How do I hereby call this meeting to order? This is the code enforcement for the city of Delray Beach. Cases will be heard 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 the testimony, or to review any evidence the city presents and ask questions of any of the city's witnesses, after which time you can present your own testimony and evidence, and then I will make a decision. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply here. Our ball testimony is taken under oath, under penalty of perjury. So if you're going to testify today, or you think you might testify, or there's a possibility that you might testify, and ask that you rise, 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? Absolutely, yes. Thank you. The city can call their first case. Oh, did you want to go over it? Oh, yep, I should probably have done that. All right, for the record, I have the minutes of 10-1-25 and 10-15-25, and they're hereby approved. Any changes to the agenda? Case 25-000-272. Also code 25-000-329. And finally, code case 25-000-346. These cases are postponed. Yes, we're asking the special magistrate to postpone the cases. Thank you. And also... Wait. Hold on one second. He has to order. Without objection, they are hereby postponed. Thank you. Addition code cases that are closed or came into compliance. We have code 25-000-229. Code 25-000-338. And finally, code 25-000-372. Okay. City caller first. Case? Case 1. Code 25-000-269. The owner is Dominique M. Rice and Gary H. Rice. Property address is 1230 South Ocean Boulevard. And the case will be presented by Enrique Hernandez. Thank you. So we're actually going to start with Ms. Alvarez, whose department refers us over to the Code Enforcement Department. Proceed. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Could you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record? Amy Alvarez, A-L-V-A-R-E-Z. And what capacity are you employed with the city? I'm the Assistant Development Services Director. And in your position, do you sometimes get notified if there are any issues with other departments, such as the Florida Department and the Diagnosis Protection? Yes. And in your department, was your department somehow notified that there was an issue with the property located at 1230 South Ocean Boulevard? Yes. And was that in relates to an easement? Yes. Okay. And based on the correspondence that your department received, what was the issue? An attorney representing Banyan House Condominium, which is across the street from 1030, or I'm sorry, what's the name? 1230. 1230 and 1260 South Ocean Boulevard, the attorney called me, mentioned that they had received a letter from FDEP requesting clearance of an easement that was across the street because that easement, well, FDEP needed access to the effluent, well, to the easement area to make sure that the effluent outfall was properly, I guess, cleared. Clear. Thank you. And, um, and so, yes. So because the easement was, I would call it maybe, obstructed, um, by items or vegetation, FDEP could not get through. Right. And based on this, you can see or, um, or are the documents that you received via public record, um, within the city to confirm whether an easement indeed existed? Yes. I looked at the plats for both, um, both properties. They, they were separately platted, but yes. And within your normal course in scope of business with the city, do you from time to time look at the Palm Beach County official records to pull easement records or plat records? Frequently. And then in this particular case, I believe you just stated that you reviewed, is that what you reviewed? Mm-hmm. To look at, um, the plat to see if there are any easements there? Correct. Do you want to take a look at any photos or anything to see the outside of the park? Well, not take photos, but review. Right. I, I. Files into the city records. Yes. I, I looked at street, Google Street View, and then also the attorney that had contacted me, she sent me a few photos as well. Okay. And I'm now showing you has been previously marked at City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. Do you recognize this? Is this the Google image of the property, um, kind of in between 1230 and 1260? Yes, I believe so. Okay. And, um, is this a fair and accurate representation of one of the items that you kind of took a look at or reviewed within the city's files or records, um, and then what you just stated to kind of get a street view of the property? Correct. Okay. Um, City's Exhibit 2, um, do you recognize this? Uh, yes. And is this the, uh, the plat for the property that you said you reviewed? That, well, it's a, it's a survey of one of the properties and it looks like the portion of the easement area, this is probably 1230, or 12, uh, I don't know, the property to the north. Um, but it looks like the highlighted area is where the easement is. Okay. So, the 1230 property, which indicates the easement. Correct. It's whichever property is to the north, I don't recall which one is 1230 and which one is 1260. Apologies. Mm-hmm. An accurate representation of the, the, whatever survey you looked at to make a determination of the easement. Yes, I've seen this. Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank you. Um, City's Exhibit 3 for identification purposes, do you recognize this? Yes. And what do you recognize this to be? So, that's a plat from 2020 and the two lots to the south, I believe it says lot 1 and lot 2. Um, they were originally a, um, a single parcel that actually provided parking for the Banyan House condominium across the street, but in 2020 they were replatted into two individual lots. Okay. And I'm now showing you the same exhibit a little closer as the Exhibit 3, just unhighlighting the clean, clean version. So, you said there's lot 1 and lot 2. And is that the, going back, you said the lot to the north, which lot is to the north? So, the one, the lot that's titled or addressed as 1230, that's the lot to the north and, um, that lot was already there. It was, it was platted in 19, I believe 1951 and that's when the easement just to the south of it between 1230 and 1260 was originally, um, uh, recorded. So, you were actually going to title this as City's Exhibit 4. Mm-hmm. And I'm showing you it has been marked as City's Exhibit 4 for identification purposes. Uh, do you recognize this? Yes. And what is this? So, that's the Delray Beach Shores plat. Um, and I believe that, that's the one that I was referring to from 1951 and that is when, um, 12, I believe it's 1230 was, um, originally platted. And so, that shows the original, um, recordation of the easement between the two properties. Okay. So, this is the record and, and was this obtained from the official records? From the Clerk of Court's website, yes. Which is a public entity? Mm-hmm. I just wanted to show you. Is this gentleman representing the respondent? Um, this is the respondent. Yes, he would like me to come here and say your name, your address. I'm Gary Rice. Our address is 1230 South Ocean Boulevard, Delray Beach 33483. And, sir, you're the property owner in question? Yes, sir. Do you have any objections to the documents the City would like to submit into evidence? I, um, it's well above my pay grade, needless to say. However, uh, we have actual photos. Sir, I promise I'll let you present to me whatever you want. But, right now, it's the City's case, so I just need to know whether you object to the things that they presented to me. Oh, yes. I don't think we should be liable. That's not what I'm deciding. Okay. I told you it's above my pay grade. Yeah, I'm just deciding, I'm just deciding whether or not to admit the documents into evidence. I have the documents, yes. All right. I know he said that this is above his pay grade. I did have a conversation with Mr. Rice prior to the hearing. He initially did seek counsel, and, um, based on his, and he can tell you and confirm this or not, but he did discuss this with his counsel, and they were comfortable with him coming and representing himself. So, I just wanted to put that on the record. Okay. For the record, I'm going to accept the Exhibits 1 through 4 into evidence. Okay. I'm going to let the City finish presenting their case, and then you can tell me anything you'd like me to know. Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Can I sit? Yes, you can sit, sir. Yeah. So, for purposes of the Exhibit 3, we've highlighted the easement on record. Um, and what are the parameters, or how far does the easement extend on each property? Is it five feet each way? Yeah, the, the, the depth of the easement is five feet into each, each property along the property line, dividing them. And once you conducted your research, reviewed the documentation sent by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to the Banyan House that was provided to you, reviewed the official records and all of that, did you send this over to the Code Enforcement Department to determine if a code violation was warranted for this issue? Thank you. That's all I have for you now, Ms. Alvarez. At this time, the City, oh, actually, I don't know if Mr. Rice has any questions for the witness before we proceed to the next witness. Mr. Rice, do you have any, um, questions for the witness? I'm going to take that as a no. Okay. At this time, the City would like to call, um, Mr. Enrique Fernandez. Good afternoon, Mr. Fernandez. Um, just before you proceed with your, with your script, I just wanted to confirm that this, um, this was provided to you, um, from the Development Services Department for review as to whether a Code Enforcement violation was warranted? Yes, it was. Okay, you may proceed. Did you want to go to the microphone? Good afternoon. My name is Enrique Fernandez, Code Enforcement Administrator for the City of Derby Beach. On October, on August 14, 2024, after receiving the, uh, email from my Development Services, I inspected a property at 1230 South Ocean Boulevard, um, where I observed in the picture from the street, I saw trees and vegetation that I couldn't identify what the easement was. So, I made contact with Mr. Rice, uh, property owner at 1230 South Ocean Boulevard. He gave me access to the property when we went to the backyard where I observed a fence that divided the two