call this meeting to order this is the special magistrate for the city of delray beach cases will 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 over here on my left hand side the city will present its testimony and evidence first you'll have an opportunity to review any of the evidence that the city submits or ask questions of any of the city's witnesses after which time you can present your own testimony and evidence and then i will after which i'll make a decision this is a quasi-judicial hearing which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply however all testimony is taken under oath under penalty of perjury so if you're going to testify or you think you might testify or there's a possibility that you might testify and ask 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 please be seated i have the minutes of november 5th 2025 they are hereby deemed approved thank you i don't think we have anything on the consent agenda right or do we we do okay go ahead okay so cases that are closed we have code 25 000 303 code 25 000 312 code 25 000 409 and finally code 25 000 418 one additional code 25 000 367 okay that's all right go ahead okay case number one code 25 000 258 the owners are andrew emmeninger edward herwitz tabata theme rodriguez p marila torres the property address is 114 southwest 9th avenue the code officer is reggie williams why don't we just have him sit at the desk well we do have an it personnel i believe we need assistance with the microphone hello hello thank you thank you good afternoon my name is code enforcement officer reggie williams i am regarding a work without permit violation located at 114 southwest 9th avenue on september 24 2025 while conducting a routine area inspection i quote enforcement officer williams observed that a bathtub bathroom sink kitchen sink and cabinets store outside on the property upon closer inspection and review of city records it was determined that the property owner removed the bathtub and bathroom sink without obtaining the appropriate permit florida building code plumbing seventh edition section a 105.1 required states any owner or owners authorized agent who intends to construct enlarge altar repair move demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure or to erect install enlarge altar repair remove convert or replace any impact resistant coverings electrical gas mechanical or plumbing system the installation of which is regulated by this code or the cause or to cause any such work to be performed shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit the remodeling of a bathroom without an approved permit constitutes a violation of section 2.4.13 subsection b of the land development regulations of the city of dairy beach a special magistrate violations was issued on december 4th 2025 a special uh magistrate violation was mailed first class and certified mail on december 4th 2025 the compliance date was required by december 29th 2025 a certified confirmation of receipt was received december 30th 2025 regular mail was not returned the violation was posted at the property on december 4th 2025 as of the last re-inspection on december 29th 2025 the violation still exists i have four photographs taken of the property and questioning i would like to introduce these photographs as evidence i have had contact with the property owner exhibit one taken september 24th 2025 shows the bathtub and the sink outside of the property exhibit two is a different angle showing the kitchen sink i mean the bathroom sink and the bathroom tub taken in september 24th 2025. exhibit three is a photo of the posting to the property and exhibit four is the affidavit of posting and mailing this city have anything further no at this time i'd like to introduce the photographs into evidence sir can you tell me your name please uh edward herwitz you're the second owner he's not here andrew emmenegger mr herwitz you have any objections to these four photographs that the city would like to put in evidence nope that objection so admitted do you have any questions for the code officer no can i give an explanation you can um so uh we've we hired a general contractor and he has put in for the master permits um just to give you an update he uh we have a notice of commencement that we just got signed so we have a building permit when you say just got signed when when was it signed um it was signed yesterday but i we do have a a uh application for a building permit i have the number it wouldn't mean anything it doesn't mean anything okay so now we're doing a notice of commencement we'll have it approved if there's i mean that we're going to go back and forth and if there's no problems with the plans that we've made we'll have it approved i'm going to guess in the next couple weeks what's the city ask so um the city suggests that the property owner be granted 30 days to obtain an approved issued permit or face a fine of 100 per day until the violation is corrected that seems to fit your time um if you could give us uh 60 days just god forbid there's any we go back and forth with the city and we need to make alterations with the uh the um with the plans i think that would be satisfactory mass staff one question what was the date the permit was applied for december 23rd 2025 tell you what i'll give you 45 okay code 2500258 to make the flying findings a fact and life fine notice is sufficient to find the property in violation of code sections listed failure to obtain a permit for the remodel respondent has 45 days to come into compliance or a fine of up to 150 per day may issue thank you case number two code 2500341 the owner's name is giles and geraldine a scuderi the property address is 200 south ocean boulevard unit b dash 133 code officer is latoya thompson good afternoon special magistrate i'm code officer latoya thompson happy new year welcome back on september 12th code enforcement received an email from the property management company that oversees jordan del mar co condos in delray beach um the property manager stated that the owners at 200 south ocean boulevard unit b133 installed a new dock as you can see here in exhibit one it's a demolition of their old dock exhibit two also shows the demolition of their old dock and when i received the information um i went out on october 7th and took a picture of the new dock that was installed the property owner stated that they installed it without permit or permission from the property management after further research uh through epl and development service staff there was no permit applied for this violation this is a violation of the land development code section 2.4.13 subsection b work without permit building permit i have five photos to present the fifth one was the exhibit four was taken on december 18th was a um a notice of to of hearing and the exhibit five was the affidavit of posting the notice was created on october 28th however issued on december 2nd 2025 a magistrate notice was mailed first class and certified on december 2nd 2025 compliance date was required december 28th 2025 certified confirmation receipt was not received regular mail was not returned the violation was posted on originally posted on december 12 2000 december 3rd 2025 however reposted on the 18th of december as you see in exhibit four as of december 12 29 2025 a re-inspection was conducted through epl and it shows no permit has been applied for i have had no contact with the property owner however with the property management team as of today when was the last time you checked for a permit the 29th of december and there was nothing there at that time nothing does the city have anything further would you like to submit those in evidence ma'am can tell me your name please uh jerry scuderi one more time a little slower geraldine scuderi miss scuderi who do you have with you yeah vinnie biazello what are your positions or yeah so we had uh make save the the deck that you see in the photos you made the deck and you're the owner of the property yes okay and i didn't receive any of the notices because i haven't hold on