We're ready. Awesome. I'd like to call this meeting into order. Can we call the roll? Yes. Wayne Pasek? Here. Stephen Butella? Here. Jimmy Canton? Here. Richard Burgess? Here. Jennifer Jones? Here. Robert Cohen? Here. Jim Vedder? Here. Thank you. Awesome. Can we take a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting? There are no minutes. Oh, no minutes. Awesome. Would you like to read the changes to the agenda? Yes. We are requesting a motion to approve the following postponed cases. 2025-001-905, 2025-20-3953, code 25-30-190, code 25-30-218, code 25-30-219, code 25-30-221, code 25-30-258, code 25-30-303, code 25-30-312, and code 25-30-318. There are two listed here that you didn't read at the end. Am I missing something? 25-0-0-0-0-0-1-2-6, and code 25-0-0-0-2-4-0. I'm sorry. Can you repeat? What are your questions? I'm going to read the last two on the postponed list. Code 25-0-0-0-1-2-6, and code 25-0-0-0-2-4-0. Thank you for letting me know. So that's code 25-0-0-0-1-2-6, code 25-30-2-4-0. Thank you. Thank you. Awesome. So we're requesting approval of the postponement. Can I get a motion to postpone? Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we postpone the cases read by the clerk. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Awesome. Okay, thank you everybody for coming to today's code board meeting. This board is empowered to hear evidence to reach finding of fact and conclusion of law for the purpose of resolving cases that come before it. A finding of a 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 levying fines. We will hear all the cases in the order that they appear on the agenda, beginning with the new violations, fine assessment cases, or status updates, and concluding with the cases for which persons are seeking fine reductions. If we can begin by having all the people who will be speaking today sworn in. Okay, I'd also want to make you aware of the cases that are closed. Hold on, hold on. Yeah, let's swear them in and then we'll go. Please, right here. Okay. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Let me repeat that. Let me correct that. By the authority vested in me, as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Awesome. We ready for the first case? Yes, that's correct. Okay, so these closed cases, we didn't read them as yet. Okay. Okay, understood. Thank you. Awesome. Go ahead and call the first case. Okay, case number one, code 2-5-0-0-0-1-9-8. Property owner is Sharon Bowden. The property address is 310 Southeast 5th Street, and the case will be presented by Code Officer LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon, board. Before we proceed, I'm going to leave. Hold on, Mr. LaRue. I'll leave. Welcome. A day like this? I'm out of here, man. Are we good? Sorry, I'm late, Mr. Chairman. That's okay. Thank you. We'll talk later. Let's go. Case one, please. Good afternoon, code board. I am Code Officer LaToya Thompson with the City of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding a right-of-way marker located at 310 Southeast 5th Street, Delray Beach, Florida. On September 3rd, 2025, I-Code Officer received a citizen complaint from the neighbor located at 318 Southeast 5th Street, Delray Beach, Florida 33483. Regarding, as you take a look, I'm going to show you and describe Exhibit 1, two cinder blocks, well, it looks like more than two cinder blocks, and a metal rod in the lower, if you look to the lower left corner of the picture, a pole with a string tied to it in those cities right-of-way. On September 3rd, I took that picture. Exhibit 2 just shows it stringing along those cities right-of-way to another end, which could have some cinder blocks, but it's covered by a similar trash can, which is a violation of Code Section 100.1, subsection E, which reads, a dome-shaped decorative marker, also known as a button marker, may be placed in the public right-of-way, provided that such markers are no longer than six inches, as you can see in the pictures. These are more than Exhibit 1, more than six inches, round surface, that's squared, also no straight edge, and separated by two feet. The property shall assume all risk and liability for such markers. The placement of a period-shaped marker or, that's anything else in Exhibit 1 and 2, similar to the marker within the public right-of-way is prohibited. So these items in Exhibit 1 and 2 are prohibited. Are they tying this off to the utility pole? Is that what I'm saying? Yeah, it's tied from the utility pole and then tied to the end of the two unprohibited markers. A notice of formal hearing was issued September 12, 2025. The notice was mailed first class, certified mailed September 12, 2025. Compliance date was required October 21, 2025. A certified confirmation of receipt was received September 29, 2025. A regular mail was not returned. It was posted at City Hall September 12, 2025. A re-inspection prior to hearing was conducted November 5, 2025. As of the glass re-inspection, the violation still exists. Exhibit 3 and 4 are my re-inspections, and as you can see, it just shows that the violation still exists. Exhibit 4 is a different angle, but the violation still exists. I have contacted the property owner. Actually, she contacted me first to acknowledge that she did receive the notice. It wasn't posted to the property due for safety reasons. Does she have a reason? Yep. She's here. Oh, she's here. Awesome. I'm here. Awesome. So, if we can have the motion, I believe she has to introduce the photos. Oh, and I have four photos, as you can see, taken of the property in question. I would like to introduce these photos as evidence. Mr. Chairman, I move that we admit the four photographs provided by the inspector as evidence of the condition of the property and the violation. Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. My turn? Yes, ma'am. I've been trying to get no parking signs put up there since at least June of 2023. The city passed an ordinance saying that it is no longer appropriate to park in the swales. This ordinance is not being enforced anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. This is my way to keep people from parking off of the swale. I am told that I cannot fence that property, I cannot build on it, I cannot charge you and Florida Flickr and Flash rent for using it, although it is my property and my responsibility to maintain it. That's temporary. I will remove it when three new parking signs have been put up and you people start taking care of your swale. Otherwise, I am abandoning that piece of property to you people today, and it is your problem. I am not responsible for it in any way. You guys redid our neighborhood, and now there's a gully there. I have a height discrepancy in my legs. If I fall and get hurt on that, your little $300,000 deal is not going to cover the repairs to my leg, because the last time it took three years to get it fixed, and it's well over a half a million dollars now. This is your problem, not mine. I have been very polite about going for the no parking signs. They're all over the neighborhood. There's three of them by Jim Shard's house. I don't know why he has them, and I can't get them. This is extremely discriminatory, and I am not taking care of your property that has Florida power and lights, which you can see in that picture. There are little things there. The reason I put that up also was because we have a ton of construction in this neighborhood. Yesterday, I had to call the police because three cement trucks and another truck had Southeast 5th Street completely blocked off. If you people cannot make it so that these roads are passable and the construction people are only on the property they're working on, then stop issuing permits. Don't issue permits for three houses at the same time. And please, code enforcement, enforce the trash being picked up in front of those houses. I'm going to object to relevance at this point. Yeah, let's just stay on this case right now. Okay, well, the problem is that if I don't get the parking signs, I'm going to Channel 5. I'm tired of getting crapped on by you people. The last time I was up here, you gave me 60 days to get my fence fixed. If she hadn't come out and helped me, there is no way I could have gotten it done by myself in the middle of the summer in six months, never mind 60 days. I told you before, I am on a limited income. I'm the only one there. And nobody is available to help those of us who served our country and now are alone. And I'm sorry, that's your property. Put no parking signs up and force it. We have no police patrols. They need to be out there because if the no parking signs go up and somebody parks there, I'm going to put a chain up. And stop issuing ordinances that nobody is ever going to enforce. I count at least 15 to 20 cars every morning when I walk parked in the swale. And you know what the cops have told me? Not their job. So if it's code enforcement's job, let's hire 150 of them, give them their own building, their own cars, so that 24-7 they can go out and write code violations for parking in a swale that the city should be taking care of and is not. Yes, ma'am. But I'm done trying to fight with you people about this. It either, you put the no parking signs up, you send parks and rec out to take care of it. But as you can see here, they've killed most of the grass in the median because they do such a spectacular job. And it or I am abandoning it to the city, and you guys can notify the county so they can take it off my tax bill. But it belongs to the city. If I can't build on it, fence it, or charge you guys rent, it's not mine. And it's not my responsibility, and I'm not liable for it. Three no parking signs. Real easy. Real easy to get it fixed. Well, I'm sorry, I thought you were done, ma'am. I'm sorry, if you're not. Ms. Warren? I was just going to say, I hear her argument regarding the code itself or her frustration with what's happening. But I just want to stick it to what's relevant here. What's relevant is the violation and the facts and the code of ordinances. Your role as the board is to listen to the facts, listen to the testimony, and to decide whether a violation occurred. In this particular case, we have evidence that those items placed in the area are outside of the code of ordinances of what would be approved. There are certain items that can indeed be placed in there, and it's dome-shaped, I think six inches high. Ms. Thompson eloquently displayed the code to you all. So I think, you know, the issue is whether or not this is a violation of the code and the city's position that it is in violation of the code, and I think that's your role is to weigh that. Agreed. May I add something? Several houses down the street, there are sticks that are this high in the swale, and another house down the other way has a no parking sign that they have put in. So they are also in violation, and I don't see them here today, which means that, once again, I'm getting discriminated against by the city. I told you, it is temporary. I will take it down once the snow parking signs go up. And I don't consider it a code violation. I consider it protecting myself. Understood. What does the city recommend? The city recommends that the cinder blocks, the ropes, and anything else that is prohibited in the right-of-way be removed within seven days or a daily fine of $50 a day, be assessed to the property until compliance is achieved. Anybody have any questions? I do have a question. So the reason why, thank you for your testimony, Mayor. The reason why you put up this rope is to stop people from parking? To stop people from parking there. Yeah, because we have all these construction vehicles. When they were building the abortions on either side of me, the construction people dug all that stuff up and left all the dirt on the sidewalk and wherever they were and apparently thought I was going to take care of it. And I told them the next time they did that to please bring their mother because I was not their mother. And now we have a ton of houses that way, that way, and that way that are being built with construction people that have taken down street lamps, that have ripped up all the swale, and I don't want them there because then I'm going to hear. The main issue is that people are parking on your private property or putting their vehicle there. They can't park there now. Right. They won't park there now. This is something, I don't know if something that the city is aware of. This is irrelevant to the case, frankly. I mean, just this is, I hear you, but there are other ways to deal with it. But right now, this is unapproved. So I just want us to stay focused on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I empathize with you, and I do recall you appearing before this board in the past. Right. I've heard an awful lot, again, of statements towards the board. And I'd like to let you know that we're all volunteer residents on the board serving you and ourselves. And I'm talking, and what I'd like to say is I, too, happen to live in the city area. And I'm experiencing a situation where two houses next to me have been constructed and torn down. And I'm experiencing a Pike gas company ripping up my swale and breaking my sidewalk. And I am experiencing AT&T ripping up my yard and leaving