All right, I hereby call this meeting to order. This is the special magistrate for the city of Delray Beach. Cases are going to be called in the order in which they appear on the agenda. When you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed to the podium on my left-hand side. The city will present its testimony and evidence first. You'll have an opportunity to review any evidence that the city submits and ask questions of any of the city's witnesses, after which time you can present your own testimony and evidence. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply here. However, all testimony is taken under oath under penalty of perjury. So if you think that you might testify, there's a possibility that you might testify. And ask that you rise and raise your right hand so that you can be sworn in. By the authority vested in me, as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. All right, do we have any changes to the agenda? No changes to the agenda. We do not. All right. So let's call the first one. Case number one, code 25-000138. Owner's name, Bright Horizon Investment Corp. Registered agent, Samuel J. Cantor and Gwen Gove. Property address, 32 East Atlantic Avenue. Case will be presented by Code Officer Delinda Witkowski. Thank you. And just for clarification, this is joint ownership. I believe Coco Incorporated owns this property as well. Is anyone here on their behalf? Come on up. GoCo. GoCo with a G. GoCo Inc. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Chad Nitsky. Can you spell your last name for us? N as in Nancy, I-T, Z as in zebra, K-Y. Mr. Nitsky, what is your position with which corporation? I am the general manager at Elisa Vedda's. We're part of Big Time Restaurant Group. And I presume the Big Time Restaurant Group is leasing the property? Correct. From whom? I believe from Bright Horizons and Samuel Cantor. Do they know that you're here on their behalf? Yes. Does the city have any objection? No. All right. I'm going to let the city present their case and then you can respond. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, magistrate, city attorney, and distinguished guest. My name is Delinda Witkowski. I am a code officer for Clean and Safe with the city of Delray Beach. I am here on regards of the location, 32 East Atlantic Avenue. On August 7th of 2025, I inspected the property where I observed a business that had dumpsters that were not enclosed, which is according to the site plan, they required one for an enclosed dumpster area, which is in violation of Code Section 4.6.6, Subsection C, Subsection 1, which states that the dumpsters and recycling containers and similar service areas must be enclosed on all three sides and have vision obscuring gates on the fourth side. A general violation was issued on August 7th of 2025. A violation was mailed first class and certified on September 24th of 2025. And I did receive one with a signed signature from Elizabeth. On compliance date was required on August 21st of 2025. As of the last re-inspection of October 10th of 2025, the violations still exist. I do have four photographs that I would like to introduce into evidence of all these photos. I have had different contacts with the managers as well as the property manager. Okay. So a couple questions before we get to the photos. For clarification, based on the violation, there are kind of two separate compliance dates, correct? Correct. So the first compliance date, which was to apply for a permit, was within 14 days or by August 21st. Is that correct? That is correct. And then the final compliance date, which was to obtain an approved permit for the enclosures, was within 45 days or by October 5th, correct? Correct. And then on October 10th, you checked our systems and our city systems and city records. And were you able to observe any type of permit or application then? Yes, I did check the EPO. And as far as all the difference for the permit process, we have different people that are involved with the process of the permitting, whether it be engineering, landscaping, architect, and so forth. But simply put, did they apply for a permit? They had comments, but no response. But did they apply for a permit? They applied. Initial apply, correct? They applied. So this is currently in the approval process, but they do not have an approved permit as of the final date. That is correct. All right. Thank you. Just wanted to be clear. Okay. I'm now showing you has been previously marked as City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. Do you recognize this? I do. It's just for identification for you guys to know the Elizabetta's location. And that was taken, I believe, on your first initial date of August 7th, I believe. August 7th. City's Exhibit 2 for identification purposes? So this is in the back, which was also taken on August 7th of the dumpsters that are not enclosed. Okay. And the dumpsters, you mean the green items in the kind of central left of the photograph? Correct. It has their name on there, 32 Elizabetta's. Okay. City's Exhibit 3 for identification purposes? Okay. This is on October 10th, which was my re-inspection that was taken. And you can tell they still did not have an enclosure installed. Okay. So the green items identified in the pictures still don't have an enclosure? Correct. All right. City's Exhibit 4 for identification purposes? Okay. So this is just, I just kind of highlighted the areas, just showing the dumpster. And this is what's the blueprint. There's a planning certificate of use where it was supposed to be located initially. So this was submitted with the initial site plan? Correct. Okay. City's Exhibit 5 for identification purposes? Okay. This is just a little small section where it's just showing that a permit was applied for, but it's on the respond and resubmit section. Okay. Process section. And even the application date was after the first. Correct. Respond and resubmit means that the city reviewed it and had questions. Yeah, I kind of was saying that there's different people involved in the process of the permitting. And everybody did, said something as to what needed to be done. And there's an area where there's comments for the respondent and the property owner to respond to it. And nothing was done on any of the processes. How long has it been in that status? I think since