required permit or remove the material by Feb. 13, 2026; she set a status and fine-assessment hearing for Feb. 18, 2026 and warned that a $250-per-day fine would begin Feb. 14 if compliance is not achieved.

Why it matters: Town officials said recent aerial photos and reports from state agencies show manure piles have expanded and in some places are closer to open water and potable wells, raising public-safety and water-supply concerns in a municipality that relies heavily on private wells and septic systems. The town manager, Francine Romali, testified the permit review considers setbacks such as 50 feet from a property line, 200 feet from a private well or water source (300 feet if downslope) and 500 feet for community water sources, and cited the Florida Administrative Code (62-701.3) as a reference for siting standards.

What each side said: Tenant counsel for one respondent, identified as Mister Fields, urged dismissal and consolidation of cases, arguing the town "is trying to charge us with 2 separate violations" based on the same facts and that the respondents had been working to remove material. Respondents also presented an on-site Florida Department of Health inspection report they said found the complaint invalid because the horse bedding was being used as a soil amendment. Town counsel said the activity had expanded across the property and that the proximity to canals and wellheads justified a separate enforcement action and the town's irreparable-harm allegations.

Magistrate Barnard's approach: Barnard said she was "sensitive" to both the town's public-safety concerns and the respondents' argument that they had been attempting to comply. She denied a motion to continue and a motion to dismiss tied to procedural-notice claims but dismissed the newly filed case (26-32) as duplicative of an earlier active enforcement action. For CE26-40, Barnard recorded a finding of violation but gave respondents time to obtain a permit, saying the town would reassess during permit review whether existing piles could remain.

Other outcomes: In a third matter, CE26-39 (F Road Properties LLC, 1462 F Road), the magistrate found a one-day irreparable violation observed Jan. 23 but noted the respondent had removed the material and achieved compliance by Jan. 27; the magistrate awarded administrative costs to the town.

Next steps: Respondents ordered to obtain their receiver permits or remove material by Feb. 13 will face a Feb. 18 status/fine-assessment hearing. Magistrate orders will reflect compliance deadlines and administrative-cost assessments. The town may pursue repeat-violation fines or irreparable-harm fines in future hearings if activity resumes.

Quotes: "You can't sue us twice," tenant counsel argued in court. Town Manager Francine Romali testified, "When I review permits I take into consideration the setback to the wellhead and open bodies of water," and noted the town also consults the Florida Administrative Code. The magistrate said, "Get the application in as quickly as you can," and emphasized the permit-review process as the primary route to continued lawful use of manure on nursery properties.

Context: The disputes centered on whether manure used in nursery operations qualifies for state agricultural protections and whether the town's permitting and setback rules — and supplementary Florida Administrative Code provisions — apply to the sites as located. Magistrate Barnard repeatedly urged prompt permit application, saying a complete application would allow the town to evaluate siting and any required mitigation rather than rely solely on enforcement hearings.

Ending: Magistrate Barnard closed the hearing after entering evidentiary case files and exhibits and summarizing orders and deadlines. The matter was adjourned at 12:22 p.m.