Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees And Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Pierce magistrate finds tree-protection violations, imposes $5,000 penalty in one case and continues another for owner notice
Summary
At a Jan. 7 special magistrate hearing, staff sought maximum penalties for multiple protected-tree removals; the magistrate imposed a $5,000 fine on one owner (payment extended to 12 months) and continued another case to re‑notice the property owner after learning the respondent on site was a hired worker.
Special Magistrate Jennifer De Peschke found violations for the removal of protected trees at two Fort Pierce properties during a Jan. 7 special magistrate hearing, ordering a maximum $5,000 penalty in one matter and continuing another to ensure the property owner is present.
At 2107 South 3rd Street, city staff said a live oak with a diameter-at-breast-height of 33.91 inches had been removed without a permit and recommended the maximum penalty under state statute. City photographs and a public-works inspection showed the top half of the tree already removed when staff first visited. The property owner, Giovanni Leonardo James, testified the tree had been damaged in recent hurricanes and presented himself as the owner who cut the damaged portions for safety. Magistrate De Peschke found the violation and ordered a $5,000 penalty to be paid to the city’s tree fund; she then extended the payment window to 12 months after James said he needed more time. The magistrate also said the city would waive the requirement for a removal permit if James later chooses to have the remaining stump and pieces removed.
"The violation is determined to be irreparable or irreversible in nature given the size of the protected tree," the magistrate said when announcing the finding and penalty.
In a separate case involving a large banyan tree at 716 South 12th Street, an individual on site (Francisco Gonzales) told the interpreter he had been hired by the homeowner to "clean the tree" and remove hazardous branches, not to cut down the tree. Officer Campbell told the hearing the city calculated potential penalties (staff noted a per-inch penalty calculation that totaled $28,650 when multiplied by the cited factor) and recommended pursuit of the applicable penalty under statute 162.09. Because Gonzales is not the property owner, and the owner was not present, the magistrate continued the matter, ordering staff to re-notice the owner and to include the owner at the next hearing so the owner may respond.
Officer Mark Green of public works said staff first observed the tree after it had been partly removed and confirmed the tree had been measured and identified as a protected specimen.
The magistrate advised respondents in tree-removal cases to contact staff about payment options and reminded all parties they have 30 days to appeal orders entered at the hearing.
What’s next: The banyan-tree matter was continued for re-noticing to allow the property owner to appear; the live-oak owner must arrange payment within the revised timeframe or contact staff about a plan.
