Special magistrate orders cleanup and fines after Loxahatchee Groves stockpile hearing

Special Magistrate AMD Bernard on Tuesday found that material from earlier manure and wood-shaving stockpiles remains on a property at 147A Road in the Town of Loxahatchee Groves and ordered further cleanup and fines.

The magistrate assessed a $3,150 penalty covering 21 days of noncompliance and ordered the fine to continue accruing at $150 per day until compliance is achieved. The order also reaffirmed administrative costs from the prior violation hearing and assessed administrative costs for the June hearing; the magistrate directed the respondent to remove the remaining material and contact the town for reinspection.

Why it matters: The case centers on whether the tenant and contractor, who previously piled manure and wood shavings on the site, fulfilled a prior order to either remove those piles or obtain a Floodplain Development Application. The town contends leftover material has changed the site’s topography along the west side and near a canal bank, a condition that can affect drainage and local water bodies.

Town testimony and evidence Officer Deanna Thomas of the town’s Code Compliance Division told the magistrate the town’s file includes photographs, postings and an engineer memorandum indicating material remains on the west side of the property and at the canal bank. Thomas said the material “has raised the topography of the property by at least 6 inches and perhaps a foot or more in some places,” and that no FDA application had been submitted for the changed elevations.

Respondent’s evidence and testimony Tenant and contractor Paulo Santana, who testified under oath, said he and subcontractors removed most piles after the magistrate’s prior order and hauled material offsite. Santana testified that the work involved heavy equipment and hauling, and said, “we had spent between the equipment, rentals, labor work approximately $210,000,” to remove and transport material.

Counsel for Santana, Preston Fields, argued the property has been largely returned to usable condition and that remaining surface material was minimal. Fields said the Department of Health had told the town it was stopping its related investigation and that much of the state-level concerns had been addressed.

Magistrate’s finding and directive After hearing testimony from town staff, review of photographs including images dated June 8, and cross-examination of witnesses, Special Magistrate AMD Bernard found the respondent remained in violation of the listed code provisions as of the hearing. The magistrate set a penalty of $3,150 for 21 days of noncompliance, reduced the daily rate from the maximum in the prior order and ordered the fine to continue accruing at $150 per day until the town verifies compliance. Bernard directed the respondents to remove the remaining wood shavings depicted in the photographs “shovel it off, get rid of it, and then call for reinspection.”

Unresolved technical issues Both sides acknowledged there is no objective topographic survey showing the precise elevation change before and after the work; the town’s engineer provided a field memorandum and photographs, and the town’s staff measured changes in a ditch with a tape measure during site visits. The magistrate noted the lack of scientific survey data but found the photographic evidence and testimony sufficient to support a finding of continuing violation.

Next steps The magistrate’s order requires respondents to remove remaining material and request reinspection to obtain compliance. The fine will continue to accrue at $150 per day until the town confirms the removal. The town’s administrative-cost amounts and the fine order will be reflected in the written order the respondents will receive.

Context The case traces to an earlier finding of violation that required removal of stockpiled material or an FDA; the hearing focused on whether the effort to remove piles had achieved the level of compliance ordered by the magistrate. The town said limited residual material remained; the respondent said substantial removal had been completed but admitted a small amount of surfacial organic material remained to stabilize soils during remediation.