one second i promise i'll i'll let you tell me what you want me to know but just procedurally do you have any objections to the photographs the city would like to put in evidence uh no because basically i think i have like the same thing i have ones prior to that so you could see how much damage there is from the termites okay so i'm going to accept those in evidence as a city's composite exhibits one through what was it yeah five five yeah one through five go ahead yeah i think i can kind of just go through some of the stuff so um you know we do a lot of development in the area i had spoken to pat lions and steve tobias here actually with the property management company before any of this had started um and in speaking with them you know as long as the dimension of of the deck didn't change um some of the structural headings and posts were i guess remained unchanged so on and so forth we didn't specifically need to pull a permit and that was direct from them the property management company was there on that day that we had discussed that so this is going back to august the 18th of 2025 um we had submitted kind of the discussions that we had talked about on the same day with the property management company along with exactly what we were planning to do now when you see the photos here you'll notice that the structural header and the actual existing post were not actually changed by the fact that we put them back in place but there was so much termite damage that some of the sistering joists could not remain so with that and in the discussion with them we decided to rebuild the actual decking itself but the post and structural headers were actually the same thing that went right back into the decking which to our understanding and discussion and like i said i do a lot of you know development in the area and speaking with them we felt and discussed with the hoa that we were going to proceed okay um property management is also here as well where uh no ma'am yes ma'am so i'd like to just again state there was nothing done outside of what was discussed we had to remove some of the decking to then replace it back together well you know i'm not a builder nor do i claim to be but it sure looks like you tore down the old dock and put in a new one i have better pictures you know to show you how much rot there was and that was i believe you i i i'm not saying it didn't need to replace the only question is does it need a i mean i i've seen replacements of fences that required a permit that did less than this sure but again that that's what i was saying is in the discussion with both steve device and pat lions we discussed not needing a permit based on you have a document from them that says that you can tear down basically everything and bring it back without a permit i mean not specifically in writing obviously like i said we were all there in the meeting the property management company was there as well one moment can i have a moment with that representations from mr steve device that that was they never had a conversation he never stated that so we would like him to come over to put that on the record of my assertion if it would allow unless they're agreeing to the violation if we were allowed for a brief reset it's your call so the city wants to contest the question about whether or not uh they agreed that you didn't need a permit so they're going to bring over the officer to testify to it um what is the assuming for a second that uh that i was going to agree that the permit was needed what was the city seeking here uh 30 days to apply for and obtain an approved issue permit or a hundred dollars fine per day until compliance is achieved it's up to you you want to wait or do you uh do you want to get the permit we have to apply for the permit that they're asking for they're saying they're asking for 30 days or a hundred dollar fine they're asking how long does it take to get a permit and it's already built it's done i don't think they decided so why don't we hear from mr device let me swear him in ready by the authority vested in me as a notary of the state of florida 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 yes thank you guys with the property located at 200 southeast ocean boulevard and just you know for memory refreshment i just want to show you a few pictures of the property the work that's done to the property that's exhibit one exhibit two exhibit three um can i just say something this must not pull down as fast as these pictures look they took it ma'am i i promise i'll give you your chance but i i have to let the city finish presenting okay do i recognize this yes am i familiar with this in no way do you recall ever having any conversations with property owners located at 200 southeast building or either the property owner that's standing here or the gentleman regarding a deck replacement no neither one of these folks look familiar i'm sorry all right hold on hold on i promise i will let you talk right i know you have to let them finish i i thought he said steve device that's why we brought steve device um that was my name i heard yes okay i don't i don't recall any of this you spoke to me from from okay i'll let you guys okay you guys are killing me here this is not a procedure we can't have a conversation back right everything that's directed to me okay but before we go there um mr tobias what is your position with the city just to be clear building administrator okay and um for general maintenance let's say of a deck is a building or a permit required for this scope of work yes so for but for but generally no but for this type of scope of work a building permit would be required yes okay thank you um mr lions could you please state your full name and um your position with the city yeah my name is patrick lions and i'm an inspector too okay mr lions you need to speak into the mic so you can get recorded my name is patrick lions i'm an inspector too i do plan review for the city of delray and are you familiar with the property located at 200 south ocean boulevard i'm not no do you recall having any conversations advising anyone that for this scope of work and just to be clear i want to show you exhibits one two and three would not require a building permit i would never say anything with those pictures would not require a building permit okay thank you i have no further you can ask questions of either of the gentleman if you'd like now well we didn't come to we we sent our builder so it was our builder who came to speak to the gentleman yes so i guess there was a day we had stopped by it was august 18th of 2025 the reason i'm saying that is because we had sent an email to tom perry who is here from the property management company so he can also attest to this if he wants or if he doesn't it doesn't matter but we had walked in mike stom myself joe farley and and pat um had come and talked to you guys about the keeping the existing uh footings of the structural decking on this specific property and then how some of the headers and the joist would work if we could keep it or if not and whether that needed a permit or not our interpretation and understanding was that we could move forward without the permit in that position and had talked to the hoa about it on that date may i ask a question do you have anything in writing from the city asserting that this type of improvement would not require a permit no that's what i was saying not specifically in writing from the city just from that discussion that day and then the email back to the hoa thank you nothing further assuming for a second that i'm going to find you need a permit and i'm going to find you need a permit how much time do you need i don't know well it's really just a question about how long will the permit take to produce because the deck's already up can i get a someone with expertise from the city tell me about how long this should take to get a permit to approve this already built deck permitting i mean yeah so typically you know you submit a permit it's going to go through zoning it's going to for a deck like this structural