Delray Beach magistrate orders homeowner to pursue permits or face $500-a-day fine in right-of-way landscaping dispute

Special Magistrate Gary Glassman found that landscaping installed in the city right-of-way at 202 Southeast 4th Avenue was not covered by a current permit and ordered the owner, Thomas Burke, to obtain any required permits within 30 days (by Aug. 1, 2026) or face a $500-a-day fine.

The magistratestated, "I will find that the permit has not been, issued, and that the property is not in compliance," attributing his ruling to the testimony and documentary evidence presented by city staff. Code supervisor Latoya Thompson presented a detailed chronology of notices, postings and re-inspections; senior landscape planner David Glover described that the propertyhad an approved landscape plan limited to sod and irrigation and that the coconut palms and other plantings were not part of that approved plan.

Burke testified that he had installed the plantings to improve a deteriorated swale and that his landscaper subsequently filed a permit application in mid-December 2025. "We moved here in 2018," Burke said, explaining the neighborhood and his reasons for the planting. Contractor John Taliento of Coastal Care Landscaping testified his company installed the plantings, that a permit application was submitted on Dec. 17, 2025, and that his crew would maintain the trees to avoid utility conflicts.

The city relied on the Delray Beach Land Development Regulations (cited in the hearing as sections including 2.4.13(b) and landscape regulations under 4.616) to argue that the work required permitting because it altered the city's right-of-way and involved tree installation that could conflict with utilities. Staff recommended removal of unpermitted vegetation or fines; the magistrate declined to order immediate removal because a permit application remained pending but nonetheless found noncompliance and set the Aug. 1 deadline with the $500-a-day penalty for failure to complete the permit process.

Glassman also ruled that notice to the property owner had been proper. The magistrate did not resolve competing arguments over which exact code subsection should have been cited in the initial notice; he said he lacked the code documents in the hearing packet to rule on that narrow legal question and left it available for later motion practice if either party sought it.

Next steps: the permit review process will proceed; if the owner resolves the permit comments and the city issues an approved permit, the compliance order will be satisfied. If not, the daily fine will be instituted.