Code Enforcement Board on 2025-10-09 1:30 PM - Oct 09, 2025

Go ahead and call the meeting to order. Good afternoon, everyone. I hereby call to order the Code Enforcement meeting of October 9th. Thank you for coming to today's Code Enforcement Board meeting. This board is empowered to hear evidence to reach findings of fact and conclusions of law for the purposes of resolving cases that come before it. A finding of violation may lead to the assessment of daily fines in the form of property liens. The board is always interested in statements that will help us make a determination in each case and we are interested in compliance rather than in levying fines. We will hear all cases in the order that they appear on the agenda, beginning with new violations, fine assessment cases, or status updates, including with the cases for which persons are seeking fine reductions. We will begin by having all people who are speaking before the board today sworn in. And if you could. Hang on one second. Did you want to do the roll call first so we have a quorum? Yes, we can do the roll call first. Please, thank you. Wayne Pasek, absent. President Stephen Butera? Present. Jimmy Canton? Present. Richard Burgess? Present. Todd Leharu? Here. Jennifer Jones? Robert Cohen? Here. All right, thank you. We have a quorum and then did you want to approve the minutes? Let's go ahead and get people sworn in and then we'll do that. Please raise your right hand. By authority vested in me as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. All right, board members, we have minutes from May 8th, June 12th, July 10th, and August 14th of this year. Can I get a motion? We can approve them in block if everyone feels like they are satisfactory. If there's any questions or issues about the minutes, we can do them individually. I make a motion that we approve the minutes as submitted. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are approved. Okay, do we have changes to the agenda? Yes, sir. Changes to the agenda. Postponed cases are as follows. Code 2500164 prior to the hearing. That's the only one that's postponed. And then I have compliance or closed cases are as follows. Case number 2025-004555, code 25-000095, code 25-000116, code 25-000125, code 25-000133, code 25-000137, code 25-000141, excuse me, 000141, code 25-000137. Code 25-000143, code 25-000147, code 25-000148, code 25-000149, code 25-000152, code 25-000156, code 25-000157, code 25-000166, code 25-000167, code 25-000167, code 25-000168. Code 2500169, code 2500175, code 2500176, code 2500180, code 2500182, code 2500185, code 2500186, code 2500187, and finally, code 2500188. All right, thank you. We were 064 in the beginning. Yeah, is that number 13 on the agenda? Is that the one? The clerk, yes. Case number 13, code 2500164. Can I get a motion to postpone that case to a future hearing? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we postpone case number 2500164 to a future meeting. Thank you. Any discussion? All those in favor of postponing? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Ms. Warren, do we have any cases that we want to move up on the agenda because they have someone present today? We have a lot of people. I don't believe that code enforcement staff checked individuals in, nor was I notified of any urgencies. We can probably just go down the agenda. However, if the board would like, if they call a case and no one is present, to move on to the next case to accommodate those present, then the board can do that as well. Okay. Thank you. I believe we are ready to call our first case. First case, 2025-004957, property owner 400 West Atlantic LLC, registered agent Lawrence Blair, registered agent, property address 404 West Atlantic Avenue, presented by code officer Delinda Witkowski. Is there anyone present to speak on this particular case? Okay. Hearing none, we will go ahead with the case. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, board members, magistrate, assistant city attorney, and distinguished guests. My name is Delinda Witkowski. I'm a code enforcement officer for Clean and Safe. I'm here regarding an unapproved violation, signage violation, located at 400 West Atlantic Avenue. On May 24th of 2025, I inspected the property where I observed several temporary banners that had been hanging for an extended amount of time without the proper approvals, which is in violation of code section 4.6.7, subsection F, subsection 1, which states that all signs need approvals by the city. A general violation was issued on May 24th of 2025. The violation was mailed first class and certified on May 29th of 2025. Compliance date was requested for August 14th of 2025. Because this case was a legacy case, which was the previous system that we had with AS400, another violation was issued through EPL. And this violation was mailed first class and certified on September 16th of 2025. Certified mail was not received. Regular mail was not returned. Posted at City Hall and hand-delivered on September 17th of 2025. A re-inspection prior to hearing was conducted on September 30th of 2025. And as today, the violation continues to exist. I do have five photographs that I would like to introduce into evidence. I have had some contact with the property or with the business owner and with a couple of the managers. Thank you. I'm now showing you it has been previously marked as City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. Do you recognize this? I do. And when was this photograph taken and what does it depict? So this was when I saw the violation occurring, which was on May 24th of 2025, which is one of the banners on the building. And is that the banner you're referring to at the kind of like the top part of the building? Yes. And is there any instance where something like this would be approved in the city? They are approved. Temporary banners are approved by our Mooney Code. They are approved for a period of four weeks and only one banner per building. Okay. So in this case, at some point, this became a violation. Correct. Okay. Thank you for the clarity. City's Exhibit 2 for identification purposes? You'll see a couple more. So I think in total we had four hanging banners without approvals. And are you referring to the banner that says grooves on the bottom and the one that says now open 9 a.m. daily? Yes, ma'am. In the photograph? Correct. And that was also taken on May 24th, correct? Correct. What about City's Exhibit 3? So this is just a re-inspection that we do by our standards that we requested for September 30th was the day that I did the re-inspection prior to hearing. And the banner continues to be hung. And you're referring to the banner above the entry doors that say grooves, correct? Correct. Thank you. City's Exhibit 4 for identification purposes? Here's the other banner. One kind of fell and is hanging on the corner of the tent and the building, but the other one I guess they removed it. And is that the sign that you're referring to on the bottom? Yes. Kind of middle of the photograph? Correct. That's a temporary banner. And that was taken on September 30th? Correct. Thank you. I'm now showing what has been previously marked as City's Exhibit 5 for identification purposes. What does this depict? Okay, I know that it's hard to read, but there are several banners and stuff that had, they were issued permits and approved, but they were technically for the building next door, which is the smoke shop. Okay, so let's talk about that. So when you say, do you mean the building, this particular building, the 400 West, it has different businesses there, correct? Correct. It's just one parcel, though. All right, so I see here that there are different signs. For clarification, none of those signs apply to the business groups located at the 400 West Atlantic 404? Correct. Actually, the restaurant is 404, but the parcel is actually under 400 West Atlantic. So this is actually for a different shop, not for the restaurant. So this particular image here depicts a lack of approved sign, correct? Correct. All right. At this time, the City would like to introduce the five exhibits into evidence. Make it a motion. So moved. Mr. Chairman, I move that we admit the five documents and pictures submitted by the code enforcement officer into evidence. A second. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Documents are admitted into evidence. What is your recommendation? Because of the lack of trying to come and get in approvals for the permit, we, as a city, we request five days for the removal of all the banners, temporary banners, or $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Thank you. Board members, any discussion? I had a couple questions for the officer. Yes, please. Go ahead. I didn't understand. Had you approached the owner or management regarding this topic? I have. And you advised them that they should, a permit, and if they had a permit, it would only be good for four weeks? Yes. They're aware of that. Thank you for letting us know that. Mr. Chairman, in light of that, and I'm not on the downtown boards or anything, but it doesn't seem fair to other businesses that are obeying the rules. So, I think $100 a day might be a little bit light in that it's a commercial violation. I wonder if any other board members have a thought. I have a couple of questions. Can we see the pictures again? Yes. Which exhibit would you like to see? We'll start from the top. So, the banners are a part of this restaurant grooves, correct? Yes. Okay. So, that's what's in question. Can we go to the picture of the awning? The tent? The tent. Is that tent permitted? They're currently... No. They're currently trying, but as of now, it is not permitted. So, if another business had that tent up, it would be all right also? Is it bolted to the ground or the fixture of the building? Okay. So, may I just interject here? It's not in... If we could please stick to the current violation, we don't want to say anything about anything else potentially going on with this, or, and also it's irrelevant, what else is happening with other businesses as well. Thank you. So, is there anyone here that owns a property, or no one showed up? No, they didn't show up. So, the only thing we're questioning right now are the banners. The banners, correct. As of now. We could down the road have to question that tent. We're not going to speculate on what you may or may not have to. I'm serious. Yeah. Okay. So, have you gotten a positive response back from either a tenant or a landlord about violations? No. No positive response. I thought that's what I just asked her. Yeah, no, no. Because there's a reason why I'm asking. Because it's insult to injury for city staff, because the manager of the facility is also on another board, and it seems like he's got a... We don't want to go there. I really appreciate it. That's not really relevant to the... We have to really stay just on the one case. Just to clean us up a little bit, this board should not consider anything other than the evidence presented to it. I would like to add to my fellow board member, this violation, if we don't add, I think, a little higher violation, I think we're allowed to fine up to $1,000 a day. Am I correct? That's correct. So something more appropriate, perhaps, and I'm only suggesting, perhaps $100 per banner, so that would be $400. For a day. Yeah. Something because it's not fair to other people who own businesses. They can't put up a... Or any organization can't just put one up without a permit, right? Are you allowed to put one up temporarily while you have, like, permits in for permanent signs? Yes. Absolutely. They can get approvals for a temporary ban, which is a period of four weeks, one per building. And they did not request a permit for the temporary nor for any permanent signage at this time? Correct. And you re-inspected in the last 48 hours? No. We... Our procedure has been done differently now, so we do it a few... We can do it up to 10 or something. It's done differently. So it was done on the 30th, but, yes, it's still there. I mean, let's just speak. You patrolled this area, and as of the last time... I'm constantly up and down every day. I mean, I drove past there today, so I... Right. So did I. We don't base anything based on personal observations. That's not evidence. Okay. Do we have a motion? Just one quick correction for everyone. The officer recommended that you order the removal within a certain amount of time. Right. I would recommend that the board not order any type of compliance type, because, as in many cases, and this one is also true... There's multiple ways to get to compliance. There are multiple ways to get to compliance, but give them a time frame to come into compliance. Would the fines be assessed against the tenant or the property owner? They always go against the property owner. Okay. That's where the lien goes. Would you like to make a motion? I will this time. Thank you. And thank you for your questions. I find them insightful. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion with respect to the case number 2025-004957. I move for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that there is good notice and that the violations of four banners being displayed without permit exist on the property. The offending party shall correct all violations within five days or pay a fine of $400 per day for each day thereafter. For noncompliance, the respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance, the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board and in the event of noncompliance, a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed upon the property. Second? I second. Thank you. Can we have a discussion on that? Yes. I do agree we need to get their attention, but I don't think five days is a reasonable time for them to be able to respond. So we give them a little bit more time. How much time? I would like to have a discussion. You know, I wouldn't just... I mean, I'm inclined to disagree with that. They're an active practicing business. All they need is a pair of scissors in there and their compliance. It wouldn't take five days to put them up. Okay. That's a thing. Normally, I would be in agreement with you. If it was a different kind of violation, I would be 100% in agreement with you. I agree with that. I'd like to add to Jimmy that the officer's testimony was from... He asked her and I asked her, have you consulted the manager about this? And they know. They're aware. Right. I would just add the standard for the board is that you have to give them a reasonable time to come into compliance. What that means in practical effect is that you have to... There has to be enough time so that they can comply with your order, and that's the assessment that you should make. So if my colleague thinks five days is fine, I'll agree. Any other discussion? If the fine has to be heavier to move the needle, I would agree to a heavier fine, but $400 a day should get it cleared up. And that starting today doesn't go back from the original violation, correct? It starts from when... The way that the order is drafted, the fine would begin to accrue after the expiration of the five days that you've given them to comply. And the property owner, again, was notified, correct? All our letters certified in first class go to the property owner, which is on property appraisal, and any business that has a registered agent. Now, just for point information, the tenant for Groves, are they the property owner, or are they just a tenant? They are tenants. But the property owner is the one who's going to get the fine. Correct. Thank you. And any other discussion? Can I just... One second. Well, Mom, I just want to check with something with development services to make sure that they don't have anything else that might be the worst. One moment. I want to double check with development services that there are, you know, this wasn't a part of any other approval, just to confirm. Okay. But she told me she wasn't aware of anything. Thank you. All right. No other discussion? We'll call a question. So all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion passes. And next case. Next case, 25025. Case number... Sorry. It's a typo in there. 2025-005-157. Property owner, Rose Budd Ray Shops, LLC. Registered agent, CM Rack, Inc. Property address, 245 Northeast 2nd Avenue. Presented by Code Officer Delindo Kowski. Thank you. And you're here for that property? Yes, I am. I'm the property manager. And your address? My office address or their address? Your office address. 101 Southeast 4th Avenue on Delray Beach, 33483. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Warren? You may receive. Good afternoon. My name is Belinda Wyskowski. I'm a code enforcement officer for Clean and Safe. I regulate the downtown, which are the restaurants and the businesses. I'm here regarding a clogged French drain on private property located at 245 Northeast 2nd Avenue. On June 3rd of 2025, I inspected the property where I observed a French drain that had been clogged and flooding the parking lots with rain. Which is in violation of Code Section 56.20, Subsection A, Subsection B, which states that the property owner shall be responsible for the stormwater drainage facilities located on private property, where runoff will principally be collected within the property. The owner shall clean and maintain the facility or channel as required to ensure efficient and proper operation of the facility. A general violation was issued on June 7th of 2025. The violation was mailed first class and certified on June 10th of 2025. Compliance date was required for June 21st of 2025 because this also was a legacy case from our older system, AS400. Another violation was sent out through EPL, and the violation was sent first class and certified on September 16th of 2025. Certified confirmation was not received. Regular mail was not returned. It was posted at the property in City Hall on September 17th of 2025. Re-inspection was done on October 3rd of 2025, and as of today, the violation continues to exist. I do have four photographs that I would like to introduce into evidence. Again, I have had contact with Abby. We actually did go out there with Public Works. We discussed it, and to see what was the best option as to how to correct the violation. And handle it. That was my next question. Did you consult with anyone from Public Works? Yes, we did. And did they confirm that there was an issue with the drainage? They did. I do have an email here from him. So, yes, we did. He confirmed everything that, what needed to be done and that there was an issue and it needed to be resolved. Thank you. I'm not sure it's been previously marked as City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. Do you recognize this? Yes. This was taken on June 3rd of 2025 at the parking lot. So, is this when you first note, like, one of the times that you notice this issue? Correct. All right. And you're referring to the amount of water, standing water in the parking lot? Yes. It was just a buildup. It wouldn't drain. So, it stays several days or 72 hours. It becomes an issue with mosquitoes. All right. City's Exhibit 2 for identification purposes. This is just another close-up photo. You can see the French drain there. That was taken in the initial violation on June 3rd of 2025. And could you describe what's in the photograph? Describe it? Yes. So, you can see there the drain, the French drain, and it just has, like, about three inches of water there. Perfect. Thank you. City's Exhibit 3 for identification purposes. This was our re-inspection photo taken on October 3rd of 2025. Yeah. It's, I had to kind of, it rained, but it does accumulate. It does accumulate a lot of water there. All right. So, you just described that there's lots of water near the drain. Correct. Okay. Thank you. And this, again, is just a close-up on, that was taken on re-inspection prior to hearing, which was on October 3rd of 2025. All right. And then, could you describe what's in the photograph, please? I'm sorry? Could you describe what's in the photograph? So, it's the French drain, just a closer look of it, covered with water, with two, three inches of water. Thank you. So, at this time, the city would like to introduce the four photographs into evidence. I move that we omit the documents, the four pictures submitted by the code enforcement officer, into evidence. Second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. I did receive a proposal from Abby today, actually, when I got to work. I printed it out, and it looks like they are working on it. Tomorrow morning, they're doing it. Okay. They're going to jet the drain and back everything tomorrow morning. And if you can clarify what the compliance date was. So, the compliance date was June. It was of June, the 21st of June. All right. Thank you. And what is the city looking for in this case? Do you want to hear from your respondent first? Yeah, I guess, do you have an opportunity to question the witness initially and provide any rebuttal or testimony as well? At this point, I mean, I got a contract with Shenandoah, because we've been working on it for the last 30 days. I did have one of my contractors come out, but it failed. So, now I've hired Shenandoah, and they're coming out tomorrow morning to jet and back the line. I just asked for a little bit of leniency so I can at least get this done in the next week. Okay. Thank you. Any question? I mean, this is the inlet to a supposed French drain, which is a funny word, because it doesn't really mean anything in the engineering business, but that's agreed to. But my question is, what is the discharge outlet situation? To what does this French drain discharge? And who owns the canal at the outlet? I don't know the question. There's actually not a discharge on the same property. So, it's an older construction, an older parking lot. So, technically, there should have been, but there isn't. Is your contractor going to somehow connect your French drain to some receiver that can accept that much water? At this point, they're just cleaning it out and basically jetting it and backing out any of the dirt, because I guess the dirt is quite impacted into the drain. If it doesn't answer the question, where does the water want to go? Is it possible that there's a physical, blasting it out with a hose or something isn't the same as putting in a pipe that's really maybe needed? I mean, you need to really have an engineer tell you what to do. Otherwise, you may not be getting anywhere. So, my question is, what is your contractor proposing to do in some detail? I'm going to cut you off here, because I don't think that the results are necessarily, the response to that question necessarily answer what we need to know in order to determine whether a violation exists. You're looking at whether or not her proposed solution is significant. I'd like to hear the city's proposal first, before we know how much, what are the time constraints? What is your proposal? Mr. Cohen, that's why they hired a professional, but the city's suggestion is 14 days to clean the exfilter trench or $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. So, 14 days to come into compliance. The question then is, does your contractor told you that that's enough time to do the work that they anticipate encountering? As of right now, we're going to jet and clean. We're going to see basically what it looks like, and we're in hopes that there's no intrusion from roots or anything like that. But as of right now, the first step is to jet and vacuum the French drain. If, at the result of that, tests show there's still a problem? We've got to continue on and do something, yes, absolutely. Would you then ask for some