the, what was it, the 23rd of September or something like that. It's been a while. If you want to refer to your notes, in the meantime, while you're looking through your notes to refresh your memory, if I could ask to introduce those five exhibits into evidence. It's actually the 8th of September. Wait, wait, hold on. He's in the middle. Mr. Knitsky, do you have any objections to the documents the city would like to put in evidence, those photos? All right. Without objection, I'll accept those into evidence as city's Exhibits 1 through 5. Thank you. As far as the dates, there's different ones depending on the individuals. Here's an administrative was the 16th of September. Engineering was the 15th of September. Fire was the 16th of September. Historic was the 8th of September. And the structure was the 16th. So there are different dates. So for clarification, when you're talking about the different departments, is it correct to state that whenever they apply for a permit such as this, it goes through different departments in the city to review? Correct. And they have to submit different items to each of the departments? Correct. They tell them what needs to be done, and the respondent is supposed to respond back with comments and stuff, and nothing was done. So at this stage, some of the departments are still waiting for the respondent to resubmit certain items? That is correct. Thank you. Anything further? Nothing further from the city. Do you have any questions for the officer? No questions. This is my first time ever doing anything like this. That's okay. We're quasi-judicial, so we're not that formal here. But basically what I'm asking is, do you have anything that you would like to ask the officer about anything that she testified to? Not ask, but I just wanted to say what I had to say. Hold on. I promise I'll let you get your chance. I just want to make sure the city is done. If they're done, then I'll let you go. We don't have any further witnesses at this time. Okay. Go ahead. So from my understanding that, yes, we did submit, we got it back about things that needed to be resubmitted and fixed. We are working with a civil engineer, because I believe he had to stamp the project. That's what the city requested. And we will have all the documents resubmitted by Friday. Okay. And I know she's been working specifically, I believe, with Ellie, our facilities manager, has mostly taken the lead on this. When you say she, are you referring to the code officer? I'm sorry, Delinda, yes, sorry. We'll ask you, okay. I just want to make sure I understand who you're talking about. All right. What is the city requesting here? So the city suggests to obtain an approved permit within 30 days or $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Mr. Nitsky, what the city is asking me to do is to give you 30 days to finish your permitting process. And if you don't do that, they're asking me to assess a fine in the amount of $100 per day after. Yes, sir. Is 30 days a sufficient amount of time for you to get this done? Yes, sir. I believe so, yes. And Officer Kowski, is there any reason to believe that this couldn't be done within 30 days? No, there should be plenty of time. Okay. Is there anything further from either side? No, not from the city. Mr. Nitsky, anything further you want to say? No, sir. All right. I'm going to give you the 30 days. But as I've come to learn in this business, 30 days moves pretty quickly. So you're going to want to get on your civil engineer and the people working on this to make sure that they're moving pretty quickly, okay? Yes, sir. All right. All right. In case 25-000-138, I make the following findings of fact on law. If I notice it's sufficient, I find the property actually is in violation of 4.6.6 C1, the failure to screen their trash and refuse areas. The respondent is given 30 days to come into compliance or a fine of up to $100 per day may issue. Good luck, sir. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Go ahead. Case number two, code 25-000-139. The owner's name is Shorering, Inc., registered agent Alan Shuring. The property address is 8 East Atlantic Avenue. And the case will be presented by Code Officer Delinda Witkowski. Good afternoon. My name is Delinda Witkowski. I'm a code enforcement officer with Clean and Safe for the city of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding a screen of refuse areas violation located at 8 East Atlantic Avenue. On August 7th of 2025, I inspected the property where I observed a business that had dumpsters that were not enclosed, which is according to the site plan, they require an enclosed dumpster area, which is in violation of Code Section 4.6.6, subsection C, subsection 1, which states that the dumpsters, the recycling containers, and similar service areas must be enclosed on three sites and have vision obscuring gates on the fourth side. A general violation was issued on August 7th of 2025. The violation was mailed and certified on September 24th of 2025. Compliance date was required on August 21st of 2025. As of the last re-inspection of October 10th of 2025, the violation still exists. I do have four photographs that was taken of the property in question that I would like to introduce into evidence. I've had contact with several of the different managers and also with the general manager, which is here today. Okay. And then, again, in this one, there were two compliance dates, correct? Correct. And could you please state what they were? So the first date was required for August 21st, which was to be able to apply for a permit. And they were given another 45 days to obtain an approved permit, which would also be October 5th. Thank you. I'm now showing it's been previously marked for identification purposes. This is Exhibit 1. What does it depict and when was it taken? It's just showing location of 10 roofs, so you guys can have an idea of where it's at. So that's the business that's currently on the property located at 8 East Atlantic Avenue, correct? Correct. All right. City's Exhibit 2 for identification purposes? Okay. This is the back on the alleyway, which is also the right-of-way in public view, where their their dumpsters are not enclosed and have, you know, they're not enclosed. Okay. And that was taken on August 7th? Correct. Of 2025. Okay. City's Exhibit 3 for identification purposes, what does it depict? So this is just a re-inspection, which was done on October 10th, and the dumpsters continue to remain on outside. And those are the green dumpsters with the waste management? Correct. Okay. Thank you. City's Exhibit 4 for identification purposes? Okay. This is permitting our EPL system, and it's showing there that nothing has, no permits have been pulled on behalf of 8 East Atlantic Avenue. And based on your duties and responsibilities, it's typical for you to look into city records to try to see if any permits are found? Yes, we do. And this is indeed, I know there's an address there, but this is indeed the permitting screen for this particular property? Yes, it is. Okay. So when you say there's nothing there, no permits have been applied for? No, there hasn't, no, no permits have been applied. At this time, the city would like to introduce the four exhibits into evidence. The temporary structure indicator on this form, that's not an attempt to comply with this particular code section? No, it's not. No, they're older. I think you can see the dates on there. Yeah, they seem old. I mean, but then there's different dates on there of 2022. But I don't think an enclosure would be a temporary structure. No, it's a recent thing. So it would have to be a 2025. All right. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Come on up. Can you please state your name? Christina Godbout. Can you spell your last name for us? Sure. G-O-D-B-O-U-T. Godbout. Did I say that? Yeah. What is your position with the respondent? General manager, regional manager for Tin Roof. So you're the manager of the restaurant, which is leasing the property? Yes. Scott, do you have any objection to the documents of the city, the photos and documents the city just showed that they want to put in evidence? Nope. All right. Without objection, I'll accept that as an evidence. The city's composite exhibits one through four. Does the city have anything further they want to? No. Scott, do you have any questions that you'd like to ask the officer? No. Hi, how are you? How are you? We have good news today. Yeah, I was going to say, I don't know. I don't have any questions for her. Okay. The floor is yours. Awesome. We're in compliance. I have some examples of us being in compliance. We got our hands dirty, fixed the structure in the back. So I took one picture. It's black and white. I ran out of ink, but one picture. Can you do me a favor? Can you show those to the city attorney? So when you say in compliance, did you get a permit or did you just put structures on? All right. So if I can also give this to you, this is the blueprint and it shows the other area. So technically they already had a dumpster area, but they were using it as a storage. And so they were working hard last night and they did remove everything and they are using it as it's supposed to be in an enclosed dumpster area. So did they need a permit already? They do not need a permit. They do not need it. So you're saying it was already built and they just weren't using it as a dumpster. They were using it as an outdoor storage. Outdoor storage, basically. Yeah. I don't think you'd need any kind of permit there as long as the building was in. I have some on my phone too, if it helps. This is, the dumpsters are moved to a separate place. They're moved from here because this looks different. I just want to make sure we're clear. Yeah. The dumpsters were placed in. Oh, okay. Are you saying that those dumpsters are no longer there? Did you go out and inspect the property? They were last night, but she, from the photos that she showed me today, they're inside. So you see those, those heaters behind the heaters there are the, is the enclosed dumpster area, which they were using as a storage area. So right there, there's doors. You can open it up and they place the dumpsters inside. So I presume the city is probably seeking a, finding a fact here? Correct. What the city is asking me to do in this case is to find that a violation had occurred on the property, but it's since come into compliance. It's, that means in the short term that there is no fine and you can continue on and, and that might be the, the, the end of things. The, the, um, I always have to say this because I want, I want you to understand. Um, there is a consequence to being found in having had a violation, which is that should the same violation reoccur, you could be treated as a repeat violator, which would subject you to higher fines beginning at an earlier time in the process. I understand. You understand? Can I ask a question on that? Absolutely. Um, at the end of the night, we do roll the dumpsters out so that it's easier for waste management to pick up the trash because their truck can't get into that, I guess, driveway. And then when someone comes in, a manager, myself, whoever is opening, we roll them back in. I wouldn't advise. I think that's something we'd have to discuss with our development services department at this time. Yeah. I think you'd have to consult with the city. The one thing I can't do is I can't give advice for compliance. Okay. And there's any number of reasons why that's inappropriate and I can't do. Um, but, uh, but my experience is that the city can give you, um, pretty good direction on these issues. Cool. Did you want to introduce this? I mean, I have no objection. Oh, um, well, I guess that's a, do you want, I can put that in evidence if you'd like? Um. Sure. You might as well. You've already submitted it. Yeah, sure. There's no reason not to. All right. I'm going to accept this into evidence as respondents exhibit one. I'm already marking it as such as R1. This is going to go in the file. All right. For the record, let me make the ruling here so that you're all clear. All right. In case 25, 0, 0, 0, 1, 3, 9, I'm going to make the following findings of fact-in-law. I'm going to find notice is sufficient. I'm going to find the property having been in violation of section 4.6.6 C1, which is not having the refuse garbage cans, uh, properly screened. Uh, they have since come into compliance though, after the initial required compliance date. And that is all. Thank you for coming. Thanks for coming in. Seeing no more business. That's it, right? I didn't, there's no minutes for me to. I didn't, there's no minutes for me to.