Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate finds parking violation at 400 Emmett Street; orders cars removed by May 21
Summary
Special Magistrate Ron Brown found substantial evidence that vehicles were parked in the required front yard at 400 Emmett St., ordering compliance by end of business May 21, 2026, or $25/day fines beginning May 22. The respondent disputed delivery of notice and said a work truck cannot be parked off‑street.
Special Magistrate Ron Brown ordered the owner of 400 Emmett Street to stop parking vehicles in the property’s required front yard and to bring the property into compliance by the end of business on May 21, 2026.
Brown opened the quasi‑judicial hearing and heard City code compliance officer Harold Bartelli present photographs taken March 25 and other dates showing two to four vehicles parked on the front yard, which Bartelli said violated Palatka City Code §94‑261 on required yards and off‑street parking.
The ruling rested on the magistrate’s finding that notice and sworn testimony satisfied due process. Brown said, “based on substantial and competent evidence, we’re going to find that there has been a violation Section 94‑261 … and the fact that there have been at least two cars parked in the front yard of the property located at 400 Emmett Street.” He ordered compliance (cars removed from the front yard or parked in the driveway where they do not block the sidewalk or, where lawful, on‑street) by May 21, 2026; fines of $25 per day would begin May 22 if the violation persists.
Respondent Cassandra Phillips acknowledged the vehicles but disputed some of the city’s evidence and the notice process. Phillips said a work truck “is a dually and it’s a long bed” and that she cannot park it off‑street because it is used for free lawn services for residents who cannot afford the work. She also presented frame‑by‑frame photos she said showed the mail carrier did not deliver the certified notice. The city attorney clarified in the hearing that on‑street parking is an option in the South Historic District, though the officer had noted practical limits near the intersection.
Brown repeatedly limited the hearing to the narrow legal question of whether the evidence supported a code violation and told Phillips the remedy if she disagreed with the ordinance is to seek a change from the City Commission. The magistrate warned that failure to comply by the deadline could lead to fines and, ultimately, a lien on the property.
The hearing record includes both Bartelli’s photographic evidence and Phillips’s testimony disputing service and explaining operational constraints for her vehicles. The case concluded at the bench with the compliance deadline set and enforcement consequences spelled out.
