Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Fine topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate imposes fines after Atlantic Beach owner fails to produce required tree-mitigation and turf documentation
Summary
A magistrate granted the city's prior order and directed fines to begin after property owner Gary Cosgrove failed to submit required tree mitigation documentation and proof that installed turf met perviousness standards. Cosgrove disputed the enforcement and presented photos but provided no timely documentation.
A magistrate in Atlantic Beach on a code-enforcement hearing granted the city’s request to impose fines on the owner of 1827 Tierra Verde Drive after the owner failed to provide documentation the city required to close a pool permit and address related tree and turf issues. City staff told the hearing the property was issued a pool permit but the final inspection was not completed, the permit expired twice, and staff never received a tree mitigation plan or the documentation needed to verify that the artificial turf was pervious.
The city’s representative summarized the violations and asked that fines commence immediately under the March order. “The city is asking for the formal imposition of fines starting today at $250 per day for each of the violations,” the staff representative stated. The magistrate noted the city’s request and, after hearing from the owner, said the prior order would be granted and fines would commence.
Owner Gary Cosgrove told the magistrate he removed two pine trees he regarded as safety hazards and had installed permeable turf. Cosgrove said he attempted to work with the city and repeatedly described the permitting process as “broken,” adding he had photographs and video he wanted the court to accept into the record. “It is so difficult to work with you guys… the permitting process is so difficult to deal with,” Cosgrove said. He also alleged a member of the Environmental Stewardship Committee had not followed the same rules he was being held to; the magistrate reminded him that the committee member was not before the court.
Magistrate: The magistrate told Cosgrove that evidentiary material must be formally submitted for the record and that, because the owner had not supplied verifiable documentation that met the city’s requirements and did not show timely submission of a mitigation package, the magistrate would enforce the prior order. The magistrate’s ruling records that the fines commence “today.” The city’s filings at the hearing asked for $250 per day; the magistrate’s summary language in a couple of lines of the record differs numerically (the record contains a transcriptional anomaly showing $2.50 in one line), so the city’s requested figure of $250 per day is the clearest stated amount in staff’s presentation.
What this means next: The magistrate directed Cosgrove to submit the required documentation as soon as possible and preserved the owner’s ability to present evidence on appeal. The owner was advised to formally file and submit photographs and any arborist or turf documentation through the building department so the record would reflect whether the city’s outstanding requirements have been satisfied.
The magistrate moved on to the next case after issuing the order; the record notes the owner may pursue the usual appeal channels if he can produce on-site arborist documentation or other paperwork that meets statutory and city-code standards.