extension of time now that the problem is? Yeah, and then we come back in front of you guys and ask for more time with some plans from Shenandoah because they are a contractor that does this. Other questions for the witnesses? What was the city's position on the drainage issue with Public Works? What do you mean as far as? I think that the Public Works confirmed that there's no connection to the city drain system, which is why they're totally responsible for this. There's other buildings in the area that have had similar issues with water and sewage. When stuff was constructed, some of the older buildings, they didn't tie in. And that parking lot, I remember going to a Chinese restaurant with Christina's 15 years ago when it rained, had a drainage issue. So I think it's, you know, they're trying to follow due process and get it cleaned out at least. But I would suggest, like, seriously speaking with Public Works to see where the problem lies because it's been a drainage issue in that area for a long, long time. I've seen that just driving by myself. And I do have a question to expand on that. That was my question. Was the drainage issue there before these tenants got there? Because if they do everything possible to fix it, then what? Definitely. What if they clean it out? And they're responsible for the condition of the property as the property owner. The property owner has to maintain it. Yeah, definitely. Okay. I think it might fall on the city side once they clean it out. It's property. It's private owned. Yeah, I've tried to get the city out there several times, and every time they told me it's privately owned. Yeah, it's not connected to the city, so it's not a city drainage issue. I mean, the conversation has come in a solving direction, which probably is not great, but it is okay for you to consider what the respondent needs to do to come into compliance and to give them the appropriate time to do so. That is certainly within your purpose. There's one other. I'm not familiar with this part of the city. Does this part of the city serve by the Lake Worth Drainage District? I don't think so, no. You know how that? I don't think so. Southwest Florida Water Management District? Do they have any responsibility for a discharge location in this part of the city? I don't think so, no. No, I don't think so. Does the city maintain something downstream of where this property transitions to somebody else's property? Has it helped it design to work? Wherever it is city property, the city will maintain it. If it is private property, the property owner has to maintain it. I understand, but eventually the water is going to pass the property line of this owner's property. That is beyond my knowledge. I understand. So who is responsible for getting the water from the edge of the property line of this owner someplace else? Mr. May I? The owner can't be responsible for anything past their property line. Ms. Warren, please. No, what I was going to say, I was going to say, you know, right at this point, the city is asking for 14 days for them to come into compliance and a fine thereafter. It sounds like the board is considering what time is reasonable. I think the compliance, you know, the respondent has already stated that she's been in contact with the city, has already hired her professional, so they're already taking measures to come into compliance. So I think that any conversation beyond that, I think we might be getting a little out of sight of the scope of the hearing. Mr. Chubb, can I make a motion? Yes. Just on Ms. Warren's testimony. And we do have, she is trying. We'll take the city's recommendation that we'll give them 14 days to come into compliance. And why don't you give the full motion? Oh, I'm sorry. How much penalty is he says after 14 days? 14 days, $100 fine is what the city was asking. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion with respect to case number 005157. I move for refining of a fact and conclusion of law that there's good notice and that the violation of the city drainage exists on the property. The offending property shall correct all violations within 14 days or pay a fine of up to $100 per day for each day thereafter for noncompliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the court enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance, the court enforcement officer shall report back to the board. In any event of noncompliance, a lien of the daily amount shall be opposed on the property. I'm sorry. I'm going to have to correct you on that. You said city property. I'm sorry. Is it? Yeah. It's not. It's private property. So you're going to have to reread that. So reread it again? Yes. I think we can amend your wording to say private. Yes, we can make a correction. Correction. Private property. Thank you. Second. Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Abby. Okay, next case. Next case, code 25000056, property owner Salina, Development, LLC, registered agent, CT Corporation System, property address 32 Salina Avenue, presented by Code Officer James Easley. And do we have anybody present for this case? Anybody, property owner or somebody wishing to speak on this particular case? Okay, go ahead. Good afternoon, Code Board. My name is Code Enforcement Officer James Easley, Clean and Safe Unit. I'm here regarding case number 25-000056, a maintenance of building required violation, located at 32 Salina Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. On July 9th, 2025, while patrolling the area, I observed the property in need of building maintenance. Upon further investigation, I observed that the property owner needed to obtain all required permits to repair or replace the glass pane to the front entry door, repair or replace the missing or damaged roof tiles, and repair or replace the broken or rusted drip edge to bring this property into compliance. The observed condition of the property constitutes a violation of Code Section 7.8.3, maintenance of buildings, which states that all buildings or structures, both existing and new, and all parts thereof, including all materials and fixtures, shall be maintained in a safe, secure, and sanitary condition. Therefore, on July 10th, 2025, this case was established. Notice of violation and notice of hearing was mailed by First Class and Certified Mail on July 28th, 2025. The green card was returned on August 8th, 2025. The notice was also posted at the property on July 28th, 2025. The compliance date was required by August 15th, 2025. On September 11th and September 12th of 2025, I re-inspected the property and observed that the property was still not in compliance. Therefore, on October 1st, I conducted a re-inspection and observed that the violations still exist. I have 10 photographs taken of the property in question. I have had contact with the property representative who has kept the city abreast of their plan and progress towards compliance. To this day, the property remains in a state of noncompliance. Thank you. I'm not sure it has been previously marked as City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. Can you tell us when the photograph was taken and what it describes? Yeah, this photo was taken on June 9th, 2025, and it depicts the front view of the property. What are the violations described in the photograph? Yeah, so when you look at the front door, from this angle, right at the bottom it's one of the panes that is completely missing. So a person can go in and out, a person can go in and out. It was completely open at the bottom, that bottom pane that you see on the front door at 32 Selina. Thank you. City's Exhibit 2? There's a close-up photo showing that the bottom pane is completely missing at the bottom. And that was on July 9th, and also Exhibit 3 is on July 9th? Yes, this photo was taken on July 9th, 2025. You can see the condition of the drip edge and the condition of the roof. Thank you. City's Exhibit 4? You see a re-inspection was completed on September 5th, 2025. You can see they put a piece of plastic at the bottom, but the property still remains in a state of non-compliance. City's Exhibit 5? Again, on September 5th, 2025, you can see the condition of the roof and the drip edge. Thank you. City's Exhibit 6? Again, just another angle of the condition of the roof and the drip edge. City's Exhibit 7? Again, this is another portion of the property. You can see the rusted drip edge of this property. And there's also, it looks like, some disrepair or damage to the kind of looks cream or pink area? Yes. Area? Yes. And this was all taken on September 5th, 2025. Thank you. City's Exhibit 8? Again, this is another accurate depiction of what I observed in the field. When I did my re-inspection on October 1st, 2025, you can still see the condition of the roof and the condition of the rusted drip edge. City's Exhibit 9? Another angle taken on October 1st. You see that this property still is a state of noncompliance. And what's depicted in here is kind of what you described earlier? Yes. Again, the condition of the roof and the drip edge, the maintenance of the building. All right. And this is a different site on City's Exhibit 10. What is this depict? Again, from another angle, another side of the property, based on my re-inspection on October 1st, 2025, you can see the condition of the property. It's in violation, direct violation of our code section as it deals with maintenance of building. All right. And it looks like some of the paneling is just completely missing on top near the roof. Yes. At this time, the city would like to introduce the 10 photographs into evidence. Can I get a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the 10 photographs presented by the city as evidence of the condition of the property. Second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. And does the city have any other comments or recommendation? Yeah. The city's recommendation is that the property owner be given 30 days to bring the property into compliance or face a fine of $100 per day thereof. Thank you. Question. What is the use of the property currently? I mean, obviously, it's nothing someone residing there now. Is it a commercial property or a residential property? It's hard to tell from these photos which one it is. Yeah, it's, the property is owned by a corporation. I'm not sure of their usage of the property. Is the zoning residential or commercial? This, this is a zone. One moment. We have our development services director here. I have a question in the meantime. Okay, go ahead. Sorry if I missed it. Have you been in contact with the owners? The property representative. So not the actual owners, just someone who's represented. Right, right. Again, yeah, we send a notice to the owner of record, Palm Beach County property appraiser. It goes to the owner of the property and the registered agent. And they've responded to that in some way? They have reached out and tried to keep the city abreast on their, their desire to bring the property into compliance. But as of today, the property is still in a state of noncompliance. Another question. On the door in the photograph, officer, I mean, I'm not sure if that's a front porch or that's living area. Were you able to inspect? Did they open the door? I mean, is that a porch door or is that the main door into the house? Yeah, so again, I can only take photos from what can be observed from the street. So I have... Looks like the windows are boarded up. Is that accurate? Yes, some of the windows in the front are boarded up. So it's hard to even assess that. Right. Thank you. You're welcome. Well, let's get this other question answered. I think we have some information. Good afternoon. Could you please cite your name for the record? Amy Alvarez. And Ms. Alvarez, what is your position with the city? Assistant Development Services Director. And are you familiar with the area of 32 Salina Avenue in Delray Beach, Florida? Yes. And I believe there was a question from the board as to what is the zoning district. So the zoning district is RM. I just want to be sure you're asking about the zoning district, not the use. Right, not specific to that property, right? Okay. Yep. Yep. It's RM, which is multifamily, medium density. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Other discussion? I'd like to get you guys' feedback. You know, the city worker is working extremely hard. It's owned by a corporation. They only let a representative speak to them. So they are aware of the situation. If they really wanted to come in compliance, someone who made decisions would have been in contact with them. What do you guys think about that? I agree. I concur. It almost seems to me like somebody owns this and they're not sure they're ever going to rent it or they're going to do anything with it and there's no incentive on their part if they're not going to make money from it by renting it. You know, why bother? Well, that's not the way the law is said. It doesn't matter to us whether it's in use or not. It should look nice and be safe. That's correct. I agree. I think 14 days might, you know, we should get their attention because it's to bring them into compliance, correct? I didn't understand what the city was asking for, Jimmy. The city recommended 30 days and then $100 a day. So this is a maintenance of buildings violation. It depends on what they want to do to bring this into compliance. Certain things might require permits. Some things may not require permits. So we're just asking for 14 days for them to properly bring it. 14 or 30. Well, I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. No, no permits. It depends. It was just however they want to bring the property into compliance. I heard 14 days. My apologies. The city is recommending 30 days or $100 a day per day based on the amount of, you know, what we've observed will be reasonable in this situation. Hey, may I comment? Jimmy, I think you're saying we want to make that a little more urgent with the 14 days, you know, more do it now. But I think it's not feasible to get all the permits and plans in place. But I think because it's obviously a commercial property, by that I mean it's not a primary residence being rented for profit. Correct. So I would say since it's a commercial venture and it looks like the compliance date on this report was August. August what? Yeah, the property was cited on July 9th. The original compliance date was August 15th of 2025. So August 15th was the compliance date. This is later in October. So I don't think the time is going to motivate them. I think perhaps a more appropriate findage when we, that's my thought. Thank you. If I might, just two things for you to think about. One is, as tempting it is to hold them accountable for not meeting the first deadline, you are still required to give them a sufficient amount of time from your order to the compliance date so that they can comply. It is not appropriate for you to give them insufficient time so as to force them into noncompliance because it is not doable. So you always have to consider what is a reasonable amount of time and you are certainly allowed to ask the officer in the city about what is a fair amount of time for them to go there and then reach your own judgment how to get there but at the end of the day you still have to no matter what happened prior you still have to give them enough time to comply with your order so that it is not a default by default. I think we covered that together. Thank you, Jimmy. Can we get a motion? Just looking at the photographs and the roof only, a permit is going to be required because the rules are very, very strict and it's in terrible shape. So I think 30 days would be a minimum. For the record, this board should never, ever, ever make a recommendation about how they should come into compliance because then you are responsible for it. So I don't think it was your intention to give them a recommendation. 30 days is appropriate because of the fact of life of how long it takes to a project like this. I want to make sure you're telling us we want to make sure we don't tell them how to come in compliance. That is correct because that's just not our prerogative. I mean, sometimes, because we get lost in the weed sometimes, but it's always important to remember that there's two functions here, right? One is to listen to the facts and identify whether you believe the facts demonstrate a violation of the code as it is written. And second, to give them a compliance date that is sufficient for them to reasonably comply with. That's all. That's it. Question. So the city does feel 30 days is sufficient time? Yes, the city feels that 30 days is sufficient time to apply and obtain an approved permit and to make steps towards compliance. Board members. Whoever draws this up, Mr. Chairman, I think that there should not be 100. I would recommend 250. Okay. I agree. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion with respect to case number 00056. I move for finding a fact and conclusion of law that there is good notice and violation for the building maintenance exists on the property. The offending party should correct all violations within 30 days or pay a fine of up to $250 a day per day for each day thereafter for noncompliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the court enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance and if the violation is not brought into compliance, the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board and in the event of noncompliance, a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Before we move on to the next case, just a reminder to the audience and to the board members that cell phones should be silenced. Board members, we're here to focus on the details of the case, so I know sometimes emergencies come up and we're volunteers here, but we are here to do our jobs on behalf of the city, so thank you. Next case. All right, next case, case number four on the agenda, code 25-000058, property owner Jojo Realty, LLC, registered agent Frank Canigla, property address 501 East Atlantic Avenue, presented by Code Officer Delinda Wieckowski. And is there anybody in the audience that is here to speak on this case? All right. Good afternoon, my name is Delinda Wieckowski, I'm a Code Enforcement Officer for Clean and Safe. I'm here regarding a parking lot maintenance violation located at 501 East Atlantic Avenue. On July 10th of 2025, as I was driving along, I inspected this property and I observed the parking lot required maintenance, such as patching up holes, repairing concrete lids, to water meters, sealing, and restriping of the parking lot. This is in direct violation of our Code Section 4.6.9, Subsection D, Subsection 10, Subsection B, which states that this shall be, that it is the owner's responsibility or operator of the specific use to ensure that the parking lots are kept in good operating conditions, such as maintaining resurfing, restriping surface markers, re-anchoring, or replacing loose and broken wheel stops, and replacing painted signs. Therefore, a notice of violation was issued, first class and certified, and mailed out on September 16th of 2025. Certified mail was received on September 29th of 2025. Regular mail was not returned, posted at the City Hall, and hand-delivered on September 17th of 2025. A re-inspection prior to a hearing was conducted on September 30th of 2025. As of today, the violation continues to exist. I do have eight photographs that I would like to introduce into evidence. I believe no one is here for the case. You believe someone is here for this case? No, it's not. I think you called out to see if anyone was here for the case. I did. I did. I just wanted to make sure. I thought I saw some movement behind me. All right. Thank you. And I'll share what's been previously marked as City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. When was this photograph taken, and what does it depict? This is July 10th of 2025. It's just one of the photos of the parking lot. You can see that the handicapped space is very faint, and the parking lot itself, you'll see in other pictures that the striping you cannot see. And this is the fair and accurate depiction of the violation? Yes, it is. Thank you. City's Exhibit 2 for identification purposes? I believe this is a water meter, and it's cracked and broken and obtaining water. Well, that was on July 10th as well? I'm sorry. Yes, July 10th of 2025. All right. City's Exhibit 3? This is just a few holes, potholes, that need to be fixed, and this was taken on July 10th of 2025. And you say a few potholes. It looks like a darker area. Throughout the parking lot, there's a few potholes that need to be corrected. All right. Thank you. City's Exhibit 4? This is another water meter that's cracked and broken that needs to be repaired. And that was on July 10th? Yes. City's Exhibit 5? Okay. This is a re-inspection photo. I apologize. There was a lot of people there, so it was hard to take a good picture of the parking lot on September 30th of 2025, but obviously you can tell that nothing has been done. So when you say nothing has been done, it looks like the parking lot still needs to be re-striped? Correct. It needs to be re-sealed, re-striped, and fixed, all the potholes and all the water meters. And then while you were there, did you get a good look at the entire parking lot? Not just this photograph, because I know you said something about not being able to take a great photo, but you were there and had the opportunity to observe the parking lot. Yes, I was. Thank you. City's Exhibit 6? I kind of peeked underneath the car. I think by our ordinance I can do that. I can peek under the car, so I took a picture of that. There's a pothole there. That was on September 30th? Yes, September 30th. City's Exhibit 7? This is September 30th. There was also another re-inspection photo. You can obviously tell that nothing has been, they haven't resealed it or re-striped it. And because they need a permit for this, it's because when you reseal, you can't see the lines, and so they have to, the city has specifications as far as the striping and how it's done, and so that is why a permit is required. And speaking of permit, I'm now showing you has been previously marked as City's Exhibit 8. What does this depict? This is just one of the, from the EPL, from our system, showing that they applied, but it's not yet completed in the system. So they have applied for a permit? So they have applied, but it's not approved yet, nor has the work been done. And in the narrative, I requested an approved permit, and work be complete within 30 days. Okay, thank you. At this time, the city would like to introduce the 8 photographs and screenshots into evidence. Can I get a motion to that effect? Make a motion. With regards to the case number 25-00058, I move we omit the documents and pictures, number 8 of them, by the city into evidence as the city has the exhibits, 8 of them. Thank you. Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Okay, the city recommends that 30 days to obtain an approved permit and to also complete the work, which would be restriping, resealing, fixing potholes, fixing the broken water meters, and so forth within 30 days or $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Nothing further? Nothing further from the city. All right, board members, any questions for any witness? Is the use of this parking lot dedicated to a building where all the cars are sewn in the parking lot? Using the building adjacent to the parking lot? The usage of this parking lot is for Muscle Beach restaurant and for Bernice. Information? Is it just that strip of the entire parking lot that you have to... Well, it's not that big, but it's the entire parking lot. Okay, so that is the parking line? Correct. Okay. I have a question. Yeah? So, you're stating, officer, that they have applied for a permit to fix the potholes, the water meters, the handicapped spots, and anything else that you've noticed that's out of line in the photographs? Correct. They've applied for that? They've applied, but the permit, I believe, is still in review, so it has not been approved. I have empathy when a permit is in review. So, and you're saying it should come out of review within how many days? They need to obtain it before they do the work. How long, as a representative of the city, how long would you say it's going to take for them to come out of a permit review? Well, technically this, I understand your question, but this has been, this was postponed from the last code board, so they've had plenty of time to do it. I appreciate that, that they didn't apply timely. And I apologize if I'm being rude in any way, but if, based on prior conversation with our council, we want to make sure we offer the proper amount of time. If they respond back and forth and they have a good permit approvals that they gave all their paperwork and everything was correct, they should, 30 days should be enough. Thank you. Question. Hey, I'm so sorry. We, when she said it's correct, I just wanted to, because I understand your question. I understand your sense being too rude about it. No, no, no, absolutely not. I think your question was, is this a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance? Before she finished, we do have our, our chief building executive here who will be, you know, to represent permits. I mean, I hate to put him on the spot, but that is a good question, you know, and it appears that they applied on 923. So. Could you give your name for the record, please? Steve Tobias for building. So, Mr. Tobias, assuming that we kind of get, I hate for lack of better, is it a clean or a good submittal and they respond to comments appropriately, how long does it typically take for a person to obtain a permit for resealing and restriping of a parking lot? I don't know that's not my department. Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm going to say that it's usually reviewed within 10 days. So, okay, usually. Thank you. I do have a question. Go ahead, Jane. Is there anything that the tenant is required to do right now, or are we just solely waiting on a city to review the information to release the permit? Do you, are you, do you know the answer to that question, Ms. Witowski? Well, it just, it's, it's in review, so it depends on, it could be on the city's side, it could be on their side. So, it could be on hold because they're not responding to responses. Can you give us a moment to just look up the permit status? We can look that up in our system. One moment. Thank you, thank you for doing that. I appreciate it. Thank you. One question about this, permit data is up there, 150 square feet. It's a funny number to me for a project as described in the photographs. Yeah. Well, for discussion, Mr. Chairman, the reason why I ask is because if the tenant has nothing to do and they're waiting for the city to respond, and they take another 30 days, how can they come in compliance? So, that's the reason why I'm asking is who's... Mr. Chairman, I don't think they should do anything that's not permitted. It could be wrong. Correct. That's right. You spend money and it's wrong. They're waiting to hear back from me. That's my question. Who are we waiting on? If they're not responding to comments, then that's different. I think we're being very fair in asking the question. So, 30 feet wide by 50 feet long is 150 square feet. That's, I think, about the size of that lot. Yeah, that's what I said. I mean, it looks bigger because it's a wide-angle lens there, but I think if you actually went and looked at that lot, you'd find it's not as big. Just a reminder, we're still in session, so anything you say should be saved into the microphone and is open to public record. Questions, please. I've consulted with our staff members. It's only been with the city for two days. Okay. So, 30 days, do you recommend 30 days is sufficient amount of time? To receive an approved permit? Yes, ma'am. Yes. Well, I mean, we're looking for compliance here, but yes, so... Correct. But I think he asked me about the permit process, but yes, to achieve compliance, yes. Motion? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion with respect to the case number... 5-8, please. 2-5. Thank you. 0-0-0-0-5-8. I move for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that there is good notice in the violations that are shown in the photographs, including the water meter damage, which the handicapped parking painting and the overall condition of the parking lot still exist on that property. The offending property shall correct all the violations by obtaining permits within 30 days or pay a fine of $100 per day each day thereafter for non-compliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance, the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board and in the event of non-compliance, a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property. Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. All right, next case. Next case, case number five on the agenda code 25-000060, property owner Pat's Management Inc., registered agent Patel Rashishwar, property address 337 Northeast 2nd Ave., presented by code officer Delinda Wachowski. And is anyone present in the audience for this particular case? Okay, come on up to this microphone over here, and when you get here, just give us your name and address for the record, please. Business address or my home address? Either way. Okay, Rajeshwar N. Patel, president owner of Pat's Management Inc., 337 Northeast 2nd Ave., Delray Beach, Florida, since 1987, same place. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Warren? You may receive. Thank you. Okay, good afternoon. My name is code enforcement officer Delinda Wachowski. I am here regarding a parking lot maintenance violation located at 337 Northeast 2nd Ave. On July 12th of 2025, I inspected the property where I observed parking lots that required maintenance, such as patching a pole, sealing, and restriping the parking spaces, plus handicapped space that must be executed in accordance to the ordinance. This is in direct violation of code section 4.6.9, subsection D, subsection 10, subsection B, which states that it is the responsibility of the owner or their operator or the specific use to ensure that the parking facilities are kept in good condition. Therefore, a notice of violation was issued. You have first class and certified mail on September 15th of 2025. The certified mail was not received. The regular mail was not returned. Posted at the property and at City Hall on September 17th of 2025. A re-inspection prior to hearing was conducted on September 30th of 2025. As of today, the violation continues to exist. I do have five photographs that I would like to introduce into evidence on this case. Thank you. I'm not sure it's been previously marked as a disease exhibit one for identification purposes. When was this photograph taken and could you describe the violation? This is taken on July 12th of 2025. The parking lot has actually, you cannot see the striping hardly whatsoever. So there's no lines? No lines for the handicap and for the regular parking. City's Exhibit 2. Okay, so here's handicap. As you can tell, you can't, I'm very faint, but hardly nothing at all. So it just needs to be resealed and striped. 3. This is the re-inspection prior to hearing that continues to be non-compliant, which was taken on September 30th of 2025, where nothing has been done. And the parking lot continues to be unstriped and unsealed. Thank you. City's Exhibit 4? So you can tell there's a few, there's a couple little potholes, but nothing severe. But the striping is still missing? The striping is necessary, yes. Thank you. City's Exhibit 5? Okay, so as you can tell here, he has, on his behalf, he has pulled a permit, and I think it's been like that for a little while. But it's been in review, so I'm not sure if it's on behalf of his comments that he has not commented back or the city. But he needs approved. On the narrative, it says that he needs to apply and obtain a approved permit and do the work as well. So as of today, there's no approved permit, and there is no approved permit prior to the compliance date, correct? Correct. Thank you. Okay, can we get a motion to accept these exhibits? I make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we accept the exhibits 1 through 5 as presented by the city. Second. Second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, those documents have been accepted as exhibits 1 through 5. Believe it. Yes. You have the opportunity now to question the witness about what she's provided, the statement she's provided, or about any of the evidence she's presented, and provide any rebuttal testimony. Yes, because a lot of good things are missing out of this. So here is the deal. I'm there since 1988, first time coming here. First time. Okay, so first thing is, I was away. 28 July, I came back. There was a notice from the officer there. I acted on straight away. I came here to city. No, she put it with that, that you can't do it. Anything, you have to go to city hall to get a permit. I took out permitting, everything over six years ago, but I did a proper parking lot. I did it with the filling and everything, ceiling, striping, but the business is there since 72. I own it from 87. When I came to the city hall here, with the saying, hey, this is approved permit, but it's six years ago. Am I allowed to do it straight away? Ceiling and that. I take a responsibility, but the way it's done, that I've ignored it for two and a half months. I've been so many times. Believe me. So this I'm saying, is there a recommender, you are recommending what the fines and everything. Is there any way you recommend city what to do? So when I came, they could not answer me even. They did not know whether I, first time, whether I need a permit from that drawing, which I already had it. I can go ahead and seal it, do it with a permit. Not myself, from the company, the person who did it, the company who did it. Old County, legit company, six years ago. Straight away, the person at the counter did not know the answer. She went to ask somebody. Second person did not answer. And then they came and said, no, you need a permit. Now I'm looking to get a permit. So suddenly, listen to me, six years ago, I paid $4,000, including refilling. Now everybody wants $4,000 and $5,000, as long as the permit name comes in. Okay? So I said, I have to get an extra quote. I ended up with them in three quote. They were all around $3,000. So I selected the one. I paid them $2,900. I got everything. Another $900 for permitting. They applied. While I was away two weeks, as soon as I came, I came back again. The permit is not issued. Permit is there. Oh, I'm so sorry. Just for clarification, we just noticed an error. This is not the permit correct screen. So we ask that you withdraw this exhibit from Evidence Exhibit 5 for clarification. No permit has been approved. It's a different, this is the incorrect permit number. So if you see the permit number with the 4-8. It's the long address. It's the long address. Right. This is the wrong slide for the wrong slide. That's for the prior case. That's what I'm saying. That's for the prior case, right? Mr. Chairman, at this time, I'd like to amend my previous motion to remove Exhibit 5 and only accept Exhibits 1 through 4, which were photographs that were admitted by the city into evidence. Second. Thank you. And if I just, if I can just, oh, I'm so sorry. All those in favor of amending the list of Exhibits? Aye. Aye. Thank you. Any opposed? Okay. So Exhibits 1 through 4 accepted Exhibit 5 is ignored. Yes. I just want to get some quick testimony if you may or if you want to let him finish his portion of his case and then we can come back on rebuttal. I think they have some more information that's relevant to the standing of your permit. So can we continue and then we'll come back to you and you can have a chance to respond, okay? Yes, but can I ask one question to her? Yes. I know her now. I'm not a witness. I'm the attorney. She acts as the city's attorney, so she presents the case to us. That's her role. Correct. I was going to call the witness. Yes. Okay. Okay, so. Let's go to the microphone. Good afternoon. Could you please state your name for the record? Code Officer Latoya Thompson. Are you currently employed with the city? Yes, ma'am. And are you familiar with city records as it relates to permits? Just right now as we're speaking. Well, just generally, in general. Yes, yes. You know how to look for permits in the city. Yes, yes, absolutely. And did you happen to look into the city's official records regarding any permits related to the property located at 337 Northeast 2nd Avenue? Yes, ma'am. And were you able to find any permits for any parking lot striping or resurfacing? There is one, and it's on hold. It's on hold? Yes. Okay. So it's currently still in review? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. You just wanted to clarify. For important information? And do we have a reason for that hold? Do we know the reason for that hold? One moment. May I allow to speak to you? Yes. I think we're in the middle of a... I mean, she's coming up right now. Did you want us to answer that question first? Yeah, let's get the answer to the question, and then you can speak to me or you can question the witness further. Thank you. Thank you. We now have Ms. Amy Alvarez, Assistant Director of Development Services. Ms. Alvarez, there was a question asked regarding the permit relating to the property located at 337 Northeast 2nd Avenue. Did you have the opportunity to look into the city's official records regarding permitting? Yeah, so according to Project Docs, it looks like the review is complete, so it's been seven hours, and so we're just finishing... So it's just waiting the city's final sign off. Yep. Okay. What, seven hours ago? Yes. So why this was not postponed? The city has just completed seven hours ago. Because there are multiple... Sir, sir, sir. There's multiple departments in the city, and they have to communicate with each other, so the code enforcement department doesn't necessarily know what the city building department is doing on a permit. All they know is that when they last checked, that was not the case. And it has not... It sounds like it's in progress. Yes. And so hopefully we'll get this resolved. So... So you are Mr. Cohen, yeah? Yeah. So as I understand what you said so far, and then I'll let you continue, you were away, you came back, you started the process, you got a quote, the company that's doing the quote should be pulling the permit. It sounds like they've started that process, and now we're just waiting for that to move ahead. My question to you, and if this committee can recommend them, say if something like this, I wanted to comply a month ago. Why? I'm not building a property there, like avenue, anywhere. I am just sealing my parking lot, cooking a park. It looks so bad on me here, when she presents, okay, look at this handicapped parking. I collect money for handicapped people. And service. Really, this, my blood pressure has gone up already. The thing is, it's so bad, putting it in me, in a position. That is my fault, when I want to do it two months ago, this thing. They don't give up for me. I call every week this guy, Jason from this company, all this thing. I paid them even. And they have a right to come and say against me, look at what I have not done. I came here, two people in a CD could not answer me. Third one said, no, you need a permit. I came with all the paperwork I need. I said, can I seal it at least? And put a stripe. And then you do whatever, I'll pay the fine. I'll pay the thing. No? Apply for a permit. I understand. So this one said, why they cannot do it that in three working days? I'm not building a property. I understand. Could you please not direct? Sir. Sir. No, no. Sir. You can't talk? My son is a 10-year-old. I'm just saying that this should be done in three days, sir. 72 hours. Sir. This should have been done in 72 hours. You have to direct your comments to me unless I allow you to directly question the witness. I'm just saying that this should have done only in 72 hours. I understand you're frustrated. It sounds like we can get a resolution here where we will give you sufficient time to get it finished. It sounds like the process is underway. So does the city want to continue with the recommendation of 30 days and $100 a day if it's not compliance after that period? Correct. It sounds like it's in the progress. It looks like it's finalizing under staff review. Just a reminder the compliance date was previously. It was a month ago. It was a month ago, right? It wasn't today anyway. So it was August 25th. So we're just longer than that. So we're just asking for the 30 days and then once we you know it's resolved. Mr. Chairman, clarify for me. Yes. Compliance means permit is obtained. Compliance means compliance. The city will assess whether the what compliance is. Could I hit a definition? Well, in the violation it says obtain a permit. So. Thank you. It's obtain a permit and complete the work. Discussion. Thank you. We have a discussion. Oh, and complete the work? And complete the work. So Mr. Chairman, I have the question of the witness through you. Just for clarification because this comes up every time. And so compliance means that the property is no longer in violation of the code section that's at issue. That is always what compliance means. Okay. Yeah. So he has a quote in his hand. Is he telling us through his testimony, Mr. Chairman, that that's enough time? That's my question. So I have a discussion. Seems like the permit is on its way. He does have a professional company and we can tell by the passion of the tenant he would like to get this resolved. Can we postpone this until next time? We can certainly do that. Can we do that? Because it looks like he is trying to come in compliance. The city is going through the process. We just need to be a little patient. So can we just postpone it and then would you like to make a motion? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we postpone case number 000060 until the next code enforcement board meeting. Second? Aye. Second. Okay. The motion is to postpone this case until the future code enforcement board meeting and any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Sir, we've postponed your case. If you get it concluded sufficiently with the city between now and the next code enforcement meeting, then you will not have to come back here. Okay? It will be done. If it's not concluded to the city's satisfaction, then they will tell you that you need to come back at the next meeting. When is the next meeting, by the way, here? It is typically the second Thursday of the month, so that would be the second Thursday of November. I think it's the 10th of November. The 10th of November. It will be done. So the next procedure is I have to go, they'll write to me, they'll come and collect it, permit. If my guy doesn't go, I want to go and collect it. I'll go to your, I'll go and speak with you at your location, okay? I'm not sure if it's the 10th, that's a Monday. It's not the 10th, yeah. Well, you'll be notified, we'll notify you. It's in the beginning of November. It might be that we, I believe it's the 13th, but he will be notified. Thank you. I want to comply with everything. And we appreciate that. Thank you, sir. This is the first time I've done many times, every two years, ceiling and parking, first time I applied for the permit. So I think I owe a lot of money to the city for permitting. All right, thank you. Thank you, sir. We appreciate you coming here today, too. I know it's frustrating. Okay, next case. Next case, case number six on the agenda, code 25-000094, property owner, Malarkey Investments, LLC. Property address, 638 Southwest 7th Ave, presented by Code Officer Reggie Williams. Is there anybody present in the audience? Why don't you come up to the microphone here, give your name and address for the record. Carson Malarkey, I'm currently at 916 Southeast 5th Ave, Del Rey. And your relationship to the property, you're the owner or? Yeah, I own 90% of the LLC that owns the company. Okay. Thank you. Or owns the property. Ms. Warren, if you would. Yes, thank you. Ms. Otoski, if you can proceed. I'm sorry, Mr. Williams. Please proceed. Good afternoon. My name is Code Enforcement Officer Reggie Williams. I am here regarding work without permit violation located at 638 Southwest 7th Ave. On July 18, 2025, I inspected the property in response to a complaint via email from the building department. It was reported a fence was installed without an approved permit, which is a violation of Code Section 2.4.13, Subsection B, which states that building permit is required for all items as set forth in the current Florida Building Code in Chapter 7 of these land development regulations. As amended, a building permit shall be sought via application through the Development Services Department. A work without permit violation was issued on July 30, 2025. The violation was mailed first class and certified mail on September 16, 2025. The compliance date was required by August 14, 2025. On August 15, 2025, we inspected the property. Subsequently, a notice of formal hearing was issued via first class and certified mail on September 16, 2025. A certified confirmation of receipt was not received. Regular mail was not returned. Posted at the property and at City Hall on September 17, 2025. A re-inspection prior to hearing was conducted on October 3, 2025. As of the last re-inspection on October 3, 2025, the violation still exists. I have six photographs taken of the property in question. I would like to introduce these photographs as evidence. I have had contact with the property owner. Thank you. I'm now showing what has been previously parked at City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. What does this photograph depict and when was it taken? This was taken on July 18, 2025 and this is behind the property in the alleyway that shows the fence that was put up. And then you say fence is kind of like the tan. Yes, the brand new little tan fence. Thank you. City's Exhibit 2 for identification purposes? This was taken July 18, 2025 and the tan part of the fence is part of the that was put up without a permit in front of the property. Okay, thank you. City's Exhibit 3? This was my re-inspection on October 3, 2025 and the tan fence was still at the property. And no permit at that date? No permit, no. Okay, thank you. City's Exhibit 4? This is the front of the property showing the tan fence that's located in the front. And that's it October 3rd? October 3rd, 2025. City's Exhibit 5? This was a Google Maps that I pulled on July 18th that shows the property of April 2024 where you can see on the side, on the right side of the property there was no fence and behind the property in the alleyway there was no fence constructed. All right, so now I went from no fence to new fence. Yeah. No permit. And then City's Exhibit 6? This shows that he... This is the correct... No. Oh, you know, maybe they're mixed up. You're correct. I just see the incorrect address. Did you... Just give me one moment. Maybe there's a trend here. Maybe it's the next one. But I looked it up. Yeah, did you tell us what you were able to find? I looked it up 10 minutes ago and it's still on hold. On hold? On hold as it's still on hold? The status is still on hold, yes. He applied for the permit July 31st, 2025 and it's still on hold at this moment. Mr. Chairman, can I use the restroom? Well, yeah. Yes. Please note that one of the board members is stepping down. We maintain forum because we have sufficient board members. Give us one second if you're... I don't know if someone asked or... Well, I spoke with the property owner and he informed me that he was trying to get a surveyor to come out to get the process started. All right. So it's on hold due to a survey issue. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. You have an opportunity to question the witness and also to provide any rebuttal testimony to what we've heard so far. But first, we need to admit these exhibits into evidence. Yes. If we can move the five exhibits into evidence. Okay. I'll make the motion. Thank you. I'll make the motion on case number 25-00094 to admit into evidence the five exhibits on behalf of the city regarding the case that we're going to discuss. May I make a correction? It's case number 25, code 25-000094. Oh, I apologize. So it's code 25-000094. Thank you. Second? Second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, exhibits are admitted into evidence. So now you have the opportunity to question the witness and to provide any rebuttal testimony. Gotcha. What's up, Reggie? How's it going? I did finally get a surveyor out there. I got Pinnell Surveyor out there. I received the survey on Monday. I didn't get a chance to look at it until this morning. So I just need to resubmit and then I don't really know the process of getting a fence that's already built permitted. I figured since it was already built they would just come out and inspect it and I wouldn't really need to submit anything. But I did get a surveyed and so I just need more time to resubmit. Well, I think Reggie can tell you about a little bit more about the process. I don't think it's quite that simple. Yeah, yeah. But what the city is going to be looking for is going to be compliance, which is getting that permit in since the fence is up probably in this case. Does the city have a recommendation? The city suggests that the property owner would be granted 30 days to obtain an approved permit or face a fine of $50 per day until the violation is corrected. And you think you can get that permit done within 30 days? Yes. Any questions from the board? I have a motion. Mr. Chair, real quick, just for the record to be noted that Mr. Canton arrived back to the dais. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion with respect to case number 25000094. I move for finding a fact in the conclusion of law that there is good notice based on the officer's testimony and the photographic evidence that fences are in place without a permit that exists on the property. The offending party shall correct all violations by obtaining a permit within 30 days or pay a fine of $50 per day each day thereafter for noncompliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance, the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board and in the event of noncompliance, a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property. I have a question. If I pursue getting the permit and come across hiccups and I'm not able to get it done within the 30 days but progress is made, will the fine still be applied? I can't speak to whether the city will bring that forward to the code enforcement board. If they do bring it to the code enforcement board then yes, but typically I think the city wants to see compliance so if they see that you're making progress. So can I just add a clarification to that since you mentioned the city? You know, once the board has the order then we can't really do anything outside of the order so then, you know, we just encourage him to contact the city and if we need to get this on for an agenda item to get an extension then we would do that. That's how we would have to proceed. You know, so just for clarification and also to the board it's a two-part process, right? So this is a violation hearing, right? And if the city believes that you did not comply with the order of the board they bring it back to the board for an assessment of fine and at which point, you know, you could argue that you either did or there was an impossibility or you could make an argument there though I will say typically if you go to the city with legitimate, you know, they might join you in extending that but it is important to know that the board's order is the board's order. Okay. Do I have a second to that motion? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate you being here. Next case. Next case, case number seven on the agenda, code 25-000102. Property owner, Ellen Ryan, property address, 2496 Douglas Avenue, presented by Code Officer LaToya Thompson. And are you Ms. Ryan? Yes, I am. Okay, well, welcome and is that your address, the 2496 Douglas Avenue? Okay, thank you. Mr. Chair, I don't get a welcome. Well, welcome. I think we've seen you up here before. You have, I'm back. But I didn't welcome you then so glad to see you now. Good afternoon, my name is Code Officer LaToya Thompson with the City of Delray Beach Code Enforcement. I'm here regarding a damaged roof slash maintenance of building violation located at 2496 Douglas Avenue, Delray Beach. On July 22nd, 2025, I expected the property where I observed the roof was damaged. After speaking with the building official, it was determined that a permit would be needed for repairs. This violation is in, which is in violation of the City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulation Code Section 7.8.3, maintenance of building or structure require which states all building or structure, both existing and new, and all parts thereof, including all materials, fixtures, or appliances installed therein shall be maintained in a safe, secure, and sanitary condition. A general violation slash hearing notice was issued July 22nd, 2025. The violation was mail first class and certified mail July 31st, 2025. Compliance was required August 22nd, 2025. Certified confirmation receipt was received September 15th, 2025. Regular mail was not returned. Property, posted to property and City Hall July 31st and August 1st, 2025. A re-inspection prior to hearing, which was the hearing that got canceled September 11th, was conducted September 8th, 2025. As of the last re-inspection on October 1st, the violation still exists. I have three photos taken of the property in question. I would like to introduce these into evidence. Thank you. And I have been in contact with Mrs. Ryan, who's the property owner. All right. And now I'm showing you how it's been previously parked at City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. When was this photograph taken? This photograph was taken July 22nd, 2025. And could you describe the issues? I know you said something about a permit being required and the roof. So if you can describe the violation here. So history on this. Last year, around this time, it was a hurricane. A tree fell on it. And we asked them to remove the tree. The tree was removed, but the roof remained the same. It was a citizen complaint that came in from a neighbor and I inspected the property and issued a violation to the property owner. So just to describe roof damage. Roof damage. Okay. Thank you. City's Exhibit 2? The roof was repaired. On September 8th? 2025. Repairs were made, but we don't know if it was, it hasn't been approved for a permit, correct? Right. No permit was on file. All right. And now, she has been previously marked as City's Exhibit 3 for identification purposes. In EPL, this is a, it's a all permit. You can search the address and it shows that no permit was applied at the time. I'm just making sure that's the correct address, 2496. Yes, ma'am. All right. At this time, the City would like to introduce the three exhibits into evidence. Thank you. Can I have a motion to that effect? Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the photographs, one through two, and Exhibit 3, the list of permits as presented by the City. Second? Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you for coming in. You have an opportunity to ask any questions of the witness and also to provide any rebuttal testimony. Okay. Well, I've learned a lot through this process. Having a tree fall on the roof, it took a long time to get it repaired. When I received the last notice in July, I guess, right? The date escapes me. But, you know, I was desperate to get it repaired. And so Dynasty and Dynasty Roof, they were able to do it over the weekend. And I figured I would probably need a permit eventually. I did call the office to inquire about information, but I didn't follow up on it. But you came by and saw that it was repaired. And so then, the process of trying to find the, get the permit started. Now, I've been in contact with Andre Diaz, who is an, engineer in Miami. And he wants to know, because I need another engineer, right? You need an engineer letter that states that it was built back to specs without, because we couldn't inspect it. What do we, okay, okay, so what, I guess what happens now? I've got Andre Diaz. He wanted to know, first of all, the building permit, section frame, our building repair, are the repairs incidental? So, I mean, you know what I'm saying? So, it sounds like you're in the process of trying to get their engineer to provide the documents that you need in order to get the permit. Right, and you wanted me to ask you this question, exactly. Well, that question, of course, won't be for the board. That would be for the building department. But, the code enforcement officer can help walk you through that process and tell you who to talk to to get those questions answered. Okay. What we're doing today is just, because you didn't get that permit done and that citation was made, we're assessing whether or not we should give you a certain period of time to get that permit completed and get the inspection done if necessary. And if not, then we would have to assess fines. So, let's, if I can, let me ask the city if they have a recommendation for the period of time for completion of this, knowing what you know. I do. 30 days to apply and obtain all approved permits, which should include the engineering letter stating and confirming that the roof was built back to the Florida Building Code standards and inspected or a fine of $250 a day thereof. Thank you. And so, what they're saying is that they're proposing that we give you 30 days to get that process completed. Otherwise, that fines would be assessed. Do you think 30 days will be sufficient for you to get that done? Yeah, I hope. I'll call Mr. Diaz this afternoon and see when he can... And I would say, talk with Ms. Thompson, she can help walk through that process and see what exactly they need. But we don't need to do that in front of the board. Okay, all right. Yeah. We'll talk. So, I got a question about the engineering letter. I had to have an engineering letter for my own roof. So, you're saying you've already contacted him. How long did he say it'll take to get the letter? He just told me what to ask you here. He thought that I could ask. I mean, I guess I can ask the people that are going to give me the permit. And he didn't... I didn't ask him how long it would take. Yeah. I have a question. Yes. For the code officer. Was there any contact communication made to the property owner before? And was she instructed that she needed a roof before this was done? Yes. I stated that we contacted... We talked. It's in the notice and we also talked after the fact that the roof was fixed. When I saw that it was fixed and no permit, then we started talking regarding... I explained to her what she needed to get. So I'm sorry if I missed that. So you did give her proper instructions if she needed a permit before the... That's... Yep. That's in the notice. And then after it was fixed, repaired, correction, then we spoke again and I told her what she needed to be done because the inspectors can't inspect it. We would have to tear the roof up. Thank you for that. Any other questions? I just want to make a motion. Conversation about the... $250 a day fine. Is that being that's for us? Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion with respect to case 2025... Numbers... 1-1... 0-0-0-1-0-2. 1-0-2. Thank you. Just for clarification for the record, please repeat it. 2-2-5-0-0-0-1-0-2. Thank you. I find for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that there is good notice in the violations of repairing the damaged roof due to tree damage without a permit is a violation that exists on the property. The offending party shall correct all violations within 30 days or pay a fine of up to $250 per day for each day thereafter for noncompliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance, the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board and in the event of noncompliance, a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property. I have a second. Any discussion in the motion? Can I ask a discussion? Sure. This is a private residence. I think $100 a day seems appropriate. Is there a reason why we're going up to $250? I think that was the city's recommendation. That was the city's recommendation. The city's recommendation. Okay. Thank you. The city can recommend anything the city wants to recommend, but it is ultimately your decision. For discussion, do you have a better amount? I feel like in this case, since the testimony is she's consulted an engineer, if she doesn't come in compliance within 30 days, perhaps we could amend it to $100 a day thereafter. If the guy can't get it done. I mean... I'm open for discussion. Do you be willing to accept an amendment to your motion to... I would have no objection. I was going with the city's recommendation. I wasn't... Maybe there's some situations that we don't quite understand why it needs to be that high. But certainly, I could agree with anything from $100 on up to $250. Anybody got any other thoughts of what would be appropriate based on what we know about it? Steve, would you like to make a motion to amend the motion that's on the floor? I'd like to make a motion to amend Mr. Cohen's motion that the fine, in fact, be $100 per day after 30 days. Thank you. No objection for me? I think with a friendly amendment with no objection from the original motion, we don't need a second... You can just accept the change by acclimation. Say again? You can accept the change by acclimation, which essentially, does everyone agree? Does everyone agree with that change? Yes. All right. And on the original motion, now amended to $100 per day. So 30 days with, subsequent to that, $100 per day. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. So just with the previous case, you now have 30 days to work with the city to try to get that permit completed, work with your engineer, etc. If you are not able to do so, then the city has the right to bring that back to us to begin the process of fining you. Okay? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right. Next case. Next case, code... Sorry. Case number eight on your agenda. Code 25-000126. Property owner, Del Muda, LLC. Registered agent, Richard Critchfield. Property address, 28 Salina Avenue. Presented by Code Officer James Easley. Okay. And is there someone here on this particular case? Anybody present wishing to speak on this case? Seeing or hearing none? Go ahead. Good afternoon, Code Board. My name is James Easley, Code Enforcement Officer in the Clean and Safe Unit. I'm here regarding a violation. Case number 25-000126, a maintenance of building violation located at 28 Salina Avenue. On August 4, 2025, while patrolling the area, I observed a property in need of building maintenance. The property owner was asked to consult with the building department to see if permits are required for any of the repairs. If a permit is needed, the owner is required to apply and obtain an approved permit to repair or replace the missing or damaged roof tiles and repair or replace the broken or rusted drip edge. The observed condition of the property constitutes a violation of Code Section 7.8.3, Maintenance of Buildings, which states that all buildings or structures both existing and new and all parts thereof shall be maintained in a safe, secure, and sanitary condition. Therefore, on August 5, 2025, this case was established. Notice of Violation and Notice of Hearing was mailed by First Class and certified mail on August 11, 2025. The green card was returned on August 28, 2025. The notice was also posted at the property on August 11, 2025. The compliance date was required by September 10, 2025. On both September 10th and 11th of 2025, I re-inspected the property and observed that the property was still not in compliance. On October 1st, I have conducted a re-inspection and observed that the violations still exist. I have had contact with the property representative, and I have 10 photos taken of the property in question to be entered into evidence. Thank you. I'm now showing you, as I previously marked, at City's Exhibit 1 that was taken on August 4th. Could you please describe the violation and the photograph? Yes. August 4, 2025, I was at the property where I observed the condition of the roof and the drip edge in a state of disrepair and is a violation of our section code that deals with building maintenance. City's Exhibit 2? It's a close-up on August 4th of the drip edge and the roof at 28th Selina Avenue. City's Exhibit 3, and I'm sorry, that was also taken on August 4th. And then City's Exhibit 3 on August 4th? Yes, again, another portion of the property where you can see the rusted drip edge hanging from the property and the condition of the roof. Thank you. City's Exhibit 4? Went back on September 5th, 2025, 28th Selina Avenue. You can see the condition of the drip edge and the condition of the roof still in violation of maintenance of the building. City's Exhibit 5? Again, it's the same property on September 5th, 2025. You can see the rusted condition of the drip edge and the condition of the roof located at this property. City's Exhibit 6? Again, September 5th, 2025, you can see the condition of the drip edge and the condition of the roof still in a state of disrepair in violation of our section code that deals with building maintenance. And it looks like it's like you said the drip edge and the roof tiles, correct? Yes. City's Exhibit 7? Yes. Another angle of a portion of the property on September 5th, you can see the rusted drip edge and the deteriorating condition of the roof. City's Exhibit 8? Went back to re-inspect the property on October 1st. You can still see that the property is in a state of disrepair in violation of the city section code. City's Exhibit 9? Again, on October 1st, you can still see the condition of the property in a state of disrepair, the condition of the drip edge and the condition of the roof at this property in direct violation of the section code. And specifically in this photo on the left side of the photograph, is there something hanging from the drip? You said the edge? Yes, yes. You can see it's completely rusted out. It has no way to hold on to the edge of the property. And again, you can see it's in a state of disrepair in direct violation of the code section. And again, that was in City's Exhibit 10 taken on October 1st, correct? Yes, yes it was. At this time, the city would like to introduce the 10 exhibits. Can I ask a question first? Would you show the number one? It doesn't look to me like it says 28th Selina Avenue. Yeah, it's like the properties are right next to each other and so the time stamp, the date stamp, and the location, you know, I'm standing in between two properties. So that's not something you wrote that's like a technical. Right, right, it's the technology. The system puts it in automatically. Right. All right, all right. Let me ask you a clear cleanup question. These exhibits, 10, are they a fair and accurate representation of the violation that occurred at 28th Selina Avenue of the home? Yes, Exhibits 1 through 10 are the exact representation and depiction of what I observed in the field. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Good question. Thank you. Good catch. Thank you. Motion? I make a motion we accept the photographic Exhibit 1 through 10 as presented by the code officer in this case. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. I do have a question. Does the city have a recommendation? Yes. The city recommends that the property owner be given 30 days to bring the property into compliance or face a fine of $100 per day until the violation is corrected. Okay. Given the condition of the property, do you believe that is a reasonable amount of time to achieve this? Yes. Two questions. Okay. Were they in contact with the homeowner, the direct homeowner? No. I've been in contact with a representative of the property who has been in contact with the city to try to keep the city abreast of their pending actions on the property. Second question. So it's reasonable they're going to need to obtain a permit and replace a roof? It is required. Yes, sir. So it's 30 days enough time to do all that? Or is it bringing the clients getting the permit? Yeah, that would be as part of our recommendation. The first step is to consult with the building department, apply and obtain an approved permit. Just to make sure I understand, they need to consult with the city, get a permit, and get a roof done. I think he said approved permit. Approved permit. Correct. Right. So speak to the city, get approved permit, and get the work done. He just said approved permit. Oh, so approved permit. Correct. So he feels that it's reasonable to get an approved permit for this within 30 days, if needed, after they consult with the city. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, gathering by listening to the testimony, it sounds to me like this is an investment property with an absentee owner. I don't think we want to make any assessments about going into the property. It bothers me when there's a rental property that's in serious disrepair. And the reason for my comment is, and I do think it's appropriate, since that's the situation where someone else is subject to this, I think a $100 fine doesn't sound adequate to me. if it doesn't come into compliance on time. If I might, can I just, so while it is okay and appropriate for you to consider the effect of a violation on a neighbor or neighborhood in assessing the severity of the violation, that is perfectly okay. It is not okay to treat different members of the city differently based upon their ownership status. Everyone should be treated the same. Okay. Well, I will also look at that and say, that's quite a hazard. We're still in hurricane season. I think $100 is too light. If anyone agrees with me to suggest a number, if not, I'll just stay with the city's recommendation. I'd like to ask the question. How long have you been trying to get in contact with the, I mean, do you feel like the owners are making an adequate attempt to address the situation? Because if they're trying, I don't want to penalize them, but if they're just blowing, because he's doing an excellent job trying to rectify this, but if they're not complying to you, then we do need to, because we want to give them compliance, but if they're not making an attempt to work with you to bring you to compliance, then I do agree with my colleague. The condition of the drip edge and the roof did not get that way overnight. I cited the property on August the 4th. The compliance date was September 10th, and to date, the property still is in violation of the section code. So we can confirm they're not making an attempt to bring this into compliance at this time? Yes, since this property was cited to today, no progress has been made on this property. For discussion, I agree. $100 a day is not adequate. Make a motion with the proposal then. You've contacted the owner. It's not clear to me from what we see here that you've contacted the owner. It looks to me like we've contacted a registered agent and understand that, but I agree with the situation. It's a very weak position to say, well, we've talked to the registered agent and, you know, is the owner facing something? May I just say something? I just want to make sure that we're sticking to what Chapter 162 says and what the city's roles and responsibilities are. Our cities are, if we find a violation on the property that's outside of our code, we properly cite the address listed on the property appraiser's address. The onus is on the property owner to try to bring the property into compliance. It's not the city's responsibility to try to, you know, I don't, I don't, for lack of better words, handhold everyone through the process or, you know, babysit the compliance or, you know, be abreast day to day. What the notice says is once the property is brought into the compliance that they're supposed to contact the city to have an inspection, right? And our staff does a phenomenal job at following up with property owners and trying to work with property owners to assist them and providing them with all the resources they need and contacts within the city. But I just think that, you know, our role was to contact the person on file with the property appraiser which could be the registered agent or property manager or whoever and that sounds like what our staff did at this point. Just for clarification because I, and I don't disagree with anything that the city attorney said but a good way to think about it, right, is that in any given case property can be held in lots of different ways, right? And you can have personal ownership, you can have a limited liability company, you can have a lot of different ways. And so what the Florida Statutes attempts to do is clarify so that it's clear who the city has to note, has to notice in order for there to be proper notice in the case. And one of the things you might notice in your orders is that you always make a finding of whether there was proper notice or not. And that is governed by Chapter 162 and it literally tells the city this is the person you have to notice and just for, you know, for simplicity's sake it is typically as is written in the statute the person that the property owner puts on the property appraiser records. And so the city doesn't have to chase additional people though sometimes there's a courtesy that the city knows somebody else is involved with the property and they will cite or let them know. But the requirement for them is to cite whoever is listed in the property appraiser's record. So it doesn't really, it's probably not worth a lot of your effort to spend too much time trying to see, you know, who else they might have talked to as long as they did what they were supposed to then the only next question for you is whether the property is in violation as you understand it. So to make those factual findings. And Mr. Wagner, just to clarify, in addition to notifying the person in the property assessor's records, they also typically place a notice on the property itself and they are required to post it here in City Hall. Yeah, they follow, yeah, so you always see the officer typically as is their way, they will testify as to the procedure that they followed to do notice and that typically involves registered mail and regular mail along with posting at the property and posting at City Hall and you probably, if that sounds familiar, it's probably because you've heard it repeatedly because that's part of how they, you know, introduced the case. I'd like to make a motion. Thank you. Or discuss. Okay. It seems like we are in agreement the code enforcement officer has went above and beyond in contact who he's supposed to. So it's $250 or more reasonable fine to get the attention of the homeowner, of the actual owner because they've gotten the information but they're hiding behind the registered agent. I think I directed my question to the officer to get those answers and I thought the answers indicated that there was not a response from the actual owner and that this is a comment made by him was this, this isn't an overnight thing. This is an ongoing thing and I would have to say being a citizen on this board, that property, they need to, they need to be made aware and I think the minimum fine doesn't necessarily make them aware so I have to agree with you, Jimmy, totally. $250 is fine? I'm fine with $250. Yeah, I have to agree if it's an LLC, I mean, you just, We can't bring that up. Okay. But you know that's the fact and it's not hidden. Here it is. So let's discuss the file. Okay, and it's, you know, if it was a single person like we had the previous case. Let's get the motion. It's way different with LLCs. We have problems with them all the time. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion with respect to case number 00126. I move for finding a fact. What extra zero in there? I'm sorry. 000126. I move for finding a fact and conclusion of law that there is good notice and violation of the building maintenance exists on the property. The offending property shall correct all violations within 30 days or pay a fine of up to $250 per day for each day thereafter for noncompliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. The officer shall report back to the board and in the event of noncompliance, a lien of the daily amount shall be imposed on the property. Thank you. Second? Second. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thanks, code board. We're about two hours in here. Do we need to take a brief break for bathroom or do we want to keep moving? To you and the board. You're the boss. All right. Let's keep going. Keep going. Okay. Case number nine on your agenda. Code 25-000132. Property owner Rosebud Ray Shops LLC. Registered agent CM Rack Incorporated. Property address 245 Northeast 2nd Avenue. Presented by Code Officer Delinda Witkowski. Is there anybody present who, sir, why don't you come up to the podium here? You can give your name and your address for the record. My name is Solomon Strahl. 253 Northeast 2nd Ave, Delray Beach, Florida. 33444. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Delinda Witkowski. I'm a code officer for Clean and Safe. I'm here regarding a grand opening banner violation located at 245 Northeast 2nd Avenue. On August 2nd of 2025, I inspected the property where I observed a grand opening banner that had been installed for an extended amount of time given by ordinance, which is in direct violation of our code section 4.6.7, subsection F, subsection 3, subsection B, states that grand opening banners may be placed on a building of a newly opened business for a limit of four weeks with an approved permit and one per building. Therefore, notice a formal hearing was issued by first class and certified on September 16th of 2025. A certified confirmation was not received. Regular mail was not returned. Posted at the property and city hall on September 17th of 2025. A re-inspection prior to a hearing was conducted on October 1st of 2025. As of today, the violation continues to exist. I do have three photographs that I would like to introduce into evidence. Thank you. I'm now showing who has been previously parked at City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. Do you recognize this? Yes. This was taken on August 2nd was the initial photo taken of the property with the temporary banner on top. What is the name on the banner? Perna Boutique. Thank you. City's Exhibit 2? This is my last re-inspection photo that was taken on October 1st just showing that the temporary banner for the grand opening continues to be on the building. Okay. For purposes of temporary banners we may have discussed this before in a previous hearing but some people are individuals are allowed to apply for a temporary banner for a certain time frame correct? Yes. They have to apply and temporary banners are for a period of technically what they do is they apply for this to be able to get a permanent sign. So this is allowed for a period of four weeks and one banner per building. This has been going on for a month. This has been going on for a long time. And just so that the board is aware this is a different violation, different ordinance so it technically doesn't have to do as where is the position of the permit and everything is technically it's past this time it needs to be removed. Okay. I'm now showing you what has been previously marked the city's exhibit three. So this is just the sign it's been he did apply for a permit so it's different case it's a different violation the fact is the violation is just that he's extended the amount of time and the temporary banner has been way past the four week period. Alright so just for clarification because you brought this up a second just so there's no confusion there's a separate process for a temporary banner and there's a separate process for a sign permit correct? Yeah from my understanding I talked to Jennifer Buse she's the responsible for all the signs and stuff so basically they're allowed the temporary banners like when they're in preparation of opening they're not yet have their sign approved or not ready yet so they have a temporary banner but this sign permit has nothing to do with that temporary banner correct? No. Okay thank you that's what I just wanted to make clear. Alright at this time I'd like to introduce the three exhibits into evidence. Mr. Chairman I'd like to motion that we accept the three or the two photographs and the one statement into evidence as presented by the city. Second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay you have the opportunity to question the witness Ms. Witkowski and to provide any rebuttal testimony. Okay yeah so I have no questions for her. Okay. We had the temporary banner we applied for the permanent sign that permit process has been taking a really long time. We I think finally got that figured out this week so we're going to be I think we're going to have to resubmit I'm not 100% sure yet but we should have the permanent sign handled within the next month. Okay and does the city have a recommendation? So basically we're trying because I know that he's been working very well with the city and going back and forth and so he's making an effort to give him another 30 days to remain with that that banner until this his sign is ready and hung. So 30 days until the approved permit and or $100 per day thereafter for non compliance. Okay and do you think you can get that completed within the next 30 days? Yeah I believe so. Any questions from the board? Want to make a motion then? Just to be correct we're going to allow 30 days for the banner to stay up correct? 30 days to come into compliance. He won't be fine for 30 days but after the 30 days he does have to remove the banner if the sign's still not up. To have the banner up and get rid of it. I think we're conflating two different code sections and all we're doing can I can I I'm the chairman here thank you. So as I understand it I was just going to rephrase our recommendation to the board. Alright if you'd like to. So I was going to rephrase and make an update or recommendation so there's no confusion you know coming to compliance by a moving the sign within 30 days so there's no issues with the other code section. Thank you. Yep. Okay. So any motion made should be to come into compliance on the code issue that is in front of us which is the temporary banner and the city is recommending 30 days for that period. No connection with any other signage that they give. Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion with respect to case 20 20 code 25 000132. If I move for finding a fact in the conclusion of law that there is good notice that the violations of a use of a grand opening banner without a permit can remain until the end of 30 days can be has to be removed at which time the tenant the owner will make action to provide a for a get a permit for a permanent sign. The offending party shall correct all violations within 30 days or pay a fine of up to $100 per day for each day thereafter for non-compliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. If a violation is not brought into compliance the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board and in the event of non-compliance a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property. Second. I'm sorry I'm going to have to make a correction on that because you said a temporary banner without a permit. They had one. It just extended the time. So you just need to make an amendment. And no reference to permit You're calling it the grand opening banner that you're applying this to as opposed to just a temporary which is different somehow. Right? So there's two different sections. The grand opening banner has got its own little section in the code. It's a different It's a different ordinance. I understand. All right. So the wording would be they are given an extension for 30 days to retain the existing grand opening banner at which time they will take that down and proceed to get the permit for a permanent banner signed. Good enough. Is that all right? I don't think we need to have reference to their permanent signage. All we want to do is have them remove this banner within 30 days to come into compliance by removing this banner. Anything else they do, they can go without a sign. We don't care if they have a sign or not. Correct. That's not our purview here. Sorry, I thought he said in which case they would proceed. They're working on it. Okay. But that's not our purview. If all we want to do is say you give them an extension of 30 days for the grand opening, that's fine also. Not actually giving them an extension. What you're doing is you're finding a violation and giving them 30 days to correct. Right. Understand. Extension of time. Can you modify the motion based on what we've said or do you want it restated? I think at this point you probably need to restate it. The violation of a grand opening banner without a permit shall be allowed to retain that grand opening banner for an additional 30 days. No, no. The violation exists in that they have up to 30 days to bring it into compliance. The violation exists that they have a grand opening banner where it was not permitted and is expired but we will grant them an extension of 30 days. You're just going to give them 30 days to come. There's no extension. You're just going to give them 30 days to come into compliance. 30 days to come into compliance. It's actually simpler than you're making it. Just read the motion. 30 days to come into compliance relative to the grand opening banner. Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Thank you. You have 30 days now. You are out of compliance technically but you have 30 days to come into compliance and then the city can begin bringing it back to us so we can find you. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Thanks. All right. Next case. Next case. Case number 10 on your agenda. Code 25-000145. Property owner Katie Meckler. Property address 110 Southwest 9th Ave. presented by Code Officer Reggie Williams. Anybody here in the audience on this case? All right. Seeing none. Let's go ahead. Good afternoon. My name is Code Enforcement Officer Reggie Williams. I am a regarding maintenance of building violation located at 110 Southwest 9th Ave. On August 13, 2025, I inspected the property where I observed the property in need of maintenance of building which is a violation of Code Section 7.8.3 which states all buildings or structures both existing and new and all parts thereof including all materials, fixtures, and appliances installed therein shall be maintained in a safe, secure, and sanitary condition. A maintenance of building violation was issued on August 13, 2025. The violation was mailed first class and certified mail on August 15, 2025. The compliance date was required by August 27, 2025. On August 27, 2025, I reinspected the property. Subsequently, a notice of formal hearing was issued via first class and certified mail on August 15, 2025. Certified confirmation of receipt was not received. Regular mail was not returned. Posted at the property in Sydney Hall on August 19, 2025. A re-inspection prior to hearing was conducted on August 2, 2025. As of the last re-inspection on August 2, 2025, the violation still exists. I have four photographs taken of the property in question. I would like to introduce these photographs as evidence. I have had contact with the property owner. And what was the contact with the property owner? I spoke to her August 27, 2025, and informed her that she needed to board up the property for the door and the windows. She was contacted by the police, and they informed her that she might have people living inside. So she applied for a no trespassing sign. I contacted her again August 9, I mean September 9, 2025. At that time, she still had boarded anything up, but she told me she was still waiting for the trespassing sign, and that was the last time I had contact with her, September 9, 2025. So she's aware of the violations and you tried to assist her with trying to find ways to come into compliance. And I formed the board hearing and everything. All right, thank you. I'm not showing you has been previously marked as City's Exhibit 1 by identification purposes taken on August 13. What does it depict? This photo was taken August 13, 2025, and it shows the broken window and the door that doesn't have a door handle, so it's easy access. Thank you. City's Exhibit 2? This was taken August 13, 2025, and this is in the front of the porch, and you can see the ceiling is rotted out. Okay. City's Exhibit 3? This was taken August 2, 2025. The same ceiling is rotted out, and you can see the front window is now broken, and I believe somebody put a cardboard box in there to cover it, and the roof is still rotted out, yes. Thank you. City's Exhibit 4? This was taken August 2, 2025, and it shows the same window broken and the same door missing the door handle with easy access. All right. At this time, the city would like to introduce the four exhibits into evidence. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to motion that we admit the four photographs presented by the city into evidence. Thank you. Second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Does the city have a recommendation? The city suggests that the property owner be granted 10 days to bring property in compliance or face a fine of $100 per day until a violation is corrected. And that is because there's issues with potential vagrants based on the police complaints and what the information you obtained from the property owner? Yes. Thank you. I do have a question. Go ahead. To bring this into compliance, what does that mean? Board it up? Yeah. When I spoke to her, I told her to come into compliance, she will have to board up the windows, the broken windows, and the door. And also fix the under... Yeah, and the rotted... In the front porch, the rotted ceiling. So it's 10 days sufficient to fix the... I understand 10 days sufficient to board up. Right. But what about to fix the roof? Yeah. Because of safety issues, I only granted 10 days because of the windows and the door. But I understand what you're saying about the ceiling. Yeah, because she might have to... Let me help you because there's a solution to this problem. You can bifurcate the order, right? Which is you can give them 10 days to board up the place and then it's more time to finish the repairs and maybe that would solve the problem here because it addressed the city's concern. All right. One other question. Can we go back to picture three, exhibit three, please? Yes. Is that notices there that's depicted, is that something that the property owner put up, that you put up? Those are notices that I posted to the property. Okay. Thank you. One more question. So it looks like the property owner does live in Florida, just not in Delray Beach. Yes, correct. So the language I would use just as a suggestion, going back to your first motion, you could say the offending party shall correct the, well, actually, I'd probably say it like this, the offending party shall secure all the entrances to the building within 10 days and complete all of the repairs within 30 days, just a round number or something like that, depending on what you think is appropriate. I'd like to, thank you, I'd like to ask you a question, Mr. Chairman. I think staying consistent judging by the evidence and the safety issues from the testimony of the officer that we consider a fine of $200 a day because we're asking for a 10-day for initial compliance for the main things. I think this is a situation where there's safety of other people in the neighborhood, children could get locked in there, things like this. So I think we should have, along with 10 days for the first part of the bifurcated order, we should also maybe go to $200. Do you guys agree? So, Mr. Wagner, just to clarify on the bifurcated order, if they do not meet the first part within 10 days, the city presumably could begin the fine process then and then if they do meet that part but they don't meet the second part within whatever days we proceed. Failure to meet either deadline would trigger the fine typically in how these are written. So for a point of information, let's say they don't meet the 10 days but in 30 days they complete everything. Well, that would be the same as in any case, right? Once they come into compliance they report that to the officer and then they find that they're in compliance and then the fine would run for the time that they were out of compliance. Thank you. Make a motion? Somebody? I'll make a motion. Mr. Chairman, oh, there's any more? You're going to do that bifurcated order? Okay. Mr. Chairman, in regard to case number 25-000145 I would like to make a motion with respect to that case I move for a finding of fact and conclusion of law that based on the testimony of the officer the photographic evidence there's good notice and violations exist. The violations include a ceiling with holes in it a front window with cardboard in it side windows broken open and a back door improperly secured. this exists on the property. The offending property shall correct the violations of the broken front window secure the back door and any other broken windows on the property within 10 days and correct the holes in the ceiling within 30 days or pay a fine of $200 per day for each day or thereafter for non-compliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance the code enforcement officers shall report back to the board and in the event of non-compliance a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property. Thank you. Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next case. Next case. Case number 11 on your agenda code 25-000150 property owner American Atlantic Group LLC registered agent sorry you know okay R.A. property address 338 Southridge Road presented by code officer Latoya Thompson. Is there anybody in the audience? Thank you. Come up here state your name and your address for the record. My name is MTS Ahmed 2826 Waters Edge Circle Green Acres 33413. Sir what is your position with the property owner? Mr. Huck is in treatment he has a brain tumor he goes back and forth to New York so he has hired me as his contractor to pull a permit for the fence. Okay. That was mixed you may proceed. I'm back code how y'all doing? Welcome back. Copy that. Good afternoon my name is Latoya Thompson code enforcement officer for the city of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding a chainlet fence installed without a permit violation located at 338 Southridge Road Delray Beach Florida. On August 12 2025 I inspected the property where I observed a chainlet fence around the property that was installed. After further investigation I observed that there was no permit on file for the installation. This is in violation of the city of Delray Beach Land Development Regulation Code 2.4.13 Subsection B Building Permits which states a building permit is required for all items as set forth in the current Florida Building Code Chapter 7 of these land development regulations as amended. A building code shall be sought via application through the Development Service Department. A general slash formal hearing notice was issued August 18, 2025. The violation was mail first class certified on August 20, 2025. Compliance date was required September 18, 2025. Confirmation, certified confirmation of receipt was received September 29, 2025. Regular mail was not returned, posted to property and City Hall September 20, 2025. A re-inspection prior to hearing was concluded on October 6, 2025. As of the last re-inspection on October 6, the violation still exists. I have five photographs taken of the property in question. I would like to introduce these photos as into evidence and I believe we spoke, if it's not you, the owner, one time regarding this property. Alright, I'm now showing what's been previously marked as City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. When was this photograph taken and what does it depict? This photograph was taken August 12, 2025 and it depicts a chain-lit fence around the property. City's Exhibit 2? This is just another angle and it's also taken on August 12, 2025. City's Exhibit 3? This was my re-inspection on August 6, 2025. So the fence was still there? The fence was still there, no permit applied for and this is just a different angle on August 6, 2025. City's Exhibit 4? This is another angle of the chain-lit fence around the property taken on August 6, 2025. And City's Exhibit 5? This is just a depiction of the permit not being applied for, no result when searched. Alright, so you searched City records and there's no permit? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. At this time, the City would like to introduce the five exhibits into evidence. Can I get a motion? Hi, Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we admit the four photographs of the chain-link fence together with the empty Exhibit 5 showing that there are no outstanding permits covering the work. Second. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Exhibits have been admitted. Sir, you have an opportunity to question our witness or to provide any rebuttal testimony? I don't have any questions. I was hired by the owner. I'm a general contractor. So, since he has a health condition, so he travels a lot to New York for treatment, so he has asked me to go ahead and file for the permit, which I plan to do on Monday. I'm going to register with the city building department with all my credentials and we will file for the permit on Monday. Okay. He told me that he installed that because there's a lot of garbage being thrown by residents, so he wanted to keep them out, but he didn't know that he needed a permit. So, anyway, I'm going to apply for the permit. Just to clarify what I was looking at in the photo, in the background there's a group of buildings that look like a multifamily dwelling compact. Is that inside the fence or is that separate from the fence? Is the fence just the vacant lot? What is the fence? That is commercial property. It's a vacant lot. And it's outside of the lot. So, that property is outside the fence we're talking about. Yes. The fence is just around the vacant lot? The vacant lot. Just around the vacant lot. Yes, sir. Thank you. And does the city have a recommendation? The city would recommend 30 days to apply for and obtain all approved permits or $100 of fine thereafter. Okay. And do you believe you can get that permit completed within 30 days? This is the first time I'm applying in the city of Delray Beach because I'm going to apply on Monday. So, I hope I'll get it. If I don't... Okay. But you can work with the code enforcement officer and let her know what your progress is and if there's any... Sure, sure, sure, sure. I will be applying on Monday, for sure. Okay. Any questions from the board? Want to make a motion? I have a discussion before we make a motion. Yeah. Because he's not familiar with the inner workings of the city of Delray Beach. Might be from out of the area. And considering it's in a commercial area, it doesn't seem like it's intruding on anyone's privacy or enjoyment of quality of life. 60 days and zero fine. That's okay. I got a question on that. I'm familiar? For my name? Uh-huh. Mrs. Officer, have you had prior communication with the owner before he felt ill? I believe I spoke to someone. I can't recall regarding that. As you see, the first two pictures, the grass was high. And so that was the main concern. Then I've seen the Chaitlin friends. This is not my first time dealing with this as far as cutting the grass. The fence went up and I was like, you know, they didn't have a permit. And I explained to them, I was like, you have to cut the grass, which they did. But I didn't know that the owner felt ill. Correct. So I did explain that they need a permit for the Chaitlin fence. And do you feel that 30 days is adequate enough time for the permit? Being we do understand this is his first time with the city and the city does have some backlog, adequate time to come in compliance. Did we hear testimony that the city had backlog on fence permits? I believe that 30 days is I will speak to him outside of your ruling and give him instructions on how to go about applying for it. Just so we're clear, you will assist the individual in coming into compliance within 30 days. Of course. We want voluntary compliance. Do you know or have you ever been given a current survey of the property? No, I don't have that. You'll need that survey for the permit application. That's correct, yes. That's a pretty good question. Survey timing. You don't have a survey? I got to check with the owner. He's going to look for it. But since he's very sick, so he's taking some time to get me that. Just for discussion, it seems like he's willing to comply. The city is trying and I now understand why I say 60 days. Give them some time to get it together. Guys got health issues. He doesn't have a survey. It could take two weeks for some mayor to come out, a week to send it back. I like the 60 days. I think zero fine may be not great. I think even a small fine, but having it there is better than having a zero fine. So what do you suggest, Mr. Chairman? I would suggest $50 a day if we're going to do decrease the fine. You and me both, Mr. Chairman. I was thinking the same thing, but you took it right out of my mind. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. Yes, go ahead. With respect to case number 000150, I move for finding a fact in conclusion that the law that is good notice of violation of the fits exists on the property. The offending property shall correct all violations within 60 days or pay a fine of up to $50 per day for each day thereafter for noncompliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance, the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board in event of noncompliance, a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property. Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Rembrandt. You have a clear understanding now. You've got 60 days to get that done, right? Okay. We're almost there. We're almost there. Case number 12 on your agenda, code 25-000160, property owner, Pineapple Grove Development, LLC, registered agent 121947, LLC, property address 301 Northeast 2nd Avenue, presented by court officer Delinda Wachowski. And sir, you're here for that case? Yes, I am. And your name and address for it? That's Abel George Lucas. I am part owner and manager for Pineapple Grove, LLC. Okay. And address? The address is 945 Palm Trail. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Delinda Wachowski, my code officer for Clean and Safe. I'm here regarding a work without permit violation located at 301 Northeast 2nd Avenue. On August 16th of 2025, I inspected the property where I was driving in the back alley, noticed several workers working in the back with stucco ladders and they were just in the back and mixing up stucco and stuff like that. So I had stopped and asked them if they had a permit. There was nothing placed on the windows as there should be. And so this is in direct violation of our code section 2.4.13B that states that building permits are required for all items set forth in the current Florida building code. The notice was sent by formal hearing first class and certified on August 29th of 2025. Certified confirmation was not received. Regular mail was not returned. Posted at the property and at City Hall on August 29th of 2025. As a re-inspection prior to hearing was done on August 2nd of 2025. And as of today the violation continues to exist. I do have 13 photos that I would like to introduce into evidence for this case. So can I I just want to ask you a couple questions before we even get to the photographs. So you stated that you patrol this area you went and you noticed that you saw workers doing work without any permits. Correct. And where at this point you were still kind of in right of way public right of way outside you weren't inside of the property correct? No not at this time. I usually when work is being done I always confirm in the front obvious if there's a permit. So let me take it there. Let me take it there. So you're outside correct? Correct. And then this photograph is of you outside what you saw. Correct. And could you describe in this exhibit what did you see happening at the property? What is all this stuff on the ground? What is is that a ladder? Could you just describe the photograph? Okay so there's there's stucco there on a pallets and buckets ladders and dami that's in Portuguese I'm not sure that it is in English but it's all the work to stand on to do their stucco work and there was a few guys out there but I I avoid getting them in the pictures so I took they were kind of on the outskirts. So you said there were a few guys doing what outside? They were mixing up stucco. Okay mixing up stucco. Alright so that's exhibit one so city's exhibit two August 16, 2025 what does this depict? Okay so on August 16, 2025 also just just the closer view of the of the supplies that they were using on the outside. We got stucco we got concrete we got pallets that they you know correct something that it was standing on correct? This is what you observed on that day? Yes ma'am. City's exhibit three for identification purposes. Okay so at this time I do believe he also even called George George which is at that day but I don't think he answered and he said and I told the guys that I did need to go inside to take photos and they said okay so I went in took closer photos of the work that was being done. So you spoke to someone that was doing work that had authorization for the property correct? They were working for him. No authorization. They gave me authorization to go in. They allowed you to go in. Thank you I just want to be clear on that and this photograph was taken on August 16, 2025 Correct. And where is this in the property and what is it? This is inside so it was actually it's two different locations 301, 303 and he divided the bay and made it into two. So that wall you'll see in other photos that you'll see that there is a division of the wall which is a bay which was not he did without a permit. That's the bay that's the bay wall that was put up on the two different locations on the one full bay. And that was on August 16 as well? Correct. So this was previously an open space and it was subdivided with a new wall that was installed without a permit and it appears that there's electrical wiring is that what you're I know that because I went into that building it was a gallery before and I've been in there several times that it was just one open area. Cities exhibit five? So this is just all the drywall that was placed on the ceiling the walls. Cities exhibit six? This is the bathroom just the plumbing walls nothing has been installed yet. But there's like pipes and different things sticking up. There's pipes. Yeah it's You'll have your opportunity don't worry. Just describe what's in there I just want to be clear. So this is the bathroom basically but as of yet nothing has been installed. And that was on the 16th. What about cities exhibit seven? So this is patching of stucco and stuff that was done on a few different locations of the wall. Is that the exterior or interior wall? That's the exterior. Thank you. Cities exhibit eight? This is a little further north of the building which was also done a little bit more of stucco. Alright and that was on the 16th? That's on the 6th. Alright so let's go now to exhibit nine. I'm assuming this is re-inspect on October 2nd, 2025? This is a re-inspection prior to hearing which was October 2nd which I was not there. There were no ones working there anymore and so I just took it from the outside. So you were standing outside and took a picture of this? It was closed so I was not allowed to. I didn't go in. You were outside and you were able to see this from the outside inside of the building? Correct. Alright thank you. City exhibit ten? Yeah I just took what I could from the outside. There was a lot of glare so it was a little difficult but this is just so I could have some type of re-inspection photos. So August 2nd there's a wall, there's building materials. Could you describe what's in the photo please? So there's buckets of paint, ladder, just a couple other different supplies. Thank you. City's exhibit 11? And so this is just on October 2nd which was the work was complete and the stucco issue is not as big of an issue as far as the division of the bay and electrical and plumbing work. But it is showing that there was stucco done? Correct. Okay. City's exhibit 12 October 2nd? So that's just the part of where that was down north a little bit of the building which was the stucco that was complete. So this is the so just to be clear we're going back to August 16th so they is this the same area? Correct. Okay. Just and that was exhibit 8 and 9. I just wanted to be clear for the purposes of the board. Correct. And then city's exhibit 13 what were you able to locate regarding any permits? As you can see the in 2021 the last rent the last permit that was pulled was for backflow so he had not applied for any permits whatsoever. At this time the city would like to introduce the 13 exhibits into evidence. I get a motion to that effect. Mr. Chairman I move that we accept the 13 photographic exhibit 12 photographic exhibits and the one list of backflow permits presented by the city as evidence of the work. And second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right sir you have opportunity now to question the witness and to provide any rebuttal testimony. No problem. So originally we were going to knock down the shopping center to build townhomes. After having a lot of meetings with a lot of people from the association they would prefer to leave it as a shopping center. So we decided to do that and we also owned a lot in the back. We're going to be building we're working with the city because I'm a builder. Within the last seven years I invested almost a hundred million dollars in the city of Del Rey. So with that said I know what I need permits and what I don't need permits. It's like asking a chef how to fry an egg. Right? But okay. So my question here was we were going to knock it down and we decided to keep the shopping center and the shopping center was in really bad shape. We wanted to make it look nice for the season and we were going to rent it. We decided to rent it so we just started doing stucco repairs and give it a nice paint job. We did the landscape outside. We fixed all the irrigation system so the place actually now looks beautiful. Now on those two bays 301 or 302 I believe 303 those two bays at one point had a wall but somehow somebody not under our ownership they removed that wall. Right? So now what I did was I just brought back the wall which that was still the header and the wires for the electrical were rolled up there. So we just brought it down. Me as a builder I'm like you know this is what I do every day. Mr. Tobias knows me how many permits have I pulled in my lifetime within the city. I know what I'm doing with with no of course I understand and I know the rules and the regulations we need a permit. I get it. I understand that. So we just said you know what let's go ahead and do it because I want to have the property vanilla shell ready so therefore I can rent it. Which I end up by putting because I own Century 21 Lux Homes and I'm actually bringing my office there. Which actually that wall that I put up I actually got to take it down because I'm going for permits for me to redo my office over there because currently I'm on Atlantic and Federal. But I'm renting so I'm like why am I renting when I have my own stuff so I'm bringing my office over there. So all that worked for nothing but anyway I was just trying to rent and move on. With that said Miss Linda showed up and she has my phone number. She's always in contact with me because I was great friends with Al and I never had any issues even though I've been building for many years here. And he actually introduced me to Linda and we stayed in contact. So she has my phone number. So I spoke with her the day of the violation and I asked her I said Linda I mean you know this is what I do for a living you know and and okay if you want me to tell me exactly what I want because outside for painting and stuff of repair it's kind of nonsense right. She was going heading to Brazil she was going to Brazil and I said okay great which I found out she was part of Brazilian because I'm Portuguese so I have no idea but that's besides the point. So then I told her I said okay great and she said when you come back when I come back we're going to meet there and we come up with a solution and I said great and I have all the dates on my phone everything the text messages everything then on then what was it I'm sorry I need my glasses to get you can see. Then on August 29th she never I received a text she said oh well my my boss said that I can't do anything or I'm sorry it wasn't on August 29th October 2nd so we left it in limbo because I'm like I'm waiting to hear back because at one point we were supposed to meet there and come up with the solution what are we going to do. So then October 2nd that's when she sent me a letter a text saying that I had to show up at the meeting at this point left me with no window for me to go pull the permits because I was waiting what should I do what was the solution that we were going to do. Now some of the letters and I received the letter she left on the wall I received that letter I saw obviously and I believe there was another one that came in the mail so I know but I was waiting to hear what was I supposed to do in the meantime but so my point is this I am not here at all about getting the permit because I can get a permit like that I have engineers on on speed dial I can get an engineer letter I can get permits I can I can do whatever it's fine that's not a word the thing is that she walked into my property with no permission when she had my phone the day she walked in my property I was in California Monterey my business partner was in Connecticut so if I had a phone with me the whole time you know and therefore all she had to do is call me if she called me and I see that it's Linda oh I answer right away because it's an issue right so but she never called me now she asked apparently either one of my landscaping guys or one of my stucco guys they don't even speak English none of them and she asked permission to go inside and they asked me nobody asked us anything nobody ever asked us any permission so my point here is there are rules and regulations that we have to follow by right now I'm not trying to hide that I did an outlet or I put a piece of drywall it's irrelevant for me because I can't pull the permits not but that is rules and regulations and she knows she asked my phone why didn't she call me on that day and say George you're doing work with all this you need to go get a permit I would have ran and get a permit it was just things spontaneous I always just really trying to get the shopping center all finished because if I leave a vanilla ready whoever gonna rent it they're gonna have to pull a permit anyway they're gonna have to rip everything out to to make sure everything is up to date now there's no plumbing that's an existing bathroom we just took out the toilet and the vanity and we leave it capped because whoever comes in is gonna have to do their bathroom because the vanity that was there and the toilet that was there there were no good so we just cap it and we leave it alone so whoever rents because it's called vanilla shell whoever rents it gets to build it to their taste or specifications so that's basically that the only issue that I have the whole thing is and I consulted with my attorney not my attorney because actually I spoke with Phil one of the supervisors the coding supervisors I spoke with Phil and Phil asked me how did she get access to your property I said I don't know because I didn't give her any permission she didn't call me she didn't call my parent my partner she didn't call our office and they know where my office is didn't call my cell and let me know or ask permission to come in I mean it's like somebody walking in your house in your living room and telling you oh you need this you need that well you didn't give them any permissions you know so that's the issue that I have it's not the issue so far so much of having to go get but as far as the permit situation was I was just really really waiting to hear from Linda what did she want me to do and she left me in limbo for almost a month between Brazil and then getting the oh by the way you have to show up at the court and I have it all documented in my phone too and the dates the times everything I understand that you're frustrated about that we're interested in compliance you've already said that you acknowledge that you put up that wall right that actually you know regardless of what your understanding was at the time that you put it up that you now understand that a permit was needed if that wall is going to be there and that you're willing to take steps to to get that addressed either remove it if you're going to move your office there or or leave it up if you're going to rent it and get the permit necessary correct so what kind of time frame do you need to get that done in I think 30 days I can get the permit done the only thing is that now that I'm bringing my office I actually have my architect working in a layout I'm going to rip out that wall again so it's kind of so so why am I getting there within 30 days you can get the compliance because compliance in this case could be the permit or removing the unpermitted work so but we also have the outside stucco right I would like to respond to to him on my defense though I think the issue at this point is we hear the frustration yeah we've already stated I I