stuff across it. And I'm experiencing calling the city of Delray and asking them to have construction trucks moved out of the common area. And I know what they've said to me, and I know what my yard looks like when I'm done. So I would like to tell you that I've heard your testimony. What? You're a little beyond the... No, I'm not. And what I'm saying is I understand what you're saying. However, as long-time citizens, we have to communicate with the city. And, okay, I'm talking still. And when we communicate with the city, there's a lot of things. You're right. A lot of these things are problems for you and for your property. And so we have to react in a way that is not also doing something that's against the rule because we've been wrong, too. And I don't have a problem saying, yeah, I've experienced it myself, sir. So, however, my wife and I, we're not alone. We're together still. And we have had to approach the city. And we found that by approaching the code board, they've helped us get through almost every one of our problems. And I'm not saying that they did the best thing for you. But we're here because we want to see the code enforced. And we don't want to see you or your property abused. So, and that's my answer to your testimony. And I serve on this board. I was appointed to do so as a citizen. I've heard you. But this board is now probably going to have to consider whether or not that yellow stripe with the cement blocks is according to the code because that's the only thing. Let me finish. That's the only thing we are here to do. But I will encourage you as a fellow citizen to finish your communication with the head of the code board because, our code department, because I know they do care about us as citizens. Thank you. Would you like me to read a section of the letter that I got from him? It's your option to testify. Okay. Vehicles being parked on swales. Request of no parking signs with no response from city. Dated June 20th, 2023. For going on three years now, I've been trying to get the no parking signs up. We're told that they're unsightly, yet they're all over Delray Beach. All over. Many of them within two blocks of my house. Code enforcement staff spoke with planning and zoning division and approved permits were revised. Nope, that's not it. Public Works Department is working on an ordinance that if passed will prohibit parking in swales. This will significantly reduce sign pollution in neighborhoods, never mind the light pollution we have in the neighborhoods, and give the Delray Beach Police Department, fat chance, and parking enforcement, fat chance, greater flexibility to address this concern. This is being done specifically because of issues in Osceola Park neighborhood and on the Barrier Island. And so far, here we are. I put it up because they wouldn't put up the no parking signs. Now, what would you like me to do? Would you like me to go to the city council, get down on my hands and knees, and beg them for it? Well, no. I don't think you should demean yourself in any way. Well, that's what you're making them do here. But I will say that that's a very impressive communication. It doesn't seem like they're addressing your needs. No, they're not. Mr. Chairman. And that's from 1923. That's almost two years ago. Yes, Jimmy. I'd like to make a motion. Please. With respect to case number 000198, I move for finding a fact in conclusion of law that there is good notice of violation of the improper objects. Right-of-way marker. In the marker in the right-of-way. Exists on the property. The offending party shall correct all violations within seven days or pay a fine of up to $50 per day for each day thereafter for noncompliance. The resident shall immediately notify a 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 noncompliance. A lien of the daily amount shall be imposed on the property. Second. All in fiber? Aye. I abandon that property to the city. It is no longer my responsibility. I am not liable for anything that happens on it. Excuse me? We've all heard you respect and understand your concern. Okay. Okay. So, I used to live in your neighborhood. Yeah. I, the old Osceola Park 10 years ago. You mean, now it's Boxiola Park. Now, I like it. No, it's horrible now. So, it's lost its charm in what it was, I understand. I understand the traffic. There's always been traffic issues there and swale parking issues, especially when there were rehab facilities in that neighborhood. They're still there. It was always difficult, but the thing is that everything you say, I agree with. The problem is, what bothers me the most is that violations will be addressed. You can't give a violation to someone when other violations exist. Are they gone? Are you gone? Wait. The only thing I would like to recommend is you have the ability, you're well-spoken, please email your city manager. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm a dinosaur. The email does not exist in my life. Okay. Well, then. I have a telephone. That's how I do business. Write a letter. Write a letter. Or even go to your commission meeting. Because usually at commission meetings, you have the heads of all the departments, including police. And you're given three minutes. That's okay. No, that's not. Okay. The ropes will be taken down today. I will not be maintaining your swale ever again. That is yours. It is not safe for me to do it. You guys maintain it. Or flatten it so that it is not anymore. That is not my property. That belongs to the city, and I expect the no parking signs to be put off. And I will be going to Channel 5. Have a great day. You're useless as usual. Thank you. Thanks, man. I just wanted to help her. Yeah, we all want to help her. She's well-spoken. Yeah, she has a vote. Case number two. Before we go. Yeah, I just want to make sure we put a button on that. So a couple of things just to keep in mind. And Mr. Patero, when I was trying to talk to you, I wasn't attempting to cast shade or anything about your experience. The board can't testify, which is to say that no one on the board is a fact witness unless you're sitting over there, right? And so we want to avoid necessarily bringing extraneous testimony in through the board. My only role here is to help you. That's fine, but I'm sorry. I think her testimony was accurate, and I think she's frustrated and not communicating. But I'm sorry, those elements of our city are accurate. That's what's going on. Look, again, my job here isn't to cast. Your job is to do judgment. My job isn't to judgment. My job is just to try and keep you in the legal safe space. And I guess we can't talk about it anymore. Right. And we can't talk