The case involving Jose Valerino’s property on A Road captured attention due to the multifaceted issues arising from its use and zoning classification. Valerino was cited for several violations, including the improper use of land for a hay transfer business and the presence of fill, which contravened town codes. Enforcement officer John Suarez outlined that the property was under scrutiny since April 2025, with notices of violation mailed and posted by July 10, 2025. Despite Valerino’s contention that his nursery falls under permitted uses for agricultural residential zoning, the town maintained that operations must adhere to zoning regulations, leading to a proposed fine of $150 per day for continued non-compliance.

Valerino argued that the town’s interpretation of his property use was flawed. He emphasized that his business tax license permitted nursery operations, which he believed included selling dirt, soil, and mulch. Furthermore, he claimed that the town’s enforcement was inconsistent, pointing to nearby nurseries operating under similar conditions. The crux of the issue lay in the distinction between permitted uses and the actual classification of the property as vacant, which the town used to justify its enforcement actions. Valerino expressed frustration over not being contacted directly before the violations were issued and questioned the legitimacy of the anonymous complaint that led to the enforcement action.

The discussion revealed significant tension between Valerino’s understanding of his rights and the town’s regulatory stance. Valerino’s assertion that his activities were legitimate under the agricultural residential designation was met with clarification from the town’s representative. They affirmed that while a nursery could be a permitted use, any such operation required prior approval through the town’s application process, which Valerino had not pursued. Valerino was advised to seek a change in classification from the property appraiser’s office, though the town emphasized that zoning compliance remained imperative.

In addition to zoning disputes, the meeting dealt with procedural matters regarding another property at 16169 Southern Boulevard, owned by Lantana Holdings LLC. The town sought to resolve issues related to a prior stipulation violation, with both parties agreeing to schedule a special hearing on August 22, 2025. The Special Magistrate requested written memorandums from both parties to clarify their positions in advance.

Valerino’s case highlighted a broader issue of communication and understanding between property owners and regulatory authorities, with implications for how local governments enforce zoning laws.

As the meeting concluded, the Special Magistrate set a compliance deadline of 30 days for Valerino to address the cited violations. Should he fail to comply, the town would impose a daily fine until the issues were resolved. A follow-up hearing was scheduled for September 17 to assess compliance and determine any further actions.