asked you an extensive amount of questions about where you were and why you were there and who authorized you to be there because his worker called him no let's let's let's not even go down that road that's done we're let's let's get get to compliance so I think he's definitely willing it sounds like he's willing it's it's it's it's because now we decided to bring the office over and and we we invest a lot of money in the city that are hey I mean you know and how many houses have we built like 30 as a resident of the city I appreciate that and we have our business here we we constantly opening business and we we spend so much money and I used to be I used to spend I was a Fort Lauderdale boy and then I one day a friend of mine convinced me to come to Fort Lauderdale and we spend a hundred million dollars here between all the house I develop all South Lake North Lake Palm Trail I develop all those areas so so okay that's I'm not just trying to improve myself but but but now that I'm actually knocking down the wall because it's like what do I do yes right right yeah so so I'm working I'm working with my architect and but okay so what happens is I'm only taking the one bay so the one side of the the wall will probably remain though but I was going to incorporate that wall in the new drawings that I have to submit because I have to the partitions that I'm going to be building for the office so that would be compliance from the city's point of view so I will put that wall together within my permits but with that said is but I mean he still it depends on if there's exterior changes or any other internal changes I mean there's the new side plans approval of that but he knows yeah no no there's no there's no outside work or anything it's just partitions these partition walls that we are doing so yeah so so compliance within 30 days so I might maybe a permit maybe removing the wall whatever you choose right into compliance if within 30 days if it's okay because within getting the engine the because now we're going to the architect so you need having the architect finish it up signing seal permits and then I have to submit this right to the city it might take like 60 days and I don't want to ask for much but that's real time you know I think I think am I right Steve more or less 60 days yeah okay I just have one question yeah remainable to 60 days if the board wants to make the order 60 days thank you that was my question but I do have another question is there any issues outside let's say because we understand this issue you're going were there any permanent issues for the work that he was doing outside the outside was not it was a little bit of stucco but if it's not the whole thing that has to be stucco he's he's okay with the outside so it's just it's mainly the inside the bay and electrical okay okay so 60 days yeah 60 days are we're going to get it in because I got I have to move I have to move where I am now I have to be out of there by December first so make a comment yes please so we are um it seems like you are willing but you did you did say you know what you're doing so if we see you back in 60 days oh no no it's it's it's no no no it was just a loss of communication between me and Linda okay because she went to Brazil and then I was wait I was really waiting to get together remember you told me you were going to get come and take three days in Brazil and I know but then you were supposed to come back and we were supposed to meet there that's not our conversation thank you no it's all right Jimmy you want to make a motion yes I'll make a motion Mr. Chairman I'd like to make a motion you know I love small businesses but two wrongs don't make a right correct you're too smart to be stupid no no and I agree with that but with that said if I may respond to you it's we build mansions houses on the intercourse of that 13,000 square feet when we look at a wall in in in the wall the wires are in the wall and you just got to bring them down put an out of the box it's kind of it's still wrong I come from a family of construction I totally understand you understand it's kind of like be a role model for smaller businesses yes no no I and I understand but it's kind of like you moving and you're not paying attention to stuff 100 miles on that are we going to assess $50 or no fine 100 is fine 100 or 100 okay Mr. Chairman I'd like to make a motion with respect to case number 000160 I move for fact in finding conclusion of law that there is good notice and violation of the walls or violations inside the property exists defending pop party shall have shall correct all violations within 60 days or pay a fine of up to $100 per day for each day thereafter for non-compliance the respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance if the violation is not brought into compliance the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board in the event of non-compliance a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property second thank you any further discussion all those in favor good all right thank you thank you thank you George all right take care I'll talk to you guys sir thank you again for your investment in the city and your beautiful project appreciate you well we're going to be building six gigantic townhouses in the back so well I don't thank you for that but thank you all right moving on to case number 14 on your agenda code two five dash zero zero zero one seven zero property owner John Cornelian property address four one two southwest fourth street presented by code officer Reggie Williams okay is anyone here for this particular item anybody present in the room for this item all right thank you Reggie good afternoon my name is code enforcement officer Reggie Williams I am here regarding landscape maintenance violation located at 412 southwest fourth street on August 19 2025 I inspected a property where I reserved the property in need of landscape maintenance which is a violation of code section 4.6.16 subsection I subsection 1 which states landscaping shall be maintained in a good condition so as to present a healthy neat and orderly appearance at least equal to that which was required for the original installation and shall be kept free from refuse and debris a landscape maintenance violation was issued on August 25th 2025 the violation was mailed first class and certified mail on August 29th 2025 the compliance date was required by September 10th 2025 on September 11th 2025 I reinspected the property subsequently a notice of formal hearing was issued via first class and certified mail on August 29th 2025 certified confirmation of receipt was not received regular mail was not returned posted at the property and at City Hall on August 29th 2025 a reinspection prior to hearing was conducted conducted on August 3rd 2025 I mean October 3rd 2025 as of the last re-inspection on October 3rd 2025 the violation still exists I have four photographs taken of the property in question I would like to introduce these photographs as evidence I have not had contact with the property owner thank you mr. Williams I'm now showing us but previously marked a city exhibit one for identification purposes do you recognize this yes this was taken August 19th 2025 and this is the front of the property could you describe the the violation with the maintenance is an overgrowth of grass that needs to be cut and maintained all right you can kind of see there's weeds as well yes thanks city's exhibit two for identification purposes this was taken August 19th 2025 and this is the back of the property showing the overgrowth of the grass it's pretty high yes city's exhibit two for identification purposes this was taken August 19th 2025 and this is the back of the property showing the overgrowth of the grass it's pretty high yes city's exhibit three this is my re-inspection October 3rd 2025 and it's the front of the property showing that the grass grew even more okay city's exhibit four and this was taken October 20 25 October 3rd 2025 and it's the back of the property showing the grass higher all right at this time the city would like to introduce the four exhibits into evidence case number to make a motion on case number code 25 that's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 we submit the articles and photographs into evidence the case byaboards of the the evidence regarding this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? What is your recommendation? The city suggests the property owner be granted 14 days to cut the entire landscape or face a fine of $50 per day until the violation is corrected. Okay so just bring the property into compliance with them. Thank you. Yes. Okay board members questions conversation? Is the owner local? I'm not sure. I know that on Papa it shows the mailing address as the same violation address but I didn't have any contact with the property owner. Okay I'm sure you know you say 14 days but that's is he going to come back every 14 days do you have any idea that somebody's ever going to show up and do it and repeat it do it it's not just a one-time job. I have no idea I never seen the property owner or had contact with the property owner. Yeah I mean that's always going to be my question you know the intent of the property owner you know communicating back with you because you're doing an excellent job of reaching out but like Mr. Cohen says it's 14 days going to be enough if we haven't talked to anybody. I mean was there a compliance date prior to this hearing that they were supposed to comply to or adequately noticed? I think that was in his testimony could you repeat? Yes the violation was issued August 25th and the compliance due date was September 10th. Thank you. So that's that's 30 days ago for compliance date. We have enough time to respond. Seems like good question. And I think for clarification and Mr. Wagner may have said this earlier but you know it's from today from the order whether 14 days would be reasonable and we the city feels that it would be reasonable we provided them a proper notice we provided them proper notice of the hearing and we will they will obtain the order. Mr. Chairman. I understand the question because it's an interesting question right which is if the notice has if they haven't been reading their notices do they have enough time but fundamentally the city's obligation is to give notice to the the name and address listed on the property records. It's their obligation to make sure that they're aware of the notices based upon the address and the name that they put in the records. So it's not that the city doesn't you know I mean imagine if the city had to go you know run down every time you know. Understood. Chapter 162 says this is how you should let the city know how you be noticed and this is how the city must notice and so as long as the city follows that then the question of reasonableness is based upon the notice that they're supposed to be receiving is do they have enough time to come into compliance. I'd like to make a motion. Yes please. How many pictures? How many? No because we already four. We brought the exhibits it's just just the motion done. Mr. Chairman I'd like to make a motion with respect to case number 000170 I move for fact and I've moved for finding a fact and conclusion of law that there's good notice and violation of the overgrown landscaping exist on the property. The offending party shall have shall correct all violations within 14 days or pay a fine of up to a hundred dollars per day for each day thereafter for non-compliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board. In the event of non-compliance a lien of a daily amount shall be imposed on the property. Thank you. Second? Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Okay we've got two non-compliance cases before us. See if we can get through those and be done. Yes sir. Non-compliance of forward order. Hang on I gotta here we go. Case number 15 on the agenda case code case 25-009693 property owner Casa Tessa Marina LLC registered agent Robert Guarini property address 60 Palms SQ presented by code officer Delinda Wachowski. Is there anybody present for this case? Okay why don't you come up here give your name and address and uh tell us what your relationship is to the property. Hi um good evening everyone my name is Robert Guarini um I'm the owner of the LLC and I'm a local resident here in Delray. I live at uh Luna Rosa building 36 South Ocean Boulevard and um I'm here for an obvious violation. Great. Thank you. Unfortunately and um I don't know who addresses first I guess. Okay good afternoon my name is Delinda Wachowski. I'm a code officer for clean and safe. I'm here regarding case 24-009693. I originally found in violation April 10th of 2025 for extreme hat racking. Of course um this violation was written a long time ago in 2024. Um however because there were some issues and postponements it's just it was taken only on April 10th where they they noticed the violation and the board motion was for 30 days to correct the violation or $50 for daily fines thereafter. Compliance date was set for May 10th of 2025. On May 23rd of 2025 a board order was conducted and no permit was ever applied for. On September 30th of 2025 I conducted an inspection in the property owner was still out of compliance. So um so the the hat racking no no permit had ever been applied for. I have one initial photo and I have three um um photos that are for our recent photos that I would like to introduce into evidence. Okay before we get there what is the total amount of fines? Um the total amount of fines is $9,000 and $9,050. I'm sorry one more time please? $9,050. Oh $9,050. So we spoke off you mentioned photos so let's just show a couple I'm just going to kind of scroll through these as a previous file and just just refresh the memory of the board who's previously introduced. So I think the exhibits are. So it started it was found on August what was it 15th of 2024. This May 23rd photo is this a re-inspection photo or? That was the re-inspection photo after the the code board the first initial code board. So it was given 30 days and then a a inspection was done. Okay so you did an inspection after? After a board order. Board order correct just to show so this would be really exhibit one. Correct. For purposes of this hearing and then you did another re-inspection just so showing the same picture and the condition of the tree obviously has not grown back significantly since you know August 2024. Correct. Um and it's still out of compliance. Correct. Um and then exhibit just refer to this as exhibit three is it's what is the situation? Okay so October 3rd technically they he he came into the city about what 10 days ago um and we and we told him what he needed to do and he so he made an initial attempt. I did come in prior I spoke with Mr. Glover but that was under the time it's a 35 year old banyan tree so the way we got here. Let's let's let the code officer finish her testimony and then you'll have a chance to ask questions of her and we don't need to go that back we'll just um so basically he made an attempt of doing a permit and it's not complete but he is trying after a long period of time. So this screen is just to show that he came in and applied for a permit on the third. Yeah. All right at this time the city would like to introduce exhibits one through three attempted. Do I have a motion to that effect? Okay I make a motion we accept uh exhibits one through three in this case. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Sir now you have opportunity to ask uh the code enforcement officer any questions you have or give any rebuttal testimony? Sure um thank you um you know it's a 35 year old mature tree um we were giving it an opportunity to come back to life. I did apply for a permit and I don't even know if everyone here might know this but I was rejected on my application because as an owner if it's in an LLC it has to be a third party company so when I originally applied it was um rejected so I did make an attempt it was rejected I have a group of emails that if I have to put in to um could you be specific about the rejection date? Um it was May 13th 2025 um application not accepted so I obviously applied prior to that this is my you know application rejection letter um so I have many correspondences over this time period with um Ms. Jerry Pryor who was the lady that sent me the letter that's why I was excuse me addressing her um we were supposed to meet with the powers to be I have emails back from her she happened to be out of the office um so there is a history of correspondence um we just never got that meeting set up and I I could quote like I want to be in compliance um I hate to remove the existing tree are you able to you know come to the property there's anyway but there's a lot of emails back and forth I've made I have a hired licensed architect now with the city um two things that I may make suggestions one is these permits online now are extremely difficult for people to get I went to college I had trouble you know so I'm not an amateur but um maybe if you could pay an extra fee and there's somebody here that could help you would be you know extremely beneficial and then the other thing he said you need a licensed Delray Beach landscaper so I said can you recommend one we're not allowed to recommend which is true but at least have a list where you could hand somebody a sheet of paper we have 10 and you could choose from one of these 10 but it was very very difficult um he applied he had a hiccup with his secretary gave some old insurance form he has the new one so he had to resubmit i have pictures i'm in compliance the new trees are there and it started out with one tree somehow it's at four now so it cost you know fifteen hundred dollars just there um but anyway i'm in compliance the trees are moved the new ones are there i could show you pictures i'm just waiting for the application permit of course so yeah go ahead is he in compliance he is not in compliance no but i he is not in compliance he has not he does he did make there are a lot of mistakes with the permit but he does not have an approved permit so technically he should have waited for his obtained permit before he did i did see photos that he did put it the trees he had to put trees that were 10 feet tight um and four on the property that was what he needed for compliance but he did that before he even obtained the permit so technically he has to obtain the permit i didn't know that the permit was going to take so long i'm doing my best like i said i've got email stacks and wanted to meet with people i'm not ignoring this i'm happy to i even made an offer to donate money to an arborist fund for the city and um they didn't want that but i i tried to offer other suggestions as well that's why i i actually emailed him and i as highly suggested that he be here so he can request for you guys a little more time to to finish up everything to to get obtained to be in compliance sold or in compliance well that he installed would be sufficient for compliance if it was done in the right way well we don't know what the approvals are like we can't necessarily say landscape has to go out there and okay so it sounds like um what ms patowski just said she's been in communication he applied although we were initially here for a a fine assessment and request from lean it sounds like ms patowski saying look he's trying he just explained everything that he's done so maybe what we could do is um you know at this time the city withdraws it and then we will place it back on an appropriate agenda if necessary that sounds acceptable it's gonna get done very quickly if not it's it's done i'm just literally waiting for this permit and i apologize you could start one before the horse but okay what you could stay the fine pending i mean it's up to you how about staying the whole case which would include the fine for 60 days well you can't stay a case but you can stay the fine um so that it doesn't continue to accrue i mean you can't you can't reduce the fine at this point because that would be a you'd have to go and do a reduction of fine and that's only possible once the the case is in compliance but the only thing you i mean if if you don't want the fine to continue to accrue you could stay it for a period of time stay it for 60 days does that mean i still pay the fine so so you you already owe the city nine thousand and fifty dollars that's the fine you have the opportunity once you're in compliance to come back to this board and ask us to reduce that let me finish let me finish so so that's what's accrued in the time from when the board and on all of us on this we're on that case i believe back in april uh when the board made that decision and notified you the decision was made that that fine clock started 30 days after that decision was made since then it's been running so that that fine has been building up but we have not put a lien on your property so what can happen now is if you sounds like you're making progress if we stay that fine that fine won't continue to grow but it'll stay at that same amount once you've completed the process then you can appeal to have that fine reduced based on having completed the process okay you can't make that appeal now because you haven't fixed it but once it's fixed then you can come back and ask us but with these amount of emails back and forth throughout that time process me getting a rejection from a permit i'm showing very good faith here to process this and i and i understand that completely and i and i agree that you are showing good faith once we've made that original vote back in april once that 30 days has passed if there wasn't progress at that point which there wasn't um or not visible progress that that the board could see but in may i have a so i'm not going to argue with that it's essentially the clock has been ticking since then so that fine is sitting there but it's kind of in limbo because no action has been taken okay so what we can do is we can keep it from growing bigger you can fix the problem which you're already on the path it's already fixed right you're on the path of doing once that that final um permit is is approved and the inspection has taken place then it's done and then you come back and you ask for that fine to be reduced for that fine to be reduced okay i'd like to submit my emails into record do we want that i think it's premature because that i mean this is this is the city's hearing i mean i don't does the city i mean i guess well i i believe i i i don't know if it's um relevant or necessary for this hearing if he were to come back and ask for i think it would be more appropriate in a reduction hearing or even to say that you know he can come back then and said that this is where the fine should have been based on this date etc i think they they would be more appropriate to be introduced at that hearing so i i would object and just ask you know maybe to hold off just hold up hold that until that fine reduction hearing um which you know hopefully will i mean i'm in compliance right now if if this process was easier and somebody could give help to to a citizen that's trying to be in compliance i mean i have a litany of emails going back so so sir what we're suggesting is you hang on to that because the chairman's explained our process and you have not been leaned at this time so you are accruing a fine and uh what we want to determine is what's it going to take for you to come in compliance which would be to obtain a permit um and that's already been decided so our decision today would be whether or not to lean you for that fine and in our discussion we're leaning towards staying the fine temporarily and giving you an additional 