about the case. It's completed. But your empathy is what you're here for. Well, that's what I was going for. No doubt about it. But you don't have to explain it. You're empathetic to her, which we all were. Okay. Right. And I think that's fine. I was just trying to get you not to do too much factual outside information. All right. Is that all? I wish I could appreciate that more than I do. Can we move to case two? Case number two. Code 25-000-206. Property owner is Jean Alexis. Property address is 206 Southwest 11th Avenue. And case will be presented by Code Officer Reggie Williams. Good afternoon. My name is Code. Enforcement Officer Reggie Williams. I am here regarding an outside storage violation located at 206 Southwest 11th Ave. On September 5th, 2025, a warning notice was issued after I inspected the property where I observed a black Toyota Yaris with flat tires on the front driver's side and on the front passenger side of the vehicle, which is in violation of Code Section 4.6.11, which states outside storage of materials, supplies, products, vehicles, and the like shall only be as allowed for within requirements of each individual zoning district. A former hearing notice was issued on September 12th, 2025. The notice was mailed first class and certified mailed on September 15th, 2025. The compliance date was required by September 22nd, 2025. On September 23rd, 2025, I re-inspected the property. A certified confirmation of receipt was received September 18th, 2025. Regular mail was not returned, posted at City Hall on September 5th, 2025, and posted at the property on September 17th, 2025. A re-inspection prior to hearing was conducted on November 5th, 2025. As of the last re-inspection, the violation still exists. I have nine photographs taken of the property in question. Exhibit 1 is a picture of the warning notice that was posted at the property of the door hanger warning notice on September 5th, 2025. Exhibit 2 shows the full black Toyota Yaris on the property. Exhibit 3 shows the front driver's side tire that's flat. Exhibit 4 shows the passenger side front tire that's flat. Exhibit 5 is a photo of the posting when I posted to the property on September 17th, 2025. Exhibit 6 is an affidavit of posting that was signed when I posted on September 17th, 2025. Exhibit 7 is my re-inspection on November 5th, 2025 that shows the black Toyota Yaris on the property. Exhibit 8 is the re-inspection of the driver's side front tire that's flat. Exhibit 9 is the passenger side front tire that's flat. I would like to introduce these photos as evidence. Ensure that the city has provided nine exhibits regarding case number 25-000206 be submitted into evidence. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Pictures are in. They moved it, yeah. They did move it. Thank you. Just for a clear information. Yes, that's what I said. It was posted September 15th at City Hall, but I posted on the property September 17th. Does the city have a recommendation? The city suggests that the property owner be granted 10 days to remove or repair the vehicle or face a fine of $50 per day until the violation is corrected. And Mr. Chair, if you wouldn't mind, see if any of you are here. Is there anybody here for this case? Only one question. The only item that you're talking about is the problem is the automobile. There's no other storage of any kind. No, it's just the automobile, yes. Any contact with the owner? No. Or the residents of the property? No. Questions? Anybody? Mr. Chairman, I have to make a motion. Please. With respect to this case, code 25-00206. I move that we find for a finding of facts and a conclusion of law that there is good notice on the violation of outside storage exists on this property. The offending party shall correct all violations within 10 days or receive a fine of $50 a day for each day, therefore, 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 onto the property. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Case number three, code 25-000-235. Property owner is Horace and Louisiana M. Pinckney. The address is 544 Fern Lane, and the case will be presented by Code Officer Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon. My name is Code Enforcement Officer Chantel Jean-Baptiste. I am here regarding a general code violation located at 544 Fern Lane. On September the 8th, I issue a warning notice for vehicle park over landscape area. A general notice of violation was issued on September 19th, 2025, which is in violation of subsection 4, 4.6.16, subsection E, subsection 3, which states vehicle park over landscape area and the grass. Vehicle park over landscape area is prohibited. On September 19th, a notice of violation was issued. The violation was mailed first class and certified mail on October the 7th, 2025. The compliance date was required by October the 17th, 2025. On October 21st, 2025, I reinspected property. Subsequently, a notice of formal hearing was issued via first class and certified mail on October the 7th, 2025. Certified confirmation receipt was not received. Regular mail was not returned. Posted at property and City Hall on October 10th, 2025. A re-inspection prior to hearing was conducted on November the 5th, 2025. As of my last re-inspection on November 5th, 2025, the violation still exists. I have eight photos taken of the property in question. Now, I would like to introduce these photos as evidence. Exhibit 1 is the warning notice that I had issued and gave them five days to comply. The owner of property did make contact and stated they would be in compliance. On the 19th, Exhibit 2, on the 19th of September is when I re-inspected the property after a warning was issued. It was not in compliance, so the vehicle is over the landscape area. The driveway is clear for parking. Exhibit 3 is the second photo showing the whole property and the vehicle's parking on landscape. Exhibit 4 is when I posted the notice of violation on October the 10th, 2025. Exhibit 5 is the affidavit of posting when I posted the notice of violation on property on October the 10th, 2025. Exhibit 6, I re-inspected the property October 21st, 2025. The landscape is disappearing more and more, dying or removed. Exhibit 7 is my last re-inspection, November the 5th, 2025. And Exhibit 8 is a second angle of the violation on November 5th, 2025. These are my eight photos as evidence. Can I get a motion to put the pictures in? So moved. We include the Exhibit's eight photographs, including the ones of papers, showing the condition of the truck park not on the driveway, which is a violation. Second, please. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Pictures are in. And the city suggests seven days to remove the vehicle off the landscape area or $50 daily fine and tilling complaint. Have you talked to the homeowner? I have. Anyone here? And? When I issued a warning, the wife and the husband reached out to me via phone. The husband was very upset, stating, why am I telling him what to do? But the wife stated she will come in compliance. So when I re-inspected on the 19th of September, the vehicle was not moved off the landscape area. That's why I proceeded with a notice of violation. Because it almost looks like they trimmed the landscape area to prepare. I wanted to see that earlier. The earlier photograph, the area where the truck is parked, looked different than what it looks there in this, the last eight, seven, and eight. Photograph number one, exhibit one. Yeah. Right there. They cleaned up some of the grass that's in it, but it's still just dirt, right? So is dirt considered part of the landscaping? Yes. Yes. Because then we need a permit to extend the driveway. Yeah, just for clarification, because there's no permit on file for any type of driveway extension, correct? No, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Is anyone here? Anyone here for this case? Questions, anybody? I'll entertain a motion. I'll have a motion. Please. In respect to this case, code 2500235, I moved for a finding of facts and a conclusion of the law, that there is good notice, and a violation of code 4.6.16, subsection E, subsection 3 of the landscape regulation vehicle and brooch, that it exists on this property. The finding, the offending party shall correct all violations within seven days, and, or pay a fine of $50 a 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 onto the property. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, ma'am. Case number 4, code 25000283, property owner, Mamie Rhodes. Property address is 567 Lawrence Road. The case will be presented by Code Officer Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon. My name is Code Enforcement Officer Chantel Jean-Baptiste. I'm here regarding a general code violation located at 567 Lawrence Road. On September 29th, I inspected the property where I observed outside storage of building materials, plywood, buckets, and similar items, which is in violation of Code Section 4.6.11, which states it shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of residential building to utilize the premises for building material. A general code violation was issued on September 30th, 2025. The violation was mailed first class and certified mail on October the 3rd, 2025. The compliance date was required by October the 13th, 2025. On November the 5th, I re-inspected the property. Subsequently, a notice of formal hearing was issued. The first class certified mail on October the 3rd, 2025. Certified confirmation of receipt was not received. Regular mail was not returned. Posted at property and city hall on October the 10th, 2025. A re-inspection prior to hearing conducted on November 5th, 2025. As of my last re-inspection on November the 5th, 2025, the violation still exists. I have eight photographs taken of property in question. I would like to introduce these photos as evidence. Exhibit 1, this photo was taken on September 29th, 2025, of the full property from the street. I took this photo. Exhibit 2, I took from the street view at a different angle to show all the outside storage and trash located on the driveway of the property. Exhibit 3 is a closer photo of all the outside storage of building material, trash, and similar items. Exhibit 4 is when I posted the notice of violation on the property on October the 10th, 2025. Exhibit 5 is an affidavit of posting when I posted on property October 10th, 2025. Exhibit 6 was my last re-inspection on November the 5th, 2025. Exhibit 5, second photo taken on November 5th, 2025, closer photo to see the outside storage on the driveway of the property. I'm sorry, if you can go back, I just want to make sure what they're numbered. So go back, the bottom one. Exhibit 8, Exhibit 7. Okay, so 7. Okay, I just want to make sure it was ordered. Exhibit 6, Exhibit 7, photo taken on November 5th, 2025. Exhibit 8, closer photo, November 5th, 2025. And 6, 7, and 8 still show the outside storage items that are in violation that you previously listed, correct? If we can have a motion. Awesome. Can we put pictures in? Mr. Chairman, I move that we admit the documents and pictures submitted by the city as evidence. Exhibits 1 through 8. Second. In case, I'm sorry, let me finish the case number, 25-000-283. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Pictures are in. And the city suggests 7 days to remove all outside storage and trash within 7 days or $100 daily fine until in compliance. Go ahead, Jim. Contact the homeowner? The homeowner made contact with me once via phone. He stated the reason the outside storage was there is because he was ill and he'll be working on it. But as I'm doing the re-inspection, I don't see any improvement. So the case has to continue. Thank you. Is any of this material anything other than garbage or debris from demolition? You say building material, but it doesn't look to me like usable building material. Is it something if, for example, if they had a dumpster and all this was in the dumpster, would that be okay? If it's in the dumpster and secured, it would be okay. But the driveway is not clear. It's trash and outside storage. Because there's dollies, mops, carpet, buckets. It's numerous items. Oh, because there's some items besides what I'd call garbage or trash. Yes. Right, and just for clarification, there's no pending building permit or anything that will allow them to, even temporarily. When I checked, there was nothing. Thank you. If there was a building permit, would there be some leeway for, I mean, obviously you've got a building going on. You've got to store the material someplace. But it's not on the driveway. It would have to be stored. It would have to be screened. Correct. Anybody here for this case? And it's ongoing. It's just not like one day, right? It's ongoing. If you look at the photographs, it's consistently. It's been there. It seems like it goes, without a doubt. Okay. Questions or a motion? Is the owner in the business of construction? Do you know? Not to my knowledge. All right, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion in respect to case number 25000283. I move for a finding and fact and conclusion of law that there is good notice and that the violation of outside storage exists on the property. The offending party shall correct all violations within seven days or pay a fine of up