Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Special Magistrate finds Pershing Way property in violation over artificial turf, grants 180 days amid pending DEP rulemaking
Summary
Special Magistrate Amity Barnard found that a Pershing Way property violated West Palm Beach code by installing artificial turf in front and visible from the street, ordered compliance within 180 days or $50/day and noted pending Florida DEP rulemaking could later affect enforcement.
Amity Barnard, the Special Magistrate presiding over West Palm Beach's March 4 hearing, found the owner of 4195 Pershing Way in violation of city code for installing artificial turf in the front setback and in areas visible from the street. City code enforcement officer Richard Pezmino presented photographs, the relevant ordinance language (sections 94-451A4, 94-451D and 94-451G) and a timeline showing the case originated in August 2025 and had been reset from a November hearing.
Property owner Raymond Mascarella told the magistrate he had been in regular contact with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection about forthcoming statewide standards for artificial turf and asked for more time. Mascarella said he had an email from DEP staff indicating a proposed rule had published and that the department had held a public hearing, and he requested a continuance to await the agency's final action.
Barnard acknowledged the DEP correspondence but said that, because the DEP had not formally adopted rules as of the hearing, the city's ordinance remained in force. "I'm going to make a finding of violation," she said, "but I'm going to give you sufficient time for the DEP's rules to get into effect, so that again, you don't have to rip it out ... for no reason." The magistrate ordered the owner to bring the property into compliance within 180 days; if the violation continued after that period, a $50-a-day fine would be assessed.
The city requested the finding under its current ordinance and told the magistrate it would be willing to follow up if and when the DEP rule is adopted. The hearing record includes DEP correspondence dated February 18 indicating the department had published a notice of proposed rule and that adoption could follow the administrative-comment process. The magistrate noted that adoption by DEP could change the local enforceability but made the ruling based on the law as it stood that morning.
Mascarella said he planned to file a notice of appeal, and asked for a stay; the magistrate declined to stay enforcement but noted the owner retains appellate rights under Chapter 162 of Florida law. The order and the photographic evidence were entered into the case file; the magistrate instructed the parties that any DEP adoption or other new documents could be submitted to the case file for later consideration.