there's no electrical or no correct there would be two reviews typically a 10-day return so in other words you apply for the permit it comes in might take a day or two it comes back to you you upload plans anything else that's required and then it comes back to us we review again it would go through pnz maybe in civil engineering and structural review so eight ten days but there's some movements in that as well so maybe a month total you know we'll try to get it you know it could be sooner than that i'll give you 45 days i was going to say just so we can draw it up and everything that would be i think thank you all right case 2500341 i make the following findings of fact in life i notice this official found the property in violation of 2.4.13b replacing the deck docked without a permit i give the respondent 45 days to come to compliance or a fine of up to 150 per day measure good luck case number three code 25 000362 owner's name is john claristar the property address is 911 southwest 6th avenue and the code officer is reggie williams good afternoon my name is code enforcement officer reggie williams i am here regarding work without permit violation located at 911 southwest 6th avenue on october 24 2025 while conducting a routine area um inspection i code enforcement officer williams observed that a fence had been at the property located at 911 southwest 6th avenue upon closer inspection and review of city records it was determined that the property owner removed the previous fence and replaced it with a new new one without obtaining the appropriate permit this the installation of a fence without an approved permit comes to the violation of section 2.4.13 subsection b of the land development regulations of the city of delray beach a special magistrate violation was issued on november 18th 2025 a special magistrate violation was mail first class and certified mail on november 18th 2025 the compliance date was required by december 29th 2025 certified confirmation of receipt was not received regular mail was not returned the violation was posted at the property on november 18th 2025 as of the last re-inspection on december 29th 2025 the violation still exists i have 10 photographs taken of the property in question i would like to introduce these photographs as evidence i have had contact with a property owner yep exhibit one was taken august 19th 2025 this was from a previous case but it's just showing particularly what fence was located at the property before they took it down and we replaced it concerning that the previous case has anything to do with this particular violation no it's just to confirm what was there before i got it exhibit two was taken september 27 17th 2025 and it shows the side of the home to show that it was a chain link fence located there exhibit three was taken october 24th 2025 and this is the new fence that was put in place of the previous one exhibit four was taken october 24th 2025 and it shows a front the front and the side of the home showing the fence that's there right now exhibit five is the side of the home taken october 24th 2025 and it's showing uh the fence that's there now october six was taken november 18th 2025 and this is the posting that was posted at the property exhibit seventh is the affidavit of posting exhibit eight was taken december 29th 2025 this was my last re-inspection proud to hearing is it been nine it was taken december 29th 2025 and it's showing the fence that's there right now and exhibit 10 was taken december 29th 2025 and shows the side of the home with the fence at this time i'd like to introduce them in evidence is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent in this case john clearest door without objection sue admitted the city suggests that the property only be granted 30 days to obtain an approved issued permit or face a fine of 100 per day until the violation is corrected officer williams you said you had some contact with the owner what did they say i spoke with him he he assumed that he had a permit but the permit was from 2024 so he assumed that he could still use it to replace the fence but i informed him that he couldn't because it was already is it was already expired so he applied for a permit uh december december 14 2025 as of today it's on hold it needs a uh owner builder affidavit is required so no reason he couldn't get this done in 30 days no all right in case c uh c o d e 25 000 362 i make the flying findings a fact and lie fine notice is sufficient from the property in violation of cut section 2.4.13b placing a fence without a permit responded has 30 days to come into compliance or a fine of up to 100 per day issue case number four code 25 000 374 the owner's name is william r burke jr property address is 123 east atlantic avenue the code officer is connor lee good afternoon special magistrate my name is clean and safe officer connor lee i'm here regarding code case number 00 or code 25 00 374 a sign in awning requiring permits violation located at 123 east atlantic avenue this property was initially cited on october 30th 2025 by a formal former clean and safe officer as of december 11 2025 i conducted a re-inspection of the property observing the violation still exists there is a newly installed sign um for the restaurant true vegan and an unpermitted awning recovery for the existing awning on the property the unpermitted signage violates city's ordinance 4.6.7 subsection f subsection 1 signs requiring permits in the awning recovering violates city ordinance 2.4.13 subsection b that requires permits for the work done i spoke with the property representatives and the property has submitted the proper permits for the apple or the proper permit applications for the violations and they are working with city staff to come into compliance they applied for those on november 20th 2025 and then another one on december 8th 2025 a reissued formal notice of hearing was mailed first class and certified mail on december 12 2025 with the compliance date of january 6 2025 their notice of violation was posted to the property december 7th 2000 or december 22nd 2025 that's the affidavit of posting because i handed the notice of violation to them and i have two photographs or screenshots that i would like to introduce as evidence and the city suggests that the property owner be granted 30 days to continue working with the appropriate city staff to complete the permitting approval process for the submitted permit applications for the restaurant sign and the awning recovery or a daily fine of a hundred dollars shall be placed onto the property until they come into compliance thank you we have a couple more pictures or were they uh no just two this two so he was just saying he had those two that he wanted to introduce the evidence is anyone here on behalf of the respondent in this case william r burke jr seeing no one without objection i'll accept the four exhibits into evidence the city's composite exhibit one through four this 30 days is sufficient amount of time for them to bring this into compliance 30 days is it should be sufficient yes that is what the city suggests 30 days is it since they applied some time ago what november 20th yeah well what is taking so long um one of them is on hold and the other one requires an affidavit okay but no reason to believe that they couldn't get it done in 30 days as far as i know no i don't know all right in case 25 000 374 i make the following findings of fact on life i notice a sufficient to find the property in violation of 2.4.13 specifically uh an awning without a permit and a sign without a permit respond it has 30 days to come to compliance or a fine of up to a hundred dollars per day measure that's true case number five code 25 000 384 the owner's name is granite worthing llc registered agent is corporate creations network inc the property address is 32 southeast second avenue the code officer is connor lee good afternoon magistrate i am here regarding code case number code 25 000 384 a zoning certificate of use and interior alterations requiring permits violation located at 32 southeast 2nd avenue the property was initially cited on november 4th 2025 by a former clean former clean and safe officer the officer was notified of the violations through interdepartmental communication as of december 11 2025 i conducted a re-inspection of the property observing the inconsistencies between the floor plan and the layout approved by city staff and the actual layout and use of the restaurant compound noodle bar there are also inconsistencies between the approved floor plans on file in the interior structure of the restaurant the inconsistencies violate the city's ordinance 2.4.6 subsection c the zoning certificate of use is required and must be followed and the city ordinance 2.4.13 b that requires permits for the interior alterations i spoke with property representatives and they have been working with city staff to come into compliance a reissued formal notice of hearing was mailed first class and certified mail on december 17 2025 with the compliance date of january 6 2026 the notice of violation was posted to the property december 22nd 2025 and i have eight exhibits i would like to introduce as evidence so before we get into the exhibits i just want to be clear that there's two separate violations in this case yes correct yes so when we're going through the videos so that that it's clear one is for um lack of building permit for interior alterations correct and the second one is for operating outside of the approved zoning certificate of use yes okay thank you and the city is suggesting that the owners of the property be granted 30 days to apply for the approval of the interior alterations within the restaurant and apply for the approval of an updated zoning certificate of use application and if the property owner does not obtain that those documents within 30 days a daily fine of a hundred dollars shall be placed onto the property until they come to compliance okay so let's view the photographs we can't hear you oh my apologies so this is the exterior of the restaurant where there is seating um for their patrons and that is near the entrance and then right here this is an interior near the entrance oh this one was taken on november 4 2025 by previous code officer and as you can see there is a dj booth located or what looks like a dj booth located in the area um and that was not allowed per the zcu and then right here if you look at this if once we get to the floor plans you'll see that there was not an existing window for the approved files that the city had and this is just another angle of the room where some of the exterior alterations took place and then right here this is the floor plan that we have on file and as you can see some of the tables just don't match the window right here um there was an accordion style so i don't believe that it was actually there on the plans and then the booth is potentially blocking the pathway for the life safety plan as well and then this is the approved zoning certificate of use this is what the applicants applied for and asked for and then sorry and then this is what was approved by planning and zoning reviewer susie rodriguez they have a total of 147 indoor seating and indoor entertainment must meet the noise requirement section in ldr 4.5.2 and outdoor seating requires a sidewalk permit and this is sorry i was going to say based on that that is also in conjunction with whatever life life safety plan would be on file yes and on the life safety plan in conjunction with the zcu there's no indication of locations of the dj brew correct yes okay um and then right here this is the david post because i was able to speak with the representatives and hand them the notice and i would like to place these exhibits as evidence sir can you tell me your name please sure cornelio severino i'm sorry one more time cornelio severino c-o-r-n-e-l-i-o mr severino what is your position with the uh granite worthing llc i am the director of operations for the restaurant group mr severino do you have any objections to the photographs and documents the city would like to put in evidence no sir that objection so admitted does it do you have anything further um no i would just like to do you would you like me to say our suggestion again or no i think that's it okay 30 days or 100 is what you're suggesting mr serena the floor is yours uh 30 days works uh the only question we had um was on the dj booth which we removed immediately after we spoke um is on the new zcu and the life safety plan is that is not a permanent structure we actually bought something a little bit smaller that's stays away from essentially path of egress um we actually even spoke to the fire marshal to make sure that it's still in compliance the only question is um because we're already filing it is does it have to show on the plans as a permanent structure being that it's not it's only used two days yeah i can't answer that we direct we can have him connect him with staff but you think you can come into compliance in the 30 days yes well like i said everything's already been handled it's more so uh adding that feature i guess to the uh to the plans with the architect so it's just because it's like i said it's not a permanent structure it's something that is essentially put together and then removed immediately after use so we just don't know essentially how to move forward on that all right i'm going to give you the 30 days and i i would definitely advise you to talk to staff sometimes it takes a little longer than you think so you want to get moving pretty quickly okay all right case 2500384 i make the following findings of fact on life i notice is sufficient to find the property in violation the listed code sections to give the respondent 30 days to come to compliance or a fine of up to 100 per day may issue good luck sir thanks case number six code 25 000 394 the owner's name is rosebud ray shops llc the registered agent is cm rack inc property address is 245 northeast second avenue code officer is connor lee all right good afternoon magistrate hope you're not sick of me yet i'm here regarding code case number code 2500394 it is a parking lot restriping requiring permits violation located at 245 northeast second avenue this property was initially cited on november 7 2025 by a former former clean and safe officer as of december 11 2025 i conducted a re-inspection of the property observing that the violation still exists the parking lot for the commercial building had been restriped but without the proper permitting as you can see right here in exhibit one the unpermitted parking lot restriping violates city ordinance 2.4.13 subsection b that requires permits for the work done i spoke with property representatives and they have submitted the proper permit application on december 2nd 2025 for the violation and they have been working with city staff to come into compliance a reissued formal notice of hearing was mailed first class and certified mail on december 17th 2025 and with the compliance date of january 6 2025 or 2026 my apologies and the notice of violation was posted on the property december 22nd 2025 but i handed it to the property manager so this is the posting affidavit and i have three exhibits that i would like to introduce introduce introduce as evidence and the city suggests that the property owner be granted 30 days to continue working with the appropriate city staff to complete the permitting approval process for the parking lot restriping or a daily fine of a hundred dollars shall be placed onto the property until they come to compliance sir can you tell me your name please javier rosas r-o-s-a-s so rosas um do you have any objections to the three documents the city would like to put in evidence no i don't that objection so admitted as cities composite exhibits one through three so the city says that you're uh you're working on it and they want to give you another 30 days is that a sufficient amount of time for you sir i believe so we uh we received the review of the paperwork that we submitted uh we already paid yesterday for the permit so we're just waiting for the inspection fantastic all right in case 2500394 i make the following findings of fact on the life i notice is sufficient i found the property in violation of 2.4.13b specifically the striping without a permit responded as 30 days to come to compliance or a fine of up to a hundred dollars per day may issue good luck sir thank you case number seven 2025 003887 the owner's name is 400 west atlantic avenue llc the registered agent is lawrence i blair property address is 404 west atlantic avenue the code officer is connor lee good afternoon special magistrate on or this is non-compliance hearing on june 18 2025 a special magistrate found a violation for the city code section 2.4.13b exists on the property 400 west atlantic avenue or 404 west atlantic avenue and um the violation is an oversized tent built in the courtyard of the property without the proper permits the magistrate ruled that the property had 30 days to submit the proper permit application and 60 days to obtain the approved permit or pay a daily fine of 150 dollars and on october i have my exhibits wrong but on um that is the board order right here for the case when it originally came and on october 21st 2025 i conducted a board order instruction and observed that the tent was still in the courtyard with an unapproved permit and i have oh this is the uh posting affidavit for the notice of hearing for today and i have three new documents and one photo from the previous case to submit into evidence and as of today january 7 2026 the case is non-compliance and the daily fine has accrued to the amount of twenty one thousand three hundred dollars and the city suggests lean the accrued fine amount to the property for a total of twenty one thousand three hundred dollars and continue the 150 daily fine sir can you tell me your name please yes my name is james thomas so what's going on mr thomas i have a tenant uh that for the past three months has not paid his rent we issued a three-day november 18th and we are now with attorneys uh to have an eviction and uh it is kimberly curry smith the pa and uh wyatt paine out of uh miami shores my property management we have uh tried to work with this young man and uh it's not going to work out so um i'm out of about forty thousand dollars in rent and it really would pose a hardship on me and my family to pay twenty one thousand three hundred dollars so if uh i am permitted i'd like to request um that somehow i be given an opportunity to um i'm i think i'm told that i may be able to have the lead have it go through so that it doesn't get lean on my property and that a decrease i generally don't give advice because you shouldn't take advice from me but um there is a procedure to reduce the size of the lien yes but it's uh it's only available once the property is in compliance right um hmm i'd uh could you give me some time to uh if you give us one second seems like the supervisors wanted to make another recommendation based off um what the property owner has explained um the supervisor just advised me that they're willing to pause the lens to see if you can work this out in 30 days and then we'll come back we'll set it to the next available for them to resume if it hasn't hasn't so if we can set it for a status check in 30 days because we don't want to lose track but we do understand according to supervisor the hardship that he might be facing mr thomas what the city is suggesting to me is to and there's no process to reduce the lien at this page because the property is still out of compliance but the city is willing at least suggesting to me that i should pause it so it doesn't accrue any further over the next 30 days to give you time to bring the property into compliance um and then we'll set it for another hearing okay does that work for you yes sir i i would appreciate that and i must ask the question once even if not evicted and i know that you well handle the eviction the only thing the city is concerned with and hence i'm concerned with is whether the property is in compliance okay so either the tent gets permitted or the tent gets removed i think those both would bring that into compliance all right well you'll give me 30 days that is correct and we can't give him legal advice but i would advise you talk to your council about what your rights are as the landlord right right on your property so yeah but we'll uh what once it's removed then i come back or are you going to set a date for me to come in the case the code enforcement department once it comes into compliance as noted on the notice of violation to contact them immediately once it's brought into compliance and then you reschedule yeah correct we'll we'll reschedule once you come to compliance and we'll get everything settled thank you sir thank you all right in case uh 2025 003887 i'm going to stay the fine for 30 days pending the next hearing set for status hearing at the next scheduled special magistrate hearing after 30 days thank you case number eight 25 00038 the owner's name is michael and lisa lichko the property address is 45 northwest 8th avenue and the code officer is connor lee good afternoon magistrate on august 14th 2025 a special or special magistrate found that a violation for the city code section 4.6.19 subsection f subsection 122 existed on the property 48 northwest 8th ave delray beach florida the violation is two trees on the property of being hat racked without the proper approval and so here is my exhibit one these are all from the pre these are from the previous case in previous exhibits and the prop the magistrate had ruled that the property had 30 days to meet with city staff to find a process to bring the property into compliance and there was no daily fine included with any order on december 16 2025 a special magistrate inspection was conducted and it was discovered that the property owner had not met with the proper city staff to bring the property into compliance and this these are also the photos taken from the previous case and then these are the new exhibits for this case there are five and as of today on january 7 2026 there has not been a meeting between the staff and so this is exhibit one the posting or actually excuse me the board order um stating from the first case where it says right here has 30 days to meet with city staff to bring the property in compliance and then exhibit two um these were taken on december 22nd this is from the code board not from the magistrate right yes okay it's this it wasn't my original case just give me a second i was just actually the question in all candidness to the special magistrate this is what i was discussing with staff this was initially brought before the board that the special magistrate would then have jurisdiction to hear any um i guess the short answer is i don't know i mean if the board didn't exist then i think correct that would be a different and that's what i was you were talking about something to that nature but if it's but if we still currently have a board so actually if we could reset if we could um continue this we just want to look further into it um you know i apologize for any step time but there's a technicality that prevents me from ruling on this i think if you know i don't give advice but you might want to see if you can resolve this before it comes back i'd like to proceed i don't have time to take this is the third hearing in regards to these trees in two years i have a statement i have evidence i'm prepared to move forward and render a warning just i received the special magistrate hearing i had a board hearing on the 15th or 16th that was canceled on the second 14 days prior and then two days later they said i have a special magistrate hearing i was filmed guilty never even had a hearing i would really really like to present my case and either get this even even even if i wanted to hear it which i'm not sure that i can but even if i wanted to i can't re-litigate the underlying you have to appeal that you can't you can't come back at a fine assessment hearing essentially and say the original finding by the magistrate was wrong that's already been decided that's law of the case the only question here is whether or not you've complied with the order which i think is pretty clear that you haven't um but again this was a board case not a magistrate case so what about the suggestion if he really wants to proceed and he waives his right to any appeal um based off jurisdiction of who's hearing the case the city if that would be allowable we could move i'm not sure you can waive jurisdiction can't you yes you can waive so if he really is persistent in proceeding and is willing to waive his any appealable rights to that then all right if you want to proceed i'll proceed are you but we have to get that on the record or make sure he understands what that means do you understand that proceeding in front of me you're going to waive your right to appear before the code enforcement board yes and their right to appeal any decisions made i think you have to tell him yeah and you're going to waive your right to appeal my jurisdiction to hear this how can i waive my right to appeal doesn't seem fair you can appeal the fact whatever my finding is but you can't appeal my jurisdiction to hear the case if you want to proceed proceed okay all right so um this is exhibit one uh the code enforcement board order my apology and as you can see 30 days to meet with city staff this is exhibit two taken on december 22nd um this is when i posted the notice of hearing to the property this is exhibit three just to show the trees and just to show the trees and how they grew back as well exhibit four this is the posting photo of when i posted the notice of violation to the property and then exhibit five is the affidavit of posting can i see a copy of the board order yes one may madam clerk if you can i'll come and get it we just need a copy of the board order from the last okay we'd have to get real good for now we can maybe pull it up on the powerpoint and zoom in no that's fine if you need do you like to sorry sir i just wanted to do my class i will also try to zoom in in so the magistrate you need to get oh you need to use those yeah sure go ahead just give me a second on the computer let's see if i can do this without messing up the whole powerpoint yeah i'm technologically savvy is that better yes one more all right that's good okay we should be noted it wasn't a time frame or a fine amount it was just requiring him to meet um with city staff 30 days to meet with them okay does the city have anything further just arch what's the city asking for here city landscape inspection so at this point the city is asking um since he's out of compliance with the board order for a fine of oh um a hundred dollars daily um until compliance is met or until a compliance method is appropriate oh excuse me sorry distress can't hear me um to begin immediately as of the board order as of the special magistrate order today oh as of the special magistrate order today a hundred dollar daily fine until the compliance method is approved by appropriate city staff that's an odd order all right go ahead sir nearly two years ago i received a tree trimming warning by code officer dolinda with house key which was issued as a 416 16 i hired my landscaper to trim overgrown trees they were causing damage to my house and my vehicle entering the driveway i was not present mr thomas let me explain to you what i can't do because it seems like you're going in a direction that i can't help you with what i can't do is i can't go back and unfind what the code board found so the code board already found that there was a violation on the property so if you're going to argue to me that you're not in violation it's not going to make any difference they already decided that i don't have the authority or the power to go back and undo what they found do you understand what the purpose of this hearing is is to see whether you complied with that okay may i continue sure on our last violation hearing august 14th we established the board declared that the trees grew back healthy no fine to be imposed this was a simple misunderstanding with my landscaper who just over trimmed some trees on that last meeting we established that a certified arbor support was submitting was submitted validating the trees will grow back in good health to the city on july 9th 2025 submitted five weeks before gave mr glover five weeks to review and close out this violation but coincidentally failed to acknowledge on that hearing meeting on august the 14th i have a copy of the report today as well as the receipt you have a copy of one the arbor support and i'm going to object to the recitation of the facts and it's obvious from the findings of the order that he was found in violation and the board did not accept the arbor's report as a finding of non-violation so what the order requires you to do is to meet with city staff to find a process to bring the property in compliance so let me ask you did you attempt to meet with city staff to find a process to bring the property into compliance in accordance the 416 19 which would they cited me on it says in lieu of replacement the property owner may have the option of contracting with a certified arborist to provide remedial pruning to the disfigured tree over a period of three years in effort the report was submitted there there there's there's no path we submitted an order requires the owner to meet with city staff to find a process to bring the property in compliance did you do that the city has never reached out to me i don't know how it's my responsibility to coordinate meetings that this this just as much as i had this meeting today i should have been notified for a hearing i can't i can't coordinate a my own meeting to fix my own violation you can't pick up the phone and call look i didn't write this order but what the code board ordered you to do it says the owner that would be you yes will have 30 days to meet with city staff now if you came in here and said i tried to meet with city staff and they didn't meet with me that would seem like a pretty good reason for you not to comply but what you're telling me here is that you didn't even try what could we possibly discuss other than the arbor support they submitted i don't even have to get that far the question is did you follow what they told if you came in here and said i met with city staff and we couldn't agree then i could probably listen to that but you didn't even do the one thing they asked you to do now i wouldn't have asked you to do that i probably would have come up with a very different kind of order but be that as it may this is the law of the case this is what they asked you to do so the question is did you do it there was no meeting made all right question to the city attorney they didn't put a fine amount on here so i think since they didn't put a fine on there and now that he's provided jurisdiction to the special magistrate to proceed with the case i think that it's the case is open and we can make a modification or amend the order or make a different submit a different order based on the failure to comply with the original order so it's they if this did not occur then there's got to be some type of penalty so the city's position is that since it did not occur there were no attempts in it honestly doesn't sound he's trying to attempt to meet with city staffed then we would ask that you provide a daily fine until this property is brought into compliance this is a weird one this is what i'll do my permission to say one more thing sure go ahead i received the citation to correct it in july the citation basically said you are guilty of a 41619 to pass remove the replace the trees or provide an arborist report several weeks later we had the hearing i did time stamp and submit the arborist report as needed within the allowed a time frame to appease the violation i feel like what you're telling me is that you feel like you complied with the code section so the board made an error in finding you in violation is that what you're trying to argue to me yes okay the appropriate procedure for that if you believe the board was an error is to appeal that order which you did not do so this then becomes law of the case it's already decided and like i told you before i can't undo the board order they said you are in violation now you don't believe you are but the board does and they made that finding so i am bound by that finding i can't undo it again the only question to me is did you comply and it's pretty clear you did not but i'm going to cut you a little bit of a break here this is what i'm going to do i'm going to give you 10 days to comply with this order or a fine of 100 per day will issue good luck thank you case number nine old business 2023-013368 owner's name is g cg real estate holding llc the registered agent is kenneth goldberg thank you the property address southwest 10th street it's a vacant lot code enforcement supervisor phil cartwright will be presenting the details of the case so just for clarification if we would ask the magistrate if we can hear all three of these together 2023 yeah yeah if we could just hear them all because it's literally the same argument for everything is the sir can you tell me your name please yeah mr costello you want to make your appearance tell me your name jeff costello jc planning solutions uh representing the owner the city has asked me to hear all three cases together do you have any objection to doing that no not okay we'll hear them all together okay let me let me call included in this this case we have 2023 0 1 3 4 5 4 and also 2023 0 1 3 5 1 5. so this case is you know we're here because the property owner has a request uh what we want to do is just quickly show you the for recollection purposes the violation i'm sure you remember we've come back on a couple status checks on this case so that was that so this is just a few pictures there's nothing new to introduce the property owner does have a powerpoint that they would like to display if we can have staff upload their powerpoint and they can thank you can i see the governing violation order in this case as well pardon you want to see the order for all three cases if while she's doing that we have madam clerk i suspect they're all the same right yes one probably will do i just want to see what i what i i'm not sure if certain things have come into compliance or not there's a a lot with the case it's a lot yeah um here oh thank you thank you vanna thank you everybody staff um jeff costello again um representing the owner so we want to just make a brief presentation regarding um this the violations um this of course is all county paving on 1180 southwest 10th street which was established in 2014 um some photos of the property from the perimeter not from interior so as a little bit of background and as the backup and the chronology list timeline i've provided to you this goes back to 2023 and so um at that time yeah we're we're making progress um at that time uh there were a number of of issues and the client immediately moved forward to try to address those um of course this is this did involve three conditional use requests uh as well as an amendment to the site plan and various permits also through de through derm dep and so forth for the facilities so uh just as you see on the screen we are making progress and and um in may of last year the conditional use may of 2024 the conditional use applications were submitted uh we've been through the process and dealing with coordinating with staff to address technical comments the planning and zoning board recommended approval of the conditional uses july of last year city commission approved those uh we have submitted a plan application and also plans have been submitted for site plan certification um plat is pending i think there's one more sign off and a permit submittal however is pending the plat approval and site plan certification we cannot submit for the permit until those are finalized which are pretty close the site plan was actually approved the plans were submitted for certification and they're holding off until we get the plat approved we have an issue um and i i do want to address two of the violations i believe there were a perm there was a permit issued i'm gonna it's on page three of the agenda those two items so the site plan was an administrative approval um so that basically has been approved stamp certification is pending and um so again it's it's been approved in essence along with the conditional uses um and then also i believe back in 2023 there was a permit issued as far as the protection of uh the fire code issue with the ballards that were installed i believe those have been finalized if you all can double check on those so that that those can actually be removed from the list but i think the one that really remains is the permit which of course it's a chickeny egg kind of thing you can't apply for the permit and i know it's on as you stated earlier you don't release the liens until all the violations have been corrected so of course that can occur until all the improvements are coed so the issue that my client is is run into and i provide the backup from bank is the lien uh there's a refinancing for the construction loan really related to the construction of the improvements the lien is is is a an issue with getting that refinancing we're requesting to release the lien but to allow the issue of perhaps a bond but until all the improvements are completed and then we come back and revisit the process to reduce the lien so in essence that would be for them i mean i can i i can stay the fine but there's so the outstanding fines for yeah they're case number three six eight two hundred and ninety eight thousand twenty seven dollars and for the case two hundred ninety eight thousand twenty seven dollars and for case ending four five four two hundred and ninety seven dollars two hundred two hundred thousand ninety seven dollars and twenty seven it is the release of the lien well we can't address the fines till later right until i'm just i'm just saying based off here tell us what the number oh yeah i'm saying there are classes for my part 44 48 5 yeah 40 48 000 or we can confirm with the clerk but either way so i just want to be clear on what mr costello is asking the message to consider so you're asking that your client would front basically a hundred thousand dollars in a bond in lieu of the city releasing a lien that will be released back to your client when this is all in compliance i'm just not sure what we'll do at that point because that would still be outstanding well you as you have a financial guarantee in essence related to the lien however the lien is clouding the title which will not allow the bank to finance refinance the client to refinance on the property so the city's concern i'll just say what the city's concern is the property is based on compliance and the lien as it relates to the financing has to do with kind of co-ing the property after everything is constructed and after everything's done at the final this doesn't have anything to do with the permit which is what i think is outstanding in this case so just be clear on what the compliance is because the compliance is to receive an approved permit correct not to complete all work pursuant to the permit which would then see all the property so it's kind of like we're jumping that's not so i don't so i guess the city's position is that for lack of better word their need for financing associated with construction is it tangential to just getting a permit from the city if that's if that's the case then so that's okay so we can't apply for the permit yet until that's it so if that is actually a case that it's not co of the improvement to be in compliance if it's just a matter of getting the permit then then that our issue is able is it is being able to go ahead and apply for the permit then if that is the actual issue so if i might so basically currently right now i guess the unity of title that they're trying to to get for the plat for all the property but it's just the plat document so they did not want to accept the unity of title plat once that's completed 100 then you can apply for the permits okay and then if we apply for the permit then then that everything's satisfied and then we come back to release the lien in order to refinance to start construction approved permits i mean co closed out i mean so that's that's the hold on a second yes so see the the lien belongs to the city um not to me it belongs to the city um it's their decision whether they want to release a lien or not i don't release liens i can reduce fines and i can reduce liens if you're in compliance but once the lien is established it belongs to the city procedurally our understanding is we'd have to come since the lien was issued by the special magistrate to remove it we this procedurally it would come to you if that's not the case then administratively perhaps the city would be able to release and accept the bond um from what i heard mr cartwright right so what what he stated is that when he said the permit and co'd that mean you don't co until all the construct improvements are constructed so the refinancing again comes into play the construction the funding for the project so can you just see the board yeah you know if that's it is that approved permits can you even not construction complete this is my day for unique circumstances and code enforcement my name is madison brown i am the development permit manager for development services in my experience an approved permit is a permit that has been reviewed by all required disciplines within the city and a permit that is marked as approved is ready to be issued that is correct i think it's actually on the other side i went through the other side too before i flip i think it might be a good policy going forward on the uh the fine assessment to have the order with every case because it's the governing document i think i did see it in there though i'll take a few minutes looks like a permit okay we might have a chat about how to do this in the future ready to go back on the record is look through the files and the orders say that they have a certain amount of time so i would respectfully request that the city reconsider um and that um we we actually wanted to apply for the permit a couple months ago but we understand that with the plan had to be finalized and which is more ministerial based on statute and so forth then we that we worked out what we needed to we're ready to have it signed off and we're ready to apply for the permit and so you know i understand what you say about about the lien and and there's other fight this there's a situation with the right refinancing and it's not a matter so we not a matter of just just delaying the action i'm not unsympathetic to your concerns and and i and i also recognize that your client has done a lot of work all that is true and so i'm not trying to be what obstinate to them but what you're asking me to do i cannot do what you're asking me to do is remove a certified i can't uncertify the lien well if i thought it was a a decision the city would need to make well it's the city's lien they can do what they want okay so i can't uncertify it how about if it is released and and then is there a way that if it is released and there's not that activity within a certain time period i mean we're going to apply for the permit the place where i can exercise authority at this stage of the case is if the property is in compliance i can do a lot with the existing fines and liens but the property is not in compliance it's not in dispute the existing lien belongs to the city i can't reduce it essentially to remove the lien i'd essentially have to reduce the lien to zero if the city would modify the request that it be that a building permit be submitted delete the the the the violation that were at least submitted and in the permit review process could that then be there's a lot of things you can negotiate with the city but i i can't negotiate with you i have to follow the law and the code and definitely appreciate all the attorneys everyone on the case right because it's been that long but it has been that long and i think initially the magistrate gave grace for six months in the first place on this case understanding nearly two years later um i you know he's asking for approval i mean at this point we understand this is unique we understand there's a lot of circumstances we understand there's a lot of board approval and authority commission that has to go into this but we're asking for an approved permit which then they could then come in and request any um lowering of any fines or liens that would assist with the financing that's according to the refinancing issues that they express in the background of the presentation yeah i think it and in my experience too is that you know when you deal with a code in violation of an expansion of use on a property there's no way you're going to get any resolution within 60 days you can't even apply for a permit when you have to go through the development review process so maybe in the future those things can be considered before putting a lien on a property i think it's it's when people are showing good faith in in getting really resolving the issue um i think that that should be something that's really considered rather than slapping on a lien because then it does cloud the title and you have to refinance i mean i respect your position i i will say having having been here for for some time a lot of grace was shown at multiple times to give time for this to be resolute to be resolved and i suspect the city would probably argue that it could have been resolved with a much simpler approach than the one that your client has taken but like again i don't judge whatever you want to you do with your property you do the question is what can i do under the code and under chapter 162 at this stage of the case because remember all of these documents are law of the case there's a governing violation order there's a governing continuance order there's a governing lien you know that's the least yeah what i'm allowed to do under the code and chapter 162 is reduce it if your your client is in compliance i can't go back and and and undo what's already been done unless there was a violation of law yeah or code at this stage and so there hasn't been one i mean you can i mean i will say this and i don't know if the city's going to you know be happy that i will tell them but the city can negotiate their rights with you whenever they want to right they have they the city the city has a lot more leeway here than i do um but it doesn't sound like you know just judging from what they're saying doesn't sound like they want to um but um but and that's okay they have you know the city's entitled to it's you know to defend its its prerogatives as well um but if you want a remedy from me then you need to be in compliance so we procedurally that we came because that was the understanding um would like to continue the conversation with staff um and if they want to negotiate they can on their own they don't necessarily need the magistrate come back with an agreement um you know as long as both sides agree generally i issue those um but you'd have to come up with something the city could agree to and i'm not sure they're there it's i i don't speak for the city and uh and i certainly don't speak for miss warren um but uh but it sounds like uh what you presented isn't what they want to do okay um if we can somehow have the ability to at least apply for the permit then then that's if you can get into compliance come back and we'll talk i can okay uh hopefully that's within 30 days so i hope so too um thank you there's no order to issue here so that's it right yes are you are you saying that we don't need your order do you need a request i'm not entirely certain what their request was um but um well they were requesting that that was the request release the lead and provide a bond so yeah i can't do that if you want you know it'll give you something to appeal if you'd like i can issue an order denied if it's not record then who would the appeal go to right you got a lawyer i'm not going to give you all right all right