Is the city ready? Yes. All right, I hereby call this meeting to order. This is the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate for the City of Delray Beach. The cases will be heard generally in the order in which they appear on the agenda, unless you hear otherwise. When you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed to the podium on my left-hand side. The city will present its testimony and evidence first. You'll have an opportunity to review any evidence that the city has presented and ask questions of any of the city's witnesses, after which you can present your own testimony and evidence, and then I will make a decision. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply here. However, all testimony is taken under oath under penalty of perjury. So if you're going to testify today, or you think you might testify, or there's a possibility that you might testify, I ask that you rise and raise your right hand so 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? Yes. Thank you. It's on the agenda. Requesting approval of the consent agenda as written. So approved. We don't have any minutes. Minutes have been deferred for the next special magistrate hearing. All right. So let's start with number one. Case number one, code 26, 000599. The property owners are Blavet and Marie R. Bartholomew. The property address is 5195 NW 6th Street. And the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon, Jean-Baptiste, Chantel code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. This property, 5195 NW 6th Street was issued a notice of violation on March 5th, 2026 for an addition built to the rear of property without building permits. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on April 3rd, 2026. In addition, both the property and City Hall were posted on April 6th, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I have had contact with the property owner. This property was cited for 2.4.13, subsection B for building permits. As of May 21st, 2026, the property has not came into compliance. I have seven photographs of the property to this case that I would like to introduce as evidence. Exhibit one shows the front of the property. Photo was taken March 2nd, 2026. Exhibit two shows the shed, the addition that was built without permit on March 2nd, 2026. This photo was taken from the rear of property. I had entered the neighbor's property to get access to be able to see the addition that was built. Exhibit three is a closer picture from the rear of the property showing the addition. Photo taken March 2nd, 2026. Exhibit four is the affidavit of posting, which I post on property, April 6th, 2026. Exhibit five was a photo of the posting on property on April 6th, 2026. Exhibit six was a re-inspection on May 6th, 2026. Exhibit seven is an affidavit of noncompliance, which was taken on May 6th, 2026. The resident have applied for permits. It has not been obtained yet. They have to submit an owner builder's form. So these are my seven photos submitted of this case. At this time, I'd like to introduce them into evidence. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Seeing no one without objections, who admitted? The city is asking 30 days to come in compliance or $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved. When's the date starting, I believe? And the date is June 20th, 2026. Thank you. Okay, so do you think 30 days is a sufficient amount of time to get the permits in this case? I believe it should be sufficient, yes. As long as they complete the form? Correct. They have to complete the form and obtain the permits. All right. In case 26-0-0-0-5-9-9, I make the following findings a fact. Then the line fine notice is sufficient to find the property in violation of 2.4.13B. They need a building permit for the shed and the rear of the property. The respondent has until June 20th, 2026 to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $100 per day may issue. Thank you. Case number 2, code 26-0-0-0-6-5-8. The property owner is Fecal Exantos. The property address is 3320 Boulevard Chatelain. And the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon. Jean-Baptiste, Chantel, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. This property, 3320 Boulevard Chatelain, was issued a notice of violation on April 7, 2026 for an addition built to the site of property without approved building permit. Service was accomplished by a certified mail on April 9, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on April 9, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I've had contact before the magistrate meeting with the property owner. This property was cited for 2.4.13 subsection B for building permits. As of May 13, 2026, the property has not came in compliance. I have eight photos. I have eight photographs of the property to this case that I would like to introduce as evidence. Exhibit 1, this photo is taken from the street view, showing the complete property on April 1, 2026. Exhibit 2 is the second photo zooming in, showing where the addition was built to the side of the property as well as new windows. This photo was taken on April 1, 2026. Exhibit 3 is the second photo of the same angle, taken on April 1, 2026. Exhibit 4 is the affidavit of posting, which was posted on April 9, 2026. Exhibit 5 is posting on property, April 9, 2026. Exhibit 6 is the affidavit of noncompliance as of May 13, 2026. Exhibit 7 is my final photo of the addition, May 13, 2026. Exhibit 8 is the second photo from the street view, taken of the property on May 13, 2026. At this time, the city would like to introduce the eight photographs and go into evidence. Can you gentlemen tell me your names, please? Shmo Exantus, son. This is my father, Fekko Exantus. Do you have any objections to the photographs the city would like to put in evidence? You mean exactly objections, as in saying that they're invalid? That would be essentially it. No, I don't have any objections. All right, I'm going to admit this photograph's in evidence. Does the city have anything further? I'm not at this time. So what's going on? So we wanted to add something to the back of our home. And we started and we realized there were... Would you like us to... No, one day I came home and that's when I saw the photograph with this on the wall. But prior to that, I remember going through the site and reading, I think it said something like, you know, homeowners can, you know, build or make renovations, add things to the home. So to my knowledge, I thought, you know, we can start the process as my father being a homeowner, then, you know, he would be able to do the additions. Yeah, I mean, you can, you just need a permit. Have you applied for a permit? We have not applied for a permit yet. I believe we, since then, has taken up with a contractor to try to figure out what are the best ways to, you know, deal with this. But we do plan on applying for a permit. What's the city's recommendation? The city suggests... The city is asking for additional 30 days, which would be June 20th, 2026, for them to come in compliance. If they do not come in compliance, then the city is asking $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Is 30 days enough time for you? We would like to ask if we can have 60 days additional to the 30. I spoke to the supervisor and he's comfortable with it. 60 days, but not 90. I'll give you 60, but you do have to move on this, okay? I understand. Would that be starting today or... We'll give you a date certain. Somebody give me 60 days from now. August 19th, 2026. Right now, this is 90 days. 60 days? Or not 90? 60 days. Hold on one second. July 20th. July 20th. I'm going to give you until July 20th. July 20th? Yeah. All right. I understand. Thank you. In case 26-0-0-0-6-5-A to make the following findings of fact-in-law, I find notice is sufficient upon the property in violation of 2.4.13b, construction without a permit, respond that has until July 20th, 2026 to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $100 per day in the issue. Good luck. Please let the code officer know your progress. Question. So, with the first step you said to get in compliance, would that be getting the permit or would that be, you know, is that completion, like every requirement that you may or may have for us, we would have to have it all done by July 20th? I think he's asking work versus permit. Compliance can mean different things and Steph can talk to you about it. It could be getting a permit for the addition as is or moving the addition, however you bring into compliance, but it's just to get the permit and there's time after that. So, staff can explain that to you. Yeah, and you might want to talk to them. Thank you. Case number three, code 26-0-0-0-6-7-1. The property owner is Rainberry Woods Homeowners Association, Inc. The registered agent is Bro, Chad Rowe, and Levine, PA. The property address is 551 Northwest 47th Avenue, and the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon, Jean-Baptiste, Chantel Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Dary Beach. This property, 551 Northwest 47th Avenue, was issued a notice of violation on April 10th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on April 28th, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall was posted on April 29th, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I've had contact with property owner via phone. This property was cited for 7.8.3 for maintenance of building, as well as 100.05 mosquito prevention. As of May 21st, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have 13 photographs of this property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. Exhibit 1 is showing the pool area and the pool deck of Rainberry Woods. The Exhibit 1 photo was taken on April 10th, 2026. Exhibit 2 is a second photo taken from the sidewalk on April 10th, 2026, showing debris, dirt. And Exhibit 3 is a zoom-in photo showing dirty water, unsanitary water inside the pool and debris. Exhibit 4 is showing a photo of the pool house, a need and pressure clean and painting. Photos taken April 10th, 2026. Exhibit 5 is an affidavit of posting and mailing, which was on April 29th, 2026. Exhibit 6 is an affidavit of posting on April 29th, 2026. Exhibit 7 is an affidavit of non-compliance as of May 13th, 2026. On May 13th, I took another photo of the property, the deck house, the pool deck house. Not in compliance. This photo was taken on May 13th, 2026. Exhibit 9 is a second photo taken of the pool area, have not been pressure cleaned or painted on May 13th, 2026. Exhibit 10 is another photo taken from the sidewalk on May 13th, 2026. Exhibit 11 shows a photo taken from the sidewalk on May 21st, 2026. The pool deck area was painted. Exhibit 12, the pool area, the water has not been drained. It has not been painted or cleaned from the inside of the pool. You can see in Exhibit 12, taken on May 21st, 2026. Exhibit 13 is a zoom-in photo showing there's water inside the pool right now and as well as debris. These are my 13 photos that see the light of them, show us into evidence. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? This is Michael Antonovich. I work for Grant Property Management and I'm the property manager at this community. We do have people on site right now completing... Hold on one second. I promise I'll let you tell me what you want to tell me. But first, do you have any objection to these photographs? No. Without objection, so admit it. Does the city have anything else? Not at this time. All right. Go ahead, sir. We've got people on site that are taking care of it. They're working. They've been working all week this week. The issue with the pool, having water in it, unfortunately there's no power, so they can't actually pump it out. But they are working on making resolution for that. And it should be done by the end of the week. The pool and the little kiddie pool. It's been a mess forever. I mean, it's been... I mean, to be honest, it's been like this for eight years. It's a total disaster, that particular community. So we're trying. But at least it got painted and they did the patio area. But they will get to the pool as soon as they can figure out how to get power to whatever they can do. The city is asking for an additional 14 days, which will be June 4th, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking $250 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Can I ask, what do they have to finish the pools? What is outstanding at this point? Yeah. So they have to remove the water out the pool, the debris, pressure cleaning, and paint all that area, the pool area as well. And then if you can also have them to get a solid safety pool cover to cover the pool completely so to prevent water when it rains, to prevent water from going in the pool. Okay. Because then it attracts mosquitoes. Yeah, yeah. So within 14 days. What are you saying about painting inside the pool? Yes. Remove the debris, the water, and you can paint the whole area to make it look presentable, and then cover it to prevent water, rainwater from going inside because it's unsanitary. So they, I'm just getting a handle on it. So they're going to paint the tiles? They're going to paint it, pressure clean it, paint it, make sure it's clean, and then cover it with a solid safety. I don't know that you have to paint it, but you have to clean it, I guess. So what I would suggest at this point, you know, to not have a roundtable discussion about compliance during the hearing, if we can just say compliance and then he can get with staff so they can clarify what's actually required by the code. I can see empty in the pool, but I can't see painting inside of the pool because... That's my recommendation. What's that? Special Magistrate Wagner. All right, this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to give you 30 days. During that time, I'd recommend you talk to staff about exactly what you're going to do on here. Yeah. But, yeah, it's clearly, it's clearly unsanitary. Oh, it's a total mess. I totally have no argument there. All right, case 26-0-0-0-6-7-1. I make the findings of fact in life. I notice sufficient. I found the property in violation of 7.8.3 maintenance and 100.05A. Mosquito Prevention. I'm going to give the respondent 30 days or until June 20th, 2026 to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $250 per day, Masha. Good luck. Thank you. Case number four, code 26-0-0-0-6-7-4. The property owner is PR Borrower 27, LLC. The registered agent is Corporation Service Company. The property address is 305 Southwest 7th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Reggie Williams. Good afternoon. I've had the opportunity to speak to the council or representative for the property owner for this case. And we've come to an agreement that the property, if the special magistrate accepts, that they've agreed that the property is fining of a violation. And they have, what was it, 60? 60 days, which is July 20th, 2026. July to come into compliance. Or $100 daily fine. Or $100 daily fine. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Sure. Brad Bucks. Mr. Bucks, are you an attorney? I am not. What is your position with the respondent? I am the community engagement manager for the company Progress Residential. And you're authorized to represent them here today? Yes, I am. I do have the power of attorney. Okay. The city's representing to me that you've reached an agreement that the violation exists and you have 60 days to bring in a compliance or a fine of up to $100 per day. Is that your understanding? That is my understanding and willing to accept. Okay. In case 26-0-0-0-6-7-4, I make the following findings of fact and law. If I notice it's sufficient, find the property in violation of listed code sections. Respondent has 60 days or until July 20th, 2026 to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $100 per day may issue. Thank you for coming in. Sorry you had to wait. Thank you much. Thank you. Case number 5, code 26-0-0-0-6-7-6. The property owner is Rodrigo N. Comacho. The property address is 217 Southwest 7th Avenue. The code officer on the case is Reggie Williams. Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. I am here regarding property 217 Southwest 7th Avenue. Case number code 26-0-0-0-6-7-6. The property was issued a notice of violation on April 14th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on April 15th, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on April 16th, 2026. An affidavit of posted and mailing and first affidavit of noncompliance is attached in the case. I have not been in contact with the property owner. This property was cited for work without permits. The property installed new windows without approved issued permits. As of May 21st, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached eight photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city is asking for an additional 30 days, which would be on June 20th, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for a $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved. The property owner did apply for a permit on April 22nd, 2026, and they're just waiting for the structural department to review the permit. Present the photographs. Exhibit 1, taken April 14th, 2026, shows the property installing the new windows. Exhibit 2, taken April 14th, 2026, is a zoomed-in photo of the window being installed. Exhibit 3, taken April 14th, 2026, shows the window that was removed from the property. Exhibit 4, taken April 16th, 2026, is a notice of violation posted to the property. Exhibit 5, is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 6, is my re-inspection, taken May 18th, 2026, that shows the windows are still on the property. Exhibit 7, taken May 18th, 2026, is a zoomed-in photo of the window. And Exhibit 8, is a first affidavit of noncompliance. So anyone here on behalf of the respondent, seeing no one without objection on accepting evidence, the photographs and documents. Officer, do you believe that 30 days is a sufficient amount of time for them to obtain their building permit? Yes, since they applied for the permit, and they only have one department they'd have to go through to get approved. All right, in case 26-000-676, I make the following findings a fact in life I notice is sufficient. I find the property in violation of 2.4.13B, building without a permit. Windows installed without a permit. Respondent has until June 20th, 2026, to bring the property in compliance or fine of $100 per day in the issue. Thank you. Case number 6, code 26-000-692. Property owner is Strong Island Real Estate Holdings, LLC. The registered agent is Raquel Drecker Esquire. The property address is 125 Southwest 13th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Reggie Williams. Good afternoon, my name is Reggie Williams, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. I am here regarding property 125 Southwest 13th Avenue, case number code 26-000-692. This property received a courtesy notice on April 7th, 2026 for property number not posted on building. The property was given five days to comply with the violation. An inspection was conducted on April 13th, 2026, and the property was still not in compliance. A notice of violations was issued on April 22nd, 2026. Service was accomplished by a certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on April 23rd, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on April 23rd, 2026. An affidavit of posted and mailing and first affidavit of noncompliance is attached in the case. I have not been in contact with the owner of the property. This property was cited for the property not having property number posted on building. As of May 22nd, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached seven photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city is asking for an additional seven days, which will be on May 28th, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for a $50 daily fine until compliance is achieved. For this violation, it came from the fire department. So they told our department that they want all homes to have the property number posted on the property, not just the mailbox. Yes. Exhibit 1, taken April 7th, 2026, shows the front of the property without any numbers posted. Exhibit 2, taken April 7th, 2026, is my courtesy notice posted on the property. Exhibit 3, taken April 22nd, 2026, was my notice of violation posted on the property. Exhibit 4, taken April 23rd, 2026, was the notice of violation. Exhibit 5, is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 6, was my re-inspection, taken May 4th, 2026, that shows that the property number is still not on the property. Exhibit 7, is my affidavit of noncompliance. Is anyone living at this property? No, it is a vacant property. It doesn't look like anyone took down your notices. Nope, nobody stays there. Yeah, we know that, yes. Yes, it's an LLC, so it goes to the address for the LLC, as well as the register agent. I'm wondering, feeling whether this is going to be one where they're going to come back later and say, we didn't know. Well, we provide a notice. Yeah, I agree that you've done what's legally required. I guess there's just no way to figure out who's actually responsible for this, huh? No, because I wrote this property up multiple times since 2025, and nobody never contacted me. Do you think, well, it's just putting numbers on the building, right? Yeah, yes. All right, without objection, I'm going to accept in evidence the photo submitted by the city. Case 26-000692. To make the following findings a fact in the live fine notice, it's sufficient to find the property in a violation of 7.1.5. The building needs numbers. I give the respondent until May 28, 2026 to come to compliance to our final $50 per name issue. Thank you. Case number 7. This is a noncompliance case. Code 26-000534. The property owner is MDG Banyan Delray Partners, LLC. The registered agent is Cogency Global, Inc. The property address is 10 North Swinton Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Connor Lee. Good afternoon, magistrate. Did we get a wall? On February 5, 2026, a special magistrate found that a violation for city code section 4.5.1, subsection E, subsection 9, subsections A plus B, subsections 1 through 6, maintenance of historic properties for case code 26-000534 existed at the property 10 North Swinton Avenue in Delray Beach. The violation was for maintenance needed for the structures within the property. During the previous April 16th magistrate hearing, it was ruled the case would be reset for today's hearing, May 21st, and that all previous orders shall remain in effect. On May 13, 2026, I conducted a re-inspection and observed the property owner had not obtained for a permit yet applied for one for the damaged wall on the south end of the property but haven't completed any of the repairs or got an issued permit. And as of today, May 21st, the permit has still not been issued and the repair work has not been completed and the case is not in compliance. I have four new documents to submit into evidence and three documents from the previous case to present and the city suggests to lien the accrued fine for the amount of $74,000 and continue the original order until in compliance. And I would, so this is one of the photographs taken January 27th used in the previous case and then here's another one used, uh, taken March 9th used in the previous case, 2026 March 9th, 2026. And then another one, another angle of the wall for March 9th, 2026. And then for exhibit one, here is the magistrate order from the last case, uh, April 16th. And where it says it was reset for today's date. And then here is exhibit two. This was taken on May 13th to show that the applicant had applied for permits and there were some responses that the applicant needed to give back to the city to continue the application process, which I saw today were actually submitted. And then I believe, I'm not really sure where the permit, but I saw today, um, all of that, like literally today, all comments had been resolved. And then exhibit three, May 13th, uh, this was taken on May 13th, 2026. Just, just shows the wall still hasn't been repaired. And then another angle, excuse me, showing that the wall has not been repaired. And then that is, I would like to present these exhibits to evidence. Sam, you want to submit those into evidence? Yes. Sir, can you state your name again, please? Steve Michael, Vanden Group. I do accept these pictures as evidence. So admitted. So what's going on with the wall? Well, first I would ask that, I would ask that you would consider removing all the fines because this, this is really ridiculous. And it's a, it's a travesty. The day after the hearing, we, we had a contractor come and submit permits, an application for the wall. They've been going through a review process. I didn't know it was, I mean, we had 30 days. I didn't realize it was going to take a month and a half to go through the review process for a wall that's going to be torn down. And it'll throw a hedge in front of the wall that's going to be ripped out in days. But we did go through the permit application since the day after the hearing. The approval was, I think, today. Not the last comment wasn't answered today, but the approval on the permit was today. And we will follow through and build the wall and put the hedge and rip it down immediately after when we're ready to start building. But, I mean, I, what I really, and we, we have complied 100%. Let me, let me just roll back there. Is, is what you're suggesting to me that the reason that it's taken this long is because the city has taken this long to approve it? 100% yes. We submitted an application the next day. I don't think the city's going to agree with that. No, and I do have, I'll let him finish, but we do have Michelle Hoyland here. And she does need to be sworn in when the time comes for her to testify. Just to do it. Go ahead, Mr. Michael. Anything else you want to tell me? Yes. And, you know, originally we had a list of items that we were originally cited for. Most of those were incorrect. We immediately corrected the remaining items with the exception of the wall, as I explained to the code enforcement officer at the time, that we are submitting our building permit application and demolition that week, which we did. So it wouldn't make sense because that's part of the application of the new permit. But then I was given, and when I originally got the, when I was originally cited, I was given three days to go to the hearing to correct it. So I had no time, obviously, which is really obscene because code enforcement's purpose is not to get me into a hearing, but to keep me, or a property owner's compliant, but I had no time to be compliant. I had literally days. So, and I'm coming here every time, hiring a lawyer, but I think, you know, this is really ridiculous. We have complied. We've submitted the application. There was review. There was comments back and forth. We answered the comments. I mean, I've done everything I had to do. And to ask for a lien on the property, which will definitely put me in default in my mortgage, is really, it's unconscionable. We do have information as to the status of the permit. If we can swear on Ms. Hoyland, please. 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? Good afternoon. Could you please say your question? Hello. I'm Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner with Development Services, Historic Preservation. And how long have you been over there? Nine and a half years. Yes. And property in our district? So it is within the Old School Square Historic District, and it is individually designated as a historic site on the Local Register of Historic Places. So specifically for purposes of this wall, what is the status and sense? So, hello. Good afternoon, Mr. Michaels. So the property owner, we understand, had reached out looking into if the wall could be demolished. I believe he reached out to the city manager's office and other folks, and we advise that it's part of the site plan approval, and it's an existing site feature, which the code requires properties that have been approved for redevelopment per 451E9, which is this violation, I believe, be maintained in the state that they were in. So his option was to either fix the wall or submit a site plan modification to remove the wall, and I believe it was last week that the permit was submitted. So there was a lot of, you know, communications with different folks at the city, and it was at the, you know, a week ago that the permit was submitted. I've heard from my team that the permit is, we approved it last week, my team, meaning historic, and that the status of building permit BLDC-013863-2026 says review complete. So I think at this point it's about to be issued. So just for clarification, when someone applies for a building permit in the city, there are different departments that it has to go through, correct? Yes. And there is no issue with the historic district, correct? Or historic? No, we approved. No issue. And this was submitted last week? Yes. Okay. And it's currently in approval and has not been obtained yet or approved overall? No, it has not been obtained. I don't remember when the accident happened, but it's been a bit since the initial accident happened. Yeah. Thank you. Let me ask you this. The respondent is essentially making the argument to me, if I mischaracterize it, let me know, but he's making the argument to me that he has been diligent in attempting to bring this into compliance and that the delay is the time process it's taken for the city to issue this. Is that your assessment of this? No. Can I say that the permit was applied for in April? I have it right on my phone. It was applied for actually the day of... Hold on one second. Can you walk me through the process here and why it's taken this long? So in the interest of maintaining a positive relationship with the property owner developer, as we have thus far, I do think that there's been some confusion. We've had multiple meetings with Mr. Michaels and his team. They are moving through the process while somewhat slower than other applicants. They have a plot to get recorded. They have major building permits to submit for the whole site that involves demolishing the Dunkin' Donuts building. There's a chicken and the egg issue with that where they cannot demolish that building until they have permits in hand. And I think they were trying to focus on those items, thinking maybe they would make more progress with that rather than focusing on the wall. The issue is the wall has been sitting for a long time, and we have advised that it needs to be repaired. It wasn't until the code enforcement violation was issued that the action had begun on the applicant's part, property owner's part, to fix the issue. Just for clarification purposes, I'm not sure if you were here, but were you aware that the last hearing on this case was, I believe, April 16th, correct? And the permit wasn't applied for until, according to our permitting screen, April 24th, correct? So the start date isn't necessarily the application acceptance date. So it's the date the applicant starts uploading documents into the system. I would need to look here. It says 513, status assigned. So that's what I understand is the date that the permit was assigned. I would have to go into the system and pull this myself. I did not pull Exhibit 2. I did not do that research. But that doesn't necessarily, the start date, mean that that's the date the permit's ready to go. They could submit some documents and not have plans. I just don't know. Can I clarify if that was one document? I'm asking a question, Mr. Michael. Thank you. I'll let you ask. Right. I just have two more questions. And for clarification purposes, this has only been a couple of weeks, correct? Yeah, I mean, like I said, it could have started on 424. I don't know without pulling it myself. Mr. Michael may, you know, under oath, attest and contradict what I'm saying, contradict what I'm saying. But yeah, 424 was about a month ago. And is it typical in the permitting process for communications to go back and forth between the property owner and staff? Yes, and you can see here on the comments, structural, approved. They had no comments. That was Mr. Patrick Lyons. Katharina Paliwota with Historic Preservation approved, or it says in review, but she approved it last week. There were no comments. You can see here there are two comments, one under landscaping about adding the hedge back in the front and providing the plan for such. And then engineering also had a comment here about damage to the right-of-way. So during a building permit review, that's what happens. Four reviewers review it, two had comments. The applicant needs to respond to those comments. So it's not like you submit a permit and you can get it the next day. That happens a lot. But when there's comments, you know, that's up to the applicant to address. And I believe you previously stated to the special match trade that you do not believe that this was any delay or hindrance on behalf of staff, correct? So the system doesn't allow us to delay, nor do the Florida statutes. So we're pretty tied to specific review timelines. So this was not – permits don't sit, especially when I have – if I were to pull all of the records I need here, I could pull a library of records for you that shows you the full sequence. There's no sitting of permits. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Hoyland. All right, Mr. Michaels, you can ask your questions. Well, first, this was not applied for yesterday, obviously. It was applied for – actually, we submitted the permit the next day. I know that for the contractor. The start date is the 24th, a couple days later. But we – obviously, it was not submitted a day ago. And we responded in a very timely manner to get a permit. We didn't expect to go through landscaping and have to put hedges. We had to do new plans for landscape – we had to include landscape plans for the repair of the wall. And again, that wall, the reason I asked to demo it is because it's going to be demoed anyways and then rebuilt, because the wall is going to change in the new plan, in the building permit plan. So, it was a reasonable request to just do that since it was about to be removed and then rebuilt. But I – regardless, I submitted a permit application, went through the process. Because I didn't delay it, and now I'm being told I have – I know, I'm being asked to have a lien on my property of $75,000. It's incredible. I mean, I can't believe I'm here, but I can't – even more so, I can't believe I'm listening to this – I mean, we're obviously working to be in compliance, even though I don't agree that we should be doing this work. But we are, and, you know, I just don't understand – everybody knows the application went in in April, a month ago. Why am I here? I mean, I'm not delaying it. I'm not slow walking the permit process. Listen, you know, irregardless of the comment, we're not slow in our building permit application. It's a lot of work. Mr. Michaels, when do you anticipate getting the wall repaired? Once I get a permit approved, it'll take us a day. But I don't – but I want to make sure – last time I was, you know, I was giving 30 days, I believed that a permit would have taken a couple days because it was a pair of a little piece of the wall. I didn't think it was going to go through structural engineering and landscape engineering because it's silly. So it's a waste of public, you know, resources. But it did. I can do the work quickly, but I can't control the time it takes to go through the system. And that's what's – and I don't – I'd rather not keep coming back here because it's really not – it's, you know, it's a lot of work to come back and hire attorneys every time for this issue that we have been working to be in compliance as hard as we could. I would just like to clarify one thing. The last time we were here, it was for a noncompliance hearing, and it wasn't corrected, right? There were other issues that were corrected. This is a longstanding violation. But this wasn't corrected then. Here we are again 30 days later, and it's still not outstanding. So I would object to any more time, and we would ask for the lien and to find that the property is still out of compliance and continue the fines. Well, technically, I didn't give him any more time. I just delayed the hearing. So – Okay. Yeah. So the – Officer Lee, this initially was back in February, right? Yes. And so back in February, there were – my recollection was there were a number of things that were in violation at that time, right? Yes. All right. And so this went before – I think, what did I give, 30 days back then of that initial order? I think the – I believe it was – I mean, I presume you're calculating – You're calculating the fine here based on that initial 30-day, right? Yeah. So, yeah. And then the re-inspection was done March 9th. And so, yes, it was 30 days. And so you calculated out the fine of $74,000 based on $1,000 they're running since then, right? Yes. When did – when did the respondent comply with everything except for the wall? I would say March 9th. That was the only comment left on the re-inspection, that the wall was the only thing left to be corrected for the property to come in compliance. So everything else was done on time, essentially, except for the wall? Yes. It was based on the re-inspection notes. And it – yes? There should be a copy of the – That's what I'm going to do in this case, since I don't really want to keep coming back here to talk about this. So I'm going to – Hold on one second. If we can get the clerk, Madam Clerk, he's announcing the order. Yeah. All right. I'm going to find that the violation still exists, since it does. And I'm going to assess a fine in the amount of $200 per day beginning from March 7th until – when was the permit submitted? April 24th. Is that correct? That's what it says there. Until April 24th. I'm going to stay the fine from April 24th until June 20th. Actually, you know, let me make it June 27th. We're going to stay the fine during that time period, since you've got the thing submitted. Hopefully, you'll get it fixed. If it's not completed by June 27th, the fine will continue at $200 a day from that point until it's complete – until it's in compliance. And that'll be my order. And once it's in compliance, if you want to come back and argue for a reduction of that, you have the right to do that. But that's what I'm going to do at this point. Thank you. So just for clarification, I want to make sure we have the numbers and the dates correct. So based on my calculation of the dates, I believe you ordered that the property – you reduced the fine to $200. And for a period of March 7th to April 24th, which is 48 days, at a total of $9,600, you're staying the fines after that day, and then you gave them to – what was the date to come into compliance? June 27th. June 27th, or the $200 to resume. It continues until the property comes into compliance. Okay. Thank you. And no lien. I don't believe you addressed that part. I mean, there's two things I can do. I could lien it today. I could lien it in the future. I could give you time to pay it so it doesn't lien. I can just tell you if you lien the property, I will be in default of my construction loan, which is really why I'm trying to – I'll tell you what I will do. What is our last meeting in June? 618. I'll give you until 618 to pay the outstanding fine. If you do, no lien. If it's not paid by 618, it'll be lien. But could I come back to mitigate it or no? So once your property is in compliance, you can ask for a reduction, but I doubt you're going to be able to do that in time to do that. But you can give it a shot. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I – just wait a second. Just so this makes sense, can we – I believe you said June 27th for compliance or June 18th to pay the fine. For the lien. The outstanding fine of 9,600 is not paid by June 18th. If it's not. It does. It kind of makes sense to have them together, the dates. I know, but the hearing date – I mean, I guess we could push it to the – The first hearing date. The first hearing date in August. July. July, which would be the 2nd. Is that the 2nd? July 2nd. But are you here? Let's keep it at the 18th because I'm not sure. No, I'm here on the 2nd. No, you're not here on the 2nd. No, I'm not here on the 2nd. Okay, I'm not here on the 2nd. Keep it at the 18th. We'll keep it at the 18th. So June 18th it is. That's a Thursday, yeah. No, I'm not here on the 2nd. Yeah, okay. Sorry, that was complicated. Yeah, could we – can we just have it at both June 18th? I know it's a week earlier, but it's only May 21st. That was still given – Mr. Michaels, do you think you can get the wall fixed by the 18th? That way we can do it all once. Do you think the permit will be approved by, like, Tuesday? Yeah, I do. All right. We'll make everything June 18th. Okay. Thank you. Just for clarity on the – Yeah, I feel you. That's a fair point. Thank you. Case number 8, Code 26-000-536. The property owner is Icon Development Holdings 2, LLC. The registered agent is Icon Equity Group, LLC. The property address is 27 South Swinton Avenue, and the code officer on the case is Connelly. All right. Good afternoon. On February 5th, 2026, a special magistrate found that violation for city code section 4.5.1, subsection E, subsection 9, subsections A plus subsections B, subsections 1 through 6, maintenance of historic properties for case code 26-000-534, existed on the property 27 South Swinton Avenue. The violation noted that required maintenance was needed throughout the property, including securing the structures within the parcel. The property was given 30 days to come to compliance or receive a daily fine of $1,000 per day until meeting compliance requirements. A board order re-inspection was conducted on March 9th, 2026, and the property was deemed to still be in violation. On April 6th, 2026, I conducted a property walkthrough with property representative Itai Cathene, along with Clean and Safe Admin Henry Thompson, where we identified specified deficiencies noted within the violation description and provided by historic staff. On April 20th, 2026, the property was serviced with a certified first-class mailing, and the notice was posted to the property and City Hall on April 27th, 2026. An affidavit posting is attached to the case evidence. On May 13th, 2026, a magistrate order inspection was conducted, and it was observed that the property owner had not completed all necessary repairs to come into compliance. As of today, May 21st, 2026, the case is still not in compliance. I have 24 new photos to submit, or new documents to submit into evidence, and 16 documents from the previous case to present during this hearing. So if you can quickly go through the previous here, just to refresh, if you recall, Special Magistrate 1, this is the one with four different properties. I remember. Yeah, if you just quickly go through it. Gotcha. Hard to forget. I'm sorry. I remember. Whoops. So this is Exhibit 1. Here is the Special Magistrate Order dated for February 5th, 2026. And then Exhibit 2. This is the noncompliance affidavit completed by Officer James Easley on March 9th, 2026. And then on April 27th, here is the posting photo for this hearing. And that was on April 27th, 2026. Here is Exhibit 4. This is the posting affidavit dated April 27th, 2026. Here for May 13th, this is when I conducted a re-inspection after meeting with the property representative just to see if any changes had been made. And you can see that some, there were efforts to repair this hole here and then this one right here. The graffiti had been painted over, but it is still, there are some things still missing from the doors and then the boarding up of the windows as well. There are some other specific requirements for historic properties. And then here's another one of the building. As you can see, work has been done. And these were all taken May 13th. Here is another building on the property. And this shows that the hole in the roof had been parked over. Some of the boards have been put up for some of the windows. Some of the holes for the structures have been covered, but some are still showing. And then just some more of the boarded up property. And then you can see there's a hole in the front of the structure right here. And then just a couple little maintenance things. Still a little hole right here. Could invite pests in. And just not meeting the requirements required for historic properties and the maintenance requirements. And then here's another photo of the tarp on the roof covering the hole. And that is all. I would like to submit these 24 exhibits for evidence. Sir, would you like to make your appearance? Yes, Francisco Escalante for the court-appointed receiver, Warren Weiser, and the lender, SEH 27 LLC. Can you spell your last name, sir? E-S-C-A-L-A-N-T-E. And you were appointed by the court to represent? I am the attorney for the court-appointed receiver, Warren Weiser, who's been appointed by the court to manage the property and sell the property. To basically maintain and sell the property. Do you have any objections to the photographs the city would like to submit in evidence? I have no objections. Without objections, so admitted, does the city have anything further to present? Yes. We have a... Hello again. Hello again. Good afternoon. Could you please mention your full name for the record? How you were employed? Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner with the Development Services Department, Historic Preservation Division. And how long have you been employed with the city? Nine and a half years. And are you familiar with the property located at 27 South Swinton Avenue? Yes. And specifically regarding this property, we're here for a non-compliance, correct? And can you just tell us a little bit about the meetings that have occurred with the property owner and email correspondence to advise them of what's outstanding? So, not to give too long of a history, but this property has been in the approval process with a valid, certified, approved set of plans since 2011. That approval continues to be extended. Can it stay in approval for that long? Thanks to, I believe it was Governor Crist, who put the legislative extension process in place, this project has survived on those executive orders. So, state of emergency occurs, hurricane, Zika virus, COVID virus. So, typically yes, I guess, right? Yeah, applicants can extend their project. That is now limited to a max of four-year tolling time. So, this does have a drop-dead date, I believe in 2027. So, the project has had a plan. So, there is a plan. There is a plan. It's been through two property owners. ICON is the most recent that we've worked with. And I do think they diligently did try to move the project through the approval process. But it sounds like there's something happening with ownership. We were alerted to the conditions on site and did a site inspection. There were evidence of people. I don't want to go through the whole thing we did in the first meeting. But evidence of people living here, windows broken, the roof damaged, a lot of other things. So, we're very familiar with it. We're waiting to see what happens with the site. We have been receiving phone calls from interested parties who are interested in demolishing it. When you say by waiting, you're waiting for the owners of the property to decide how they're going to move forward with it? To submit a building permit for the development approval, yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. So, specifically, let's get to, you know, as you stated earlier, we had a previous hearing where they were found in violation and corrections need to be made, correct? Yes. And Mr. Lee advised the Special Magistrate that certain things had been done. He did do an inspection, to my understanding, and perhaps noted that some items were complete, asked for my team's input. And upon our review, there are items that are not meeting the requirements of LDR Section 4.5.1 E9, which is maintenance of historic structures, which is why we're back here. And just to clarify, I believe you said there was some tarping and some boarding, right, which may preclude trespassers as an issue that you stated earlier and an issue that was an initial violation. But as far as maintenance of historic property, have they been advised of what actually needed to be done to bring the property into compliance? Yes. So, our initial meeting with the applicants, pardon me, the very first time we met was February 24th. At least that was the first meeting I was in. It was a virtual meeting. Atai, I don't remember his last name. My apologies. Frank was in this meeting. I was in that meeting, yes. Warren Weiser, the receiver, was in the meeting. And during that meeting, the request from the team, we'll call you the receivership team, was what is it approved for, what are the steps to move it forward, which we did discuss. But we also advised the team that there was an ongoing look at the property beginning in January of the condition. And we told them about the code enforcement violation at that time, that it needed to be addressed. We went over the maintenance requirements in the code and how repairs actually have to be made, not that the site could be just boarded up and that there were procedures that they wanted to board windows, but there were other things that needed to be addressed. My team has met with the different members of the receivership team either at City Hall via front counter visits or have had additional phone calls with them. And then we've also stayed in touch with code enforcement on the status of the property as we are getting questioned from the community as to what's happening with the site, its condition. And there have also been email correspondence either from you or from your supervisor in development services, correct? Yes. And in those emails, was it indicated that certain glass or color, painting colors or tarps were insufficient? Yes. And we could look at a