to $100 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 property 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. Second. All in favor. Any questions? All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, ma'am. Old business case number 518-111674. Property owner is Roger Cope. The property address is 701 Southeast 1st Street. The original officer on this case was Thomas Storey. However, the case today will be presented by Code Officer Delinda Witkowski. Good afternoon, board members. Good afternoon, assistant city attorney and all those that are present. I'm here regarding an old business that is located at 701 Southeast 1st Street that was originally found on violation on August 9th of 2018 for interior alterations and interior demo without a permit. The property owner was given 14 days to comply, or a daily fine of $250 was to be imposed. On October 10th of 2019, a lien in the amount of $90,500 was authorized by the code board to be recorded against the property. The property was placed in compliance on October 12th of 2020, and one month later, on November 12th of 2020, the owner of the property asked the code board for a lien reduction. The motion was made by the board granting a lien reduction of $10,000 if paid within 60 days. The lien was not paid. The property owner is here once again asking for a lien reduction. All set? All set. All right. For the record, Tom Stanley, McMillan and Stanley, 33 Northeast 4th Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida, attorney for Roger Cope. The respondent and homeowner is also here to testify as well on this matter. This is an old case. It's, you know, working with the client to try to resolve some issues with his family planning and whatnot. The lien's $90,500. The timeline that the city has presented is correct. The applicant, the respondent, will make some comments, but, you know, we're here to obviously have the lien reduced. Since that time, this is the applicant, the respondent's homestead. It's his primary residence. The board should note that it's not investment property. It's not an office. It's not commercial. It's not a strip center. It's not a restaurant. A lot of things that you all are used to dealing with. But, you know, respectfully, with regard to the board order that was issued around 11-17-2020, when the lien was reduced to $10,000, the applicant didn't have the, or the homeowner didn't have the funds to pay that timely. He'll comment on that a little bit. But, again, we're here for the lien reduction and, obviously, maybe a request for a payment plan. Mr. Cope? Mr. Chairman, make some comments. Board, for the record, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, and everybody else sitting on the Code Enforcement Board, thank you for serving, first of all. And, for the record, Roger Cope, 701 Southeast First Street. 39-year resident of Delray Beach. I'm a historic preservation architect. I've been doing this. This is my passion. This is my vocation. This is my business. I've been doing it for 39 years. This is a 100-year-old home, which led to the work that I conducted that's in question. And without getting into details about that, I was unable to pay the $10,000 reduction that your previous board was kind enough to offer. It's taken me this long to accumulate those funds. I have those funds. We're willing to pay that if you find it in your heart and compassionate enough to reinstate that ruling. We've got the funds available. It can be paid within 60 days. We'd rather not go into a scheduled payment. But if you can agree to the $10,000 fee for the second and final time, we have that check. We're ready to write it and pay it to the city. We've been in compliance for forever. And so Lynn Jelen and the city attorney's office, and as you stated, Wayne, early at the beginning of the day, you know, the objective here is to be in compliance, not to be punitive. And so it's hard to write a $10,000 check for something of this nature. But we're – so thank you very much. The staff has the recommendation. Lynn Jelen. Okay, the city suggests to reduce the lien to $45,250 to be paid within 30 days. If not paid within the 30 days, that the lien will revert back to the original amount. When we – the first fine reduction, we reduced it to – From $90,500 to $10,000. Okay. And now you want $45,000. $45,250. And what was the date of the first lien reduction again? The first lien reduction – That was 11-17, sorry, 2020, the city can confirm. Yeah, I was just double-checking the board order. That's correct. And the board order says – yeah, that was the date it was executed. Please. Thank you for being here for 39 years. You've seen a lot of changes. I'm sorry. I said thank you for being here 39 years. You've seen a lot of changes. Yeah. And thank you for working with historical homes because there's a lot of effort that goes into the preservation of them. I like to follow historical homes. It's pretty cool. And you've got a great attorney, by the way. You're a great guy. I can understand financial hardship for a small business owner. We all go through them as small business owners. You're a small business owner. But from the time that you originally had your reduction, I can understand health issues, something happened. Did you contact anyone within the city to say, hey, guys, I'm having an issue, and, you know, I want to address this? I had casual conversations with the city attorney's office, but nothing. It's always good, and I always tell everyone, is have it in black and white. Everyone in the city is compassionate, and I feel our board is with helping people. And are you comfortable with the terms of the $10,000 and making the payment in 60 days where if the board's to work with you, we're not going to have egg on our face? That's what I'm concerned about. I promise you. I'm under oath, Mr. Burgess. Understood. And also, I've known Mr. Cope a long time, and if it helps the board, if we have an issue, obviously my firm will advance it as part of our billing and cost advance for the client. If you agree to the $10,000, thanks. That's it. I don't know for other questions. Can you have a question? Sure. In the brief that's been shared with us, it speaks of administrative oversight, why the fees have accrued this far, but that was handled with the initial when the reduction was placed. So how does that have any relevance to why it hasn't been paid? No. Oh, it's taken. Okay. I'm just looking at the document that's going to answer. No, no. I'm just saying no. I'm just saying no. Okay. Well, my question to the board is, do we have leeway to go somewhere between where the parent dependency initially was and where the city wants? So I, you know, the board, it's up to your pleasure, and if Mr. Raggin, you can chime in. She was looking at me, so I don't know. No, you can say no reduction at all. You can say you can do what he's asking for. You can do what the city wants. You can go somewhere in between. It's up to the board. The only thing that I would say that has been five years since the last board order, I understand that he's coming in here. You know, on one hand, he's saying he's got it today, and then he's saying 60 days. So, you know, I'll leave it up to the board's discretion, but I think 60 days is a bit long when we're this far. Yeah, I mean, we're open to any term of payment that the board agrees to. It doesn't have to be, you know, 60 days out. So I want your discussion here today. Todd or Jimmy? I mean, you made support. I mean, seven days. It has been five years. Right. I know, Roger. I'd certainly like to see some kind of simple interest or something like that for the five years on that $10,000, just as a kind of gesture that, yeah, it was – the city went out of their way to knock this down to $10,000 and then – and give them the opportunity to pay it, and then it never happened. Right. So the city is now recommending 50% of the original fine, right? So I guess that would include some interest. So his interest was affected by the – It was. It was. So we should take that into consideration. Yeah. I'm going to say – I'm just going to object. That's just really facts, not in evidence. I mean – So just for clarity, and I apologize again, I've stepped on your – Mr. Patari again. The role of the board is to evaluate the facts of record, which is the things that have been testified to or submitted into evidence, and make a determination using your judgment. And I would agree with the city attorney that the scope of your action can be to issue no reduction at all or to reduce it in its entirety. You have that discretion that you're – but you should rely entirely on the facts of record in making that determination and your judgment. Thank you for making it clear again. It's – you know, we are a citizen-appointed board, and it's our job to consider the testimony. I have another question. Oh, go ahead. I'll make a motion when you're done. Got you. Well, I see you're ready to make the motion, but Todd brought up something of, you know, considering the fine. I've heard our philosophy, we don't really want to fine you, but are we going to be happy with leaving it at $10,000? It seems to me $45,000 is too much because we already agreed to $10,000. But we didn't really hear testimony as to – I don't understand the testimony as to why it took five years. Was there a hardship period over this time? I don't want to say what it might be, but we didn't hear it, and you're under oath. I didn't hear it. I am under oath. I didn't have the funds at that time. Okay. I have a – Okay, that's good. You gave me a reason. Sorry. It's good enough. I'm done. Thanks. I have the funds now. So you didn't have the money. I'll make a motion. And sir, practicing historic preservation the past five years in the city of Delray Beach. Five years ago, it was a wonderful business. The product out there – I made a very nice living then. And it's been very difficult to make a living practicing historic preservation in Delray the past five years. Thank you. I understand the hardship now. I didn't before. I'll make a motion. Please. I make a motion regarding this case to keep what was existing in the original negotiations back into 2020 and the fine in the amount of $10,000 against Mr. Cope. And we would give him 30 days to pay the $10,000 in full. If it's not paid in full, his attorney, Mr. Stanley, has gone on record to say he will make the payment to the city in full within 30 days for the $10,000. That's correct. Discussion? The only thing I'd like to add to that, if he doesn't do it in 30 days, it does go back to the $45,000. Attorneys will do it. Yeah. Well, if he doesn't – Yeah, you still have to – You still have to end that. It's going to revert back as part of your motion. We understand that. Yeah. Okay. Adding to my motion, it would revert back to the original $45,250. If not – That's – That's in par. It's $90,000. $90,500. The current amount of the lien is $90,500 for the red red. Second. Todd? I want to hear you. I second that. Second. So just to be clear, the motion is to honor the original agreement. If not, it was in 30 days, it goes back to the original fine amount. Exactly. Correct. No takebacks, right? We're not going back and forth after that. So it's been second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Cope. Thank you. We've got one more on here. Okay. Mr. Cope here. Case number six. 244574. Property owner is Roger Cope. The property address is 701 Southeast First Street. And the case is presented by Code Officer Delinda Witkowski. Good afternoon. My name is Delinda Witkowski. I'm a Code Enforcement Officer for Clean and Safe. I am here on an old business case at location 701 Southeast First Street. This case was originally found in violation on July 11th of 2024 for landscape maintenance. The property owner was given 14 days to comply or a daily fine of $200 per day to be imposed. On November 14th of 2024, a lien in the amount of $25,000 was authorized by the Code Board to be courted against the property. The property was placed in compliance on November 27th of 2024. The property owner is present now and is asking for a lien reduction. Again, this is the 2024 case, the same property. This one's a little bit different with regard to, you know, the testimony. One was obviously the hardship still continues, which is why we're here. The applicant, the respondent, homeowner will testify to that. And also, if I may approach, Mr. Chair, to enter some pictures into the record. Let's just say it. Yeah. And on the mic here. This is what I'm handing out here is just a picture of the property. So this is a, the yard is sort of a xeriscape type planning. And, you know, you see some of the code, in the code enforcement record, which you have, the plantings were a little bit tall, but it wasn't necessarily weeds. Obviously, in this area of town, you know, you've got Zoysa, Flortan, it's St. Augustine, it's a little more manicured. So there was a little bit of a debate at the, when this case was considered at the original hearing in 2024 between a few of the members on, you know, actually what the landscaping was. So we'll just hand out, this is, I believe, is after it was trimmed. And then Mr. Cope will continue his testimony on this one. Just a hundred-year-old property, I thought a hundred, a landscaping concept that was in harmony with a structure of that age was an appropriate way to approach the landscaping. I don't, it's a xeriscape concept. I have no irrigation system. I'm proud of that. I don't plant things that need irrigation. So, and it's a very simple photograph on the cover of this, just showing the property, which, that photo was taken at eight o'clock this morning. And I pleaded my case for xeriscape when I was before you, the last time I was before you. And it was, a couple of you agreed with it, but the majority of you didn't. I just, it's a xeriscape concept. So if I knocked everything, you know, I plant native material, nothing exotic. I'm interested in having the birds and the bees and the ladybugs and everything as habit planting within the yard. So, and I have a history of permitting things that are in the landscaping. I even took, I even filed for a permit and was granted a permit for taking out a dead tree when I first bought the property. So we're simply asking for a reduction in the fees that accumulated for a concept that, I'm the only xeriscape guy within, you know, a mile of my property. Everybody else is overly manicured, topiary-shaped trees and turf and irrigation systems and fertilization. And I'm just the opposite of that. And to me, in the code, it doesn't recognize that. It doesn't say that I can't have a xeriscape concept. But I'm doing a much, much better job of not making it look so xeriscape. Xeriscape is, I've toned it down so that apparently it's a little bit more palatable for folks. That's it. The fine is $25,000? Is that where we're at? It's $25,227.60 right now is what was a record that the code enforcement department told us. The recorded claiming lien is $25,000. But I think this is the exact amount. Delinda, what are your thoughts? So, actually, I didn't know. Did we hear what Mr. Cope wanted a reduction to? Yeah, we're seeking a reduction to, I mean, we realize there's staff time involved with this. And, you know, it costs the city time to enforce this. We're seeking a reduction to $2,500. Delinda, what are your thoughts? The city suggests to reduce the lien in the amount of $12,500 to be paid within 30 days. If not paid within 30 days, the lien will revert back to the original amount, which would be $25,000. Gotcha. Question. Does your property, and I'm driving blind on this, does your property fall under, like, an historical property in town? Like, I know there's certain properties that are deemed historical and have to be preserved. So, the city of Delray Beach has five historic districts. I'm in the Marina Historic District, which is the first national district in the city. And I was instrumental with others in establishing that national recognition. So, we are in the most premier historic district in the city. The second national district happens to be Old School Square. Is your property? I'm in that district. Classified as? Absolutely. So, everyone in your neighborhood is historical district, correct? I'm on the periphery of it, but yes. Okay. So, yours is a contributing structure for that? I have a contributing 100-year-old structure. Sure. Todd? So, then, in the historical, and once again, I'm driving blind, in the historical status, landscaping like this would be a conforming use, or it would be allowed because of irrigation and architectural and things like that? I'm driving blind. That's elective. No, that's elective. That's on me. The historic property, there's little to no obligation by a historic homeowner to abide by any special landscaping needs. Okay. This is purely elective. Yeah, I think... We're not here to retry the case. Am I right? Correct. Correct. Yeah, yeah. I was just going to clarify that, you know. Yeah, if I just make one comment, a rebuttal up, I think just the nature of the case for the code enforcement officer was probably, you know, in the most simplistic form was, I'm not going to speak for the city, but it's probably the height, you know, the overall height. You know, you get to rule her out, you're at 6 inches, 8 inches, 12 inches, if it's not in a bed. Right. I think that was the... In this case, it obviously didn't go on that long. Right. This was, you know, roughly 90 days, you have the timeline. And on that left, two seconds. We're not talking about any trees. We're not talking about any bushes. We're not talking about any significant component of the landscaping. We're talking about the field, the field, the general field, and maybe the code officer can at least confirm that. I don't have any sod. So where sod would normally be, that's the crux of the issue. A suggestion. If it's helpful, the procedural posture of the case, this board should not revisit the finding that a violation has occurred, that finding has already been made, and the time to appeal that has long since passed. With that said, it is perfectly appropriate for this board to weigh the gravity of the violation in determining a reduction of fine. Yeah. Thank you. Perfect. Jimmy? I see. It's easy. To show good faith, a $3,000 reduction, and give them 60 days. I'll hear a motion. I'd like to make a... Oh. Yeah. I want to... So you want to just reduce it from... $25,000 to $3,000. So give them a little $500 on the simple interest on top of the 10% reduction. Let's give them a break the first time. $3,000 all in. 60 days. 30? 30 days to pay. And Mr. Stanley, will you guarantee... Sure. Yeah, that's fine. Make a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to reduce the penalty from the... Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion with respect to case number 18-111-6... 24. 24. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion with respect to case number 24-4574. I move for finding a fact in conclusion of law that the violation no longer exists on the property and a motion to reduce the lien amount from $25,227.60 to $3,000. The respondent will have 30 days to pay the reduced amount or the lien will revert back to the original amount of $25,227.60. Second. Sorry. Jumping on you. That's incorrect. It's only $25,000. Yeah, the lien's $25,000. Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. Correction to $25,000. Gotcha. Down to $3,000. And we have a second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you. Have a great afternoon. Thanks so much. Thank you, guys. Thank you, everybody. Thank you for serving. We are. I want to hear what you're saying. I wanted to thank Mr. Wagner for giving me some guidance today, which I will take humbly. Thank you. Awesome. I'll take a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second. Second. Meeting's adjourned. I move to adjourn.