properties, one on 1260 South Ocean Boulevard and 1230 South Ocean Boulevard. So, on May 27, um, excuse me, we did not issue an release of violation at the time because I was informed that it was going through a legal review. So, the City Attorney, uh, told me, um, the City Attorney Assistant told me to hold down on the violation. So... Okay, we can proceed forward to, um, your review and determination of a Code violation. Yes. So, um, after that, we were instructed on May 27, I made witness the rise of the property, of the property, to provide him with, he, with a document that was given to me to provide to him that it was the, uh, Benning House Hold Harmless Agreement. Okay. Uh, we, we don't want, we don't want to talk about any of those types of settlement discussions. Okay. We just want to get to the violation, please. Okay. So, on, uh, on September 26, a special master's denoted was issued to the property, uh, Ocean Boulevard, for the violation of, uh, Code Section 100.01, Subsection A, Subsection 1, which is, is, existing of weeds, trash, and vegetation upon lands is prohibited, and also for Code Section 100.01, Subsection C, which is, also mentions the, uh, existing of weeds, trash, and vegetation upon lands is prohibited. So, the special magistrate here, you know, it was mail, first class, and certified mail, on, on October the 2nd, and also posted on City Hall. Okay. So, with this, I only took a picture of my slash inspection, which is going to be exhibit five. Five. Okay. The picture, again, I'm sorry, this is exhibit four. It's exhibit five. Yeah, I'm sorry, exhibit five. This is a picture that depicts on August 14, when Mr. Rice gave me access to his property, and this is a fence that is located in between the two properties. Okay. And then the easement is where the vegetation, all of this, the fence and the vegetation is, is within the easement, correct, based on your review of the files and your communications with the development services? Correct. So, all of this vegetation, and is Mr. Rice's property on the left side? It, like, where you're standing? Yes, it's to the left side of the property, yes. Okay. In the front, going to the front will be, uh, South Ocean Boulevard A1A. Okay. And this vegetation, all the greenery and all of that is within the easement? Correct. Okay. And did you also take a look at these other exhibits, this photograph, um, the, the plaque, the, um, the recorded documents? Yes, I did. Okay. At this time, the city would like to introduce cities exhibit five into evidence. Oh. I'm so sorry. Cities exhibit six. We have one more cities exhibit six. Yes. This is my inspection prior to hearing on November 3rd, 2025. Once again, I did not have access to the property at this time, but this is from the public right away, uh, South Ocean Boulevard, where it still depicts that there is vegetation in front of the easement. Okay. So just to be clear, because this is, this is one, um, is this a picture of 1230 solely, or is this a picture depicting 1230 on one side and 1260 on one side? It's both properties. 1230 is looking at the picture is going to be in the right side. It's 1230 South Ocean Boulevard. On the left side is going to be 1260 South Ocean Boulevard. And there's a yellow line. Is that kind of where the property splits behind that pole or no? There is construction going in the area. So we don't know who drew this line. We could not determine if it's a division or not. But based on your view of the case and your review of the official records and being on property on site, the vegetation is in the easement. Correct. Correct. All right. At this time, the city would like to introduce city's, um, exhibits five and six into evidence. So admit. And just for the record, I, I just wanted to make sure that we introduce a clean copy of exhibit, because we have kind of some demonstrative cop's notes in highlighting. I just wanted to introduce a clean copy of city's exhibit three into evidence. So admit. So just so I understand, because this sort of went in a few different directions. What the city's alleging is a violation here is that there's an easement between the two properties and inside that easement is a fence and vegetation that the city believes can't be there under the coach. Is that essentially what you're arguing? Yes. Just to be clear, I believe, and Mr. Manos can correct me if I'm wrong, that the fence relates to 1260. Is that? I don't know who the fence belongs to. Okay. But I was informed that it's in the easement. So the code section you cited refers to vegetation. Is that what you're concerned about? Yes. It's vegetation. One moment. Can you move before I tell me? So compliance in this case would be the removal of the vegetation that is in the easement. Okay. I understand. So anything further? Not at this time, I believe. No, not at this time. No. Mr. Rice, come on up. It's your turn. So the city tells me that there's an easement here and you have stuff in the easement and they think that's a violation. And you say what? I would like to say that Mr. Fernandez has been nothing but a courtesy, professional, and we appreciated his manner in which he approached the situation. That's good to hear. The only thing, and please, this is a very emotional thing for me because my wife has worked like a Trojan to do what was right and what happened when the builder was granted access to what is now known as 1260, which was a parking lot. Okay. There was, my wife has always taken photos of our homes and everything which I have, which I think is germane because the property, when we purchased the property, had pine trees separating the parking lot from us and there was a fence on the property that marked the demarcation between the two properties. When this project was approved by the city, it was, they invited us to look at the situation virtually and I asked if I could meet with the builder who was kind enough to allow his time to meet with me. He then stated that the pine trees, even though they were for the most part on our property, he was going to cut the roots on 1260 property, therefore destroying the pine trees, which I have photos of, if I may show you. Can we show them to the city attorney first, please? I'm sorry? You need to show them to the city attorney first. This doesn't bore you. It's in four. Are you behind yours? This is our fence that we had. Okay. This is what we inherited. This is his dirt. Okay. This, this, this lot was like three to four feet below sea level. When there was a high tide, we got to watch the fish in the parking lot. Okay. So, he, he had to put in an unbelievable amount of, uh, fill. You can see here. I should, I could have brought samples. By the way, not that it's germane. We went to, uh, we have a lawsuit, uh, against the builder and, uh, we met with settlement two weeks ago. And it's way beyond the scope of this. Yeah. I mean, I, I, I, here, here, well, I, I, I, here, well, I, I, I, I, I, here, well, I, The easement is the FD, he's the easement of e-ah. The easement is the and hour. bilicals of e-ah, not yet. I said the不過-abers, he's but SME, TL by tidak. It was therió. It's all about the, the, to the building, uh, we met with settlement two weeks ago. And, uh, it's, it's way beyond this of this. Yeah, I, I mean, I, I here. Well, well, well, I. Uh, this Well, I believe it's an easement for public use. So even though, I have to go back to double check that, but I thought that's what it was for. Utility use. Why not just let the FDEP enforce its own easement? I believe it's Exhibit 3. I provided you with a copy of it. Yeah, I'm looking. That, you know, where we, and we'll go up here. You can kind of see it where we have highlighted where the easement is. If you look in the first column to the left under the dedication section, just before where it says the 23rd of December, there's language in there that says the drainage easement, as shown hereon, is hereby reserved for the owner of Lot 2, the successors and assignees, and for drainage purposes, and in the maintenance obligation of the owner said Lot 2, their successor and assignees without recourse to the city of Delaware Beach. So this is also a drainage easement. Okay, so it's your easement too. All right, so why am I concerned about the palm trees, Mr. Rice? The palm trees were the buffer between the two properties, sir. And when the builder came in and told us that he was going to remove those roots and kill the palm trees, he agreed to replace them with other foliage that we had agreed to. I'm not disputing these at all. That's not my point. My point is that the builder came in fully knowing about the easement. And by the way, the actual pipe is not on our property. The actual pipe is on 1260s, not on our property. The fence is what the builder put in after. Unless I misunderstand, the city's not arguing about the fence today. They're arguing about the vegetation that's in the easement. Our vegetation is on our side of the fence that we've replaced at a cost of $30,000 after the builder destroyed it. Now, I understand that's not the issue. However, I think there's situations that the city should have been aware of because we called the city two, three times, and they never mentioned anything except the fact that the city was not responsible for anything. That I understand. The thing I'm saying is that... Mr. Rice, I know you're not a lawyer, so let me see if I can help you by clarifying what my role is. I'm not a judge, and so I don't hear all aspects of a case. I'm a special magistrate for the purposes of code enforcement, so my role is actually pretty limited. My job is to listen to the evidence and read the code sections and decide whether the evidence presented constitutes a violation of the code section. If it does, I enter a corrective order. If it doesn't, I dismiss the case. And so for me, the only real issue here is, has the city presented facts that establish that a violation has occurred? I really can't get into the other stuff. I certainly can't get into whatever dispute you have with the builder, because I'm not a judge. It's just well beyond. So in this particular case, my understanding is what the city is alleging is that they own an easement, which I think is indisputable based upon the documents they've given me, and they're saying you've got stuff in their easement, and they don't want it there. The easement is five feet from the pipe. Both sides. Ms. Warren, did I correctly characterize what you're arguing? That is correct. Better than I can. Okay, so the defense that you have to present is either that the easement is not valid, which I think would be a hard one since it seems to be pretty clearly valid, or that you don't have stuff in their easement, or that the stuff that you have in the easement is allowed. That would be a defense, but, you know, the builder did you wrong. I don't disagree with you. Maybe they did. It's not a defense here. Do you understand? No, I understand. The defense is not our offense, however. They're not arguing about defense. They're just saying the vegetation. I suspect that, you know, I don't know this, but my suspicion is there may be another case against somebody else that has something to do with the fence. I don't know. But in your case for your property, what they're alleging is that the vegetation that you have that's aligning that fence is in their easement, and it's preventing them from the use of their easement. I understand that. Had the city made us aware, we certainly wouldn't go into the expense of the trouble of allowing him to cut down the pond. I understand your position quite clearly. However, we... It sounds like you have a pretty good legal dispute with somebody. Not that I give legal advice. I am right. I will tell you this. The city got conned in the sense that the builder declared bankruptcy, never paid his subs. I don't know about that, but I did want to make one clarification. We talked about it. You know, the city, the plat's for the use, but it's technically, it's not DEP. I just wanted to make sure it's clear. It's for the use of the owners of the plat without regard to the use of the city, as I stated earlier. So I just wanted to put that on the record. But I think you well summed up where we are with the argument. I don't know what other side dispute he has with the builder or that, but we're just here for purposes of this violation. What is the city asking for here? So we're asking for the property owner to remove the vegetation from the drainage easement or pay within 14 days or pay a fine of $250 daily until compliance is achieved. Mr. Rice, what the city is asking me to do is give you 14 days to remove the vegetation from the easement. 14 days is a small amount of time. I'm willing to give you a larger amount of time. And what I can't do is I can't let you continue to put stuff in the easement. I understand the easement situation quite clearly. You explained that perfectly to me. However, if there's not a problem with that drainage problem, why would we have to remove something that's not necessary at this point? I can't speak to what is necessary for proper drainage. That's well beyond my scope. But they're entitled to have the easement, as it's written here, clear of debris, trash, vegetation, and other things. That's what they're... I mean, fundamentally, what you're asking is for the city to give up some of the rights that it has. And the city may well want to do that. They may choose to do that. They may negotiate to do that. But for me, that's pretty simple. It's whether or not, you know, whether or not they have the easement... I don't want to waste any time. You're not wasting my time. I appreciate that. However, I am not about to remove something that may or may not be a problem for the city. If it is a problem for the city, I understand it's my responsibility. The city then will tear down 1260's fence, belongs to them. And they, of course, we will then have to tear down all that. Ms. Warren, you said that he had an attorney at some point? I did. And his attorney... Is there a legal argument of some kind that Mr. Rice doesn't understand how to make? Because I haven't heard the defense yet. I don't... Based off what he's stating, it sounds more of an equitable, it's not fair, I want to keep my trees unless there is a pending issue where they need to access the easement. But that's not how the easements work. The easement is... You need to be able to access the easement. It's a property right. Yeah, I have a question. So that, you know, I don't specifically see. I recall from the language of the email from the attorney, he felt like his client could well and capably handle this matter on his own and say that he would not be here. Mr. Rice, honestly, I wish you had brought your attorney. That's what it takes, too. But the only thing I'll say is why would the city have not stated that when that fence went up that that fence shouldn't have been put up in the first place? I mean, that was just done upon the completion of the 1260. We certainly wouldn't have gone to the expense of the trouble of putting in all that vegetation on our side of the fence had this matter been brought up properly at that time. And, you know, I don't want to discuss other matters with other property owners at this time. We'd just like to stay to the 1230 issue. Do you have a copy of the ordinances in question because they're not in my book? The ordinance, do you have it? If not, I could pull it up. It's highlighted, if that's okay with you. I'm sorry, Mr. It's fine. No, but this isn't the official. He wants the official ordinance. I just want to make sure I'm enforcing the right law. It's not the whole code section. It's just for purposes of this, correct? Whatever portion that you're relying on. Can you talk about the agreement? One moment. Can you take a brief recess? I believe Mr. Rice wanted to tell me something. If you wouldn't mind. No, I don't mind. Let's take five. If we can go off the record. So what we're requesting at this time, I've spoken. We're back on the record, correct? We are. Luana Warren for the City of Dollar Beach. I have spoken to Mr. Rice during the recess, and it appears as if he wants to further discuss this with his attorney, this matter separately with the Banyan House. So what we're willing to do is based on his assertion and discussing with staff, we're willing to see if you will agree to a 30-day postponement so that Mr. Rice would have the opportunity or to do a, either, I don't want to postpone the hearing. Maybe if we could do a 30-day, if you can make a finding and then do a 30-day imposition of any sentence or fines in 30 days to see where we are. I'm not sure what would be. I don't want to just not go forward or continue the case because we've already had the whole hearing. Yeah, I mean, I think the evidence is already presented, so a finding probably makes sense at this point. Mr. Rice, what I'm inclined to do here is to make a finding that a violation of at least 100.01C exists, which is the infringement upon the city's utility right away. What I won't do is I won't assess a fine at this time. What I'll just do is I will reset this for a hearing in 30 days for fine assessment if necessary, and that will give you and the city a month to figure out if there's a way you can resolve this without me having to fine anybody, okay? I appreciate that. All right, so in case... Wait, he's gone. He has to do the order. Yeah, I have to do the order. In case code 2500269, I make the following findings of fact on life. I know this is sufficient to find the property in violation of code section. 100.1C. I give the respondent 30 days to bring the property into compliance. In the absence of compliance, a fine may be issued, but I withhold on that at this time. Set for fine assessment hearing after 30 days. Sorry, I think I'm going to have to write that one up different. I want to call the next one. 0-0-0-1-2-1. Bonus name, Christopher W. Incraft Key. Property address, 126 Seabreeze Avenue. And the case will be presented by Code Officer LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. I'm Code Officer LaToya Thompson with the City of Delray Beach. I'm here for a noncompliance case regarding nonpayment of a fine. Right before you. Is there anyone here on behalf of this case? Okay. Go ahead. This case was originally found to be an irreparable, irreversible violation on July 28, 2025 for erosion and sediment control methods. On August 8, 2025, the ruling was a one-time fine in the amount of $3,500 to be paid within 30 days or a lien will be placed on the property. On September 23, 2005, a magistrate order inspection was conducted and it was observed that the fine was not paid. On September 24, 2025, I posted the property. On the same day, a notice of noncompliance was mailed first class, certified mailed and posted in City Hall. As of today, which is November 5, 2025, the fine remains outstanding. I have one new photo to introduce as evidence and four previously shown photos from the initial hearing. Thank you. So these are the previously shown photos that you discussed, Ms. Thompson? Yes, ma'am. All right. So now I'm showing you as my previously marked as City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. Do you recognize this? Yes, ma'am. And what is it? That's the noncompliance hearing notice. All right. And that's a fair and accurate representation of what was posted on the property? Yes, ma'am. At this time, the City would like to introduce City's Exhibit 1 into evidence. With that objection, so admitted. Thank you. So what is the recommendation you have, Ms. Thompson? That the property be lien for the amount of $3,500. For a failure to pay the fine in time, correct? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And just to double, just to make sure, please confirm that you checked all city records and confirm that the fine has not been paid. I checked all city records and confirmed that the fine has not been paid. Thank you. Officer Thompson, if you have any communication with the respondent on this matter? I spoke to the contractor who was here for the initial case, and we gave him everything that he needed to pay. He did say that he didn't want to pay. He felt like it was unfair. We still just issued what he needed to pay. And as of today, it's still out of compliance. Well, still not paid. All right. Based upon the facts and evidence presented to me, I hereby assess a lien in the amount of $3,500 on the property and property owner. I think that's it, right?