30 days to come up with the permit and then after that happens and the code officer reports to the board that you're in compliance then you can come back on the agenda and we as you i think you were here at the beginning right of our meeting today i was here yeah so you heard the chairman say we're not here to find you we're here to see you get into compliance okay okay and if it was so i'm almost done okay so we do care about you as our fellow citizen and we're hearing everything you say and all the legal people that are here have suggested you hang on to that material when we get to that point together okay you know it's not easy i mean i applied for the permit online i can't do it no one's i had to get a survey well that's why the board is considering not imposing a lien on your property at this time because of your effort yeah so do they have a motion mr chairman i'd like to make a motion and at this time we will stay the fine the final will not accrue and the resident would have 60 days uh to continue working with the code enforcement officer to bring the property into compliance by obtaining the proper permits added yes it's not done in 60 days and the fines will if it's not added 60 days the fines will continue to accrue okay 50 per day second second second any further discussion all in favor aye any opposed thank you sir good luck in getting your permit sir yes we understand that it can be challenging if if you're not a professional at it even the people here don't know what the new system so so he went back and the lady here was the reason a lot of it's not processed is because i owe money to pay and she didn't know how to send them a receipt so it's yeah it's a challenging process but that's why we're trying to work with rome wasn't built thank you robert what's that rome wasn't built in and the online process is is a step towards getting better but it doesn't mean it's perfect in their first try okay but one other question the original letter was replace it with one tree how did it arbitrarily go to two to four is it going to be 30 i'm not an expert on this but my understanding is that that you're replacing the size of the trunk and so it really is not the number of trees it's the amount of outside parameter probably best we're not getting and i want to just address one other thing if it was a banner i would have took the banner down it was a 30 year old tree that i wanted to see it was a living thing that was killed yeah and i felt terrible and it was a landscaper's miscommunication it wasn't like i said racket my tray so it was it was truly an accident and i'm sorry for that we we appreciate that and then that's why we're trying to work with you here thank you and we look forward to seeing you at a future meeting so that we can thank you more thank you robert you all right you need a you need a break a couple of sneezes allergies something's been bobbing my allergies in here too there's something in this room yeah it's because we've been here for four hours yeah something's gone too long in this room we got one one more case this is the last one last one everyone and then you can go have dinner um case number 16 on your agenda it's a non-compliant case code 25-003321 property owner joseph cadet p property address 24 north worth 7th app presented by code officer belinda witoski and uh anyone here for this case i'm sorry for you having to wait this long i don't know you were sworn in did you get sworn in last time no because you asked for those who are giving testimony i'm an attorney so i'm not giving testimony oh but if you want me to yeah i have a right hand let's let's go ahead and get you sworn in won't hurt if she's not giving testimony she doesn't have to be sworn in we don't know what will come up it may wind up being testimony all right swear me by the authority vested in me as a notary of the state of florida do you swear and affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you and your name and address for the record all right i'm tanika reed williston my office address is 505 royal palm beach royal palm beach boulevard royal palm beach florida 33411 thank you miss wilson miss witzkowski hi good afternoon my name is delinda witzkowski i'm a code enforcement officer for clean and safe um i'm here regarding a case number 25000003321 which was originally found in violation on july 10th of 2025 for a damaged fence on the back at the back of the property the board's motion was for this case was to was given 30 days to correct the violation or 100 per day thereafter for non-compliance the compliance date was set for august 10th of 2025 as of on october 1st of 2025 a conduct and i conducted a re-inspection at the property where the violation continues to to exist i have one initial photo and i have two photos that were recent on this on this case that i would like to introduce you you guys into evidence as of october 9th of 2025 the case is still out of compliance and there is an accrued fine in the amount of eighteen thousand one hundred dollars um so i'm just going to show the board some old photos of the property back from may 28th 2025. all right so now i'm showing you um updated photos it should be marked as exhibit one taken on august 15th 2025. um could you please explain or describe what's depicted in the photo all right so this is um on august 15th of 2025 you'll see that the the fence has um basically just it's bent broken um it's a chain link fence um that just needs repaired or removed all right city exhibit three i'm sorry two so this is um october 1st um that was taken on october 1st of 2025. at this time the city would like to introduce the two exhibits into evidence i'm sorry second second second it's been a long day all those in favor aye any opposed thank you so just um so this um this case is in pro bono um no probate probate probate i apologize and and i reached out to the law yesterday and um so she is um miss reed right has been given authorization to represent and i have a letter from the city's attorney's office that i don't know if you introduced it into evidence or just so you can look okay anything else in the city that's good okay so you have a chance to question the witness or to provide any rebuttal testimony so mine is here for we're here for a request i don't have any um testimony to offer or even much question um as miss belinda just explained the owner of the property is now deceased and his um family members including his wife have uh opened up an estate that takes a little bit of time um so now a letter of administration has been issued the wife has been appointed as a personal representative they have petitioned a court for permission to sell the property and i believe that they're in the process of executing a sale the sale has not yet been completed and at this time they do not have any funds to pay any fines or to make any improvements at the property so that's the predicament that they're in um at this time they're requesting 30 days um to finalize a sale of the property and at that point in time they will address any fines or issues um that still remain with the city of delray beach including a request for waiver or reduction the city want to respond to that yeah i mean i i hear the predicament but the city's concern is that you know safety fine well obviously safety and things like that the property is you know in a poor condition in the area so we just ask that you you know find that the the property is still out of compliance assess the fine of the 18 100 and put a lien on the property i mean that's not while i i can understand um the request that's not really conducive i mean at the end of the day the the whole time i've been hearing we're not here to find we're here to get you guys into compliance i've explained the owner of the property is deceased there is no income um for these individuals to get the property up and in a state of compliance as you would call it so assessing a fine of eighteen thousand dollars to a family who's already lost a breadwinner is really not conducive at this point and is not really beneficial um it's more punitive than anything else question is there um a contract on the property and they do it 30 days it will close and yes they have already taken the steps so yes they do have an offer to purchase and with probate again everything is step by step it's not just like a private agreement where you and i can agree and we can say inspection in three days and you move forward with probate you have to petition the court um with the proper documentation showing them an appraisal they have to get an appraisal you have to show the appraisal show all the documentation and get a court to agree to that um either by going to a hearing or by submitting it and the court of course there's a backlog so they take a little bit of time to assess and then issue a ruling the court has given them the order to say to go ahead with the sale so they're in the process of finalizing a sale ma'am what are you asking the board to do 30 days we're requesting 30 days 30 days of what 30 days in order for them to either come into compliance with this um with come into compliance or finalize the sale and this by them finalizing the sale they will have the monies to actually come into compliance i mean the order violation already exists and the fine is accruing so what are you asking the board to do i mean that the city's asking the board to to certify the the fine amount into a lien which i i get i'm gathering that you would prefer the board not do but what specifically are you asking the board to do so i request that the port the board of course not place a lien on this property at this time i would request that the fine be waived or reduced but based on my understanding from what has been explained before you have to come into compliance before i can the board doesn't have the power to do that a reduction yeah so you're asking them to to not assess the lien correct okay what i would say is technically you know if the board does not assess the lien they sell the property tomorrow the the fines don't travel with the land only liens do so then you know it would just be like nothing happened right um it will kind of go away there's no need to even come into compliance it would have to you know we would have to restart with a new property owner and restart the same case right so um you know our goal is compliance and we want to encourage this and this is a safety issue a nuisance issue within the city so you know that's why we're asking what we're asking for i have a question yeah if we give them 30 days to come into compliance but enforce the lien can they come back and ask to have the lien lifted at that time yes they can ask for a reduction they can ask for like the new owner can ask for you know they would you know not to get too deep into property sales or real estate but the new owner they purchase the property subject to the lien they can come in and ask for a reduction to pay it off or you know sometimes they even do it like an escrow there's different ways to handle it like i'm not you know i'm just it is it is not uncommon for a new property owner to come back to a code board or a special magistrate and ask for a reduction of lien in fact it's just for clarification right on uh on a silver property if there's a lien when it comes up in the title search the new owner will have to address that lien that's a lien not fine right there's a difference so if we leave but we don't have a lien yet we don't have a lien yet jimmy i have a yeah yes thank you for representing these respondents i have a problem with it because you're not offering an alternative to resolve the problem and um which is a safety issue of the fence so um there appears to be no willingness or uh alternative action on the part of the owners at this time to repair the fence um whether it be by themselves or whatever method we don't really can't prescribe but i don't hear anything about how the problem could get fixed so by not imposing a lien we then have absolutely no motivating factor going towards getting the fence fixed the situation aside does that make sense it makes sense i think either way there is no motivation factor right they sell it it's going to come from the proceeds no no a lien or if we if we do go with for with the lien and the fine right it's just gonna come off from their proceeds right when she hasn't offered well when we sell there's x dollars and correct that you know um so i that's my problem with with what you're offering there's no answer to how we fix the problem we're not really here because you to take money from people we're here to see that get into compliance and we're not hearing how it's going to happen sorry question to bring compliance if someone goes out there and just takes down the fence would that bring it into compliance i have to look at the original violation is maintenance of property yes it's maintenance of property no well there there are several violations on both the properties that are together that are being sold um so there are several violations and landscape is one but technically yes if they remove the fence it does also it does come into compliance just so we're clear if they remove the fence but the landscaping stays the way it is it will come into compliance the if they remove the fence yeah but the landscape for that violent for this violation there's several that's the only thing we can talk about we're not talking about any other this one so this one yes this case is just the fence right it's just the fence yes question to me would it do you think it they would object to getting someone out i do understand the financial situation but removing the fence could just you know we're looking for some type of solution because if we don't do nothing like the city attorney said they're going to sell it's going to be someone else's problem you know we see here in these photographs is a small section we're talking about hundreds of feet of fence yeah why don't we probably saw it on the map yeah it's probably 10 feet of fence that needs to be repaired 10 feet of fence is that what you said yep for this property yes on this case we can only really talk about this case what one last question how long before you plan with probate and closing on a property i'm sorry can you ask me again how long before you be done with probate and closing on the sale of the property okay so how long i'll be finished with probate and the sale of the property oh the concern the actual sale yeah so honestly there's there's no way to answer that there are different factors but these people are they have already had a contract i believe escrow has already been deposited the court has already said yes so it appears that you're marching towards the finish line that's the best answer i can give i don't have a timeline the biggest factor generally is waiting for an order from the court and that has already been that they've already received that um concerning mr batira's um concern that he doesn't see any progress um i'm not sure how to to respond to that i mean it's digging up a fence it's not like digging up a plant you know i that's not my specialty i personally would not be volunteering to dig up a fence because i imagine it's hard you have to pay somebody to lay it down i imagine you need to pay somebody to remove it i can ask the individuals um if they're able to remove it themselves but the main issue here was money that's always been the problem they do not have the funds to pay somebody to go out there and address um whatever the violation is at this time which is the fencing you talked about safety issues while i can appreciate there is a hole in the fence i mean it this doesn't seem like an attractive nuisance where we're gonna have little kids running into the property we don't see any trampolines or any pools there so i don't believe you know that we're going to get into that kind of weeds i appreciate the look it does not look great so i'm with you there but i i think the city can you know we still can address the fines without placing a lien on the property you place a lien on the property makes it a little bit more challenging to complete a sale okay i have a discussion for the board yes how about we the fines will continue to accrue and we just don't need the property no i i don't think so because what happens they sell the property they have the city has nothing or so we do need the lien to okay that makes sense but does it prevent the sale of the property going through them paying the fine or paying a reduced fine this must happen all the time people have liens on the properties the properties get sold in my professional experience i have experience with this within the city of delray and so probably just jimmy right um which makes me concerned that um based on what we can observe in the photograph based on the levity of the fine that if we if we pass on it it's just not going to get done so so the thing is if we find it does it delay the sale if it delays that's really not our problem is going to be there longer it's not our problem and the answer to that from my personal experience i can't speak to this specific case but not really it doesn't really they'll work it out so um go ahead so let me understand the city's position is that you guys place a lien on the property for eighteen thousand dollars is that the city's position yes we haven't we yes i mean that's the city's recommendation we have not as a board made a decision yet we're discussing this so so if i if i may ask the question if you place a lien on the property um the property gets sold they make the necessary adjustments um how does that lien get rekt is there uh is there a mechanism for having a waiver or reduction of the lien because at that point in time it's it appears that we might excuse me not we the estate might lose um the advantage of coming back for a reduced if i could speak to you on that um it's been presented in an earlier case just before yours we discussed the process and and in when you were here for the opening the chairman said it's our goal to get you into compliance not to find you we're not here to find you however it looks to us as a board that this is not going to be resolved unless we put a lien in place mr wagner can you address the yeah so under the under the code of chapter 162 uh once the property is in compliance the owner of the property uh can come back and ask this board to reduce the fine or to actually to reduce the fine to a set amount or to zero and then it becomes up to the discretion of the board on how to do that but the the board can't do that until the fine until the property is in compliance so kind of and just to clarify that it's the then property owner whoever that is when the property is brought into compliance that can come back before the board in this case if the property were to be sold and i think the concern here is that if we put the lien on that the monies to satisfy the lien would come out of escrow to the detriment of the current owners and not to the present owners who could or to the new owners the new owners would be the only ones who could come back and ask for more money well i mean these things can be negotiated but i i i'm not in a position to give that i'm not asking for advice but i'm just trying to clarify the issue right but that's but this is not a new situation just from my understanding if in 10 days they take the fence down they come back the property is in compliance at that point in time they can ask for a reduction of lien they could so i think what we're asking for is you know can we take because if not we're just going to pass it to the next owner or nothing's going to be done so do you think it's feasible for your clients to remove the fence before the sale is completed therefore you can come back and ask for reduction of lien or fine i'm sorry i can certainly ask i mean that if i can certainly ask that seems as if it's a fair compromise i would i would venture to say i don't have the authority to say yes or no they can do that i can ask um if this court would allow me or this board excuse me would allow me i guess 30 seconds to make a phone call because the thing what the chairman is saying is if you come back in compliance we're going to be extremely open to reducing that lien is that fair to say mr chairman that's i think that's accurate the only the only protection the city has is leaning the property correct if you don't place the lien today they sell the property the city doesn't collect correct but the double-edged sword is that if we place the lien the property sold you come back we're not going to forget you and we're going to try to be as fair as possible so it's kind of a double-edged sword for all of us the one thing the board could do is what you've done previously is you could stay the the fine from continuing to accrue you can certainly do that if you want to to um you know the the you can't reduce the accumulated until until they're in compliance um the the city is asking you to lean and you know the implications of of leaning or not leaning so that is a decision that you have to make so let's talk about his motion do we want to stay the lien give him stay on the fine stay on the fine put the lien on it apply the lien stay the fine and then give them up to come back we're compassionate we don't we have to try to protect the taxpayers interest also and we're sympathetic to the loss of the gentleman so it's it's really a tough decision yeah i understand understand so do you want to make a motion mr chairman yes i'd like to make a motion with respect to case number zero zero three three two one i move for finding a fact to conclude three right motion such as penalties and lean continue mr chairman i'd like to make a motion with with respect to case number zero zero three three two one i move for finding a fact the conclusion of law that there is good notice in violation of the fence safety issue continue to exist on the property and based on the previous order a fine of the amount of eighteen thousand one hundred will stay and a lien will be levied against the property and property owner and a daily no daily fine will accrue until a period for a period of 30 days may take them a while to get everything resolved ma'am are you good with 30 or 60 days 60 days but let me i let me i guess i want to hear i'll take 60 but i want to hear the the full motion before so i can answer properly ah okay uh levity against the property owner and no daily fine for the next 60 days until the property comes into compliance the respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance if it's not corrected within 60 days the fines will continue to accrue okay thank you any additional discussion of the motion all those in favor all right any opposed hearing none motion passes i have a question um so with the stay because you're already putting a lien on the property right so with this lien um it is the current property owner who can come back and request uh and negotiate the lien once once the issue is resolved in this case the fence is resolved either repaired or removed or whatever else is needed for the city to have it in compliance whoever is the owner at that time can come back to this board and request a reduction of that lien removal of the lien reduction of the fine okay thank you all right thank you for coming here and representing them and my thank you to all the board members and to the city staff this has been a little bit of a grueling session i know we got postponed from last meeting um so we had kind of double duty this time and appreciate all of you putting the opportunity well done mr chair you did a great job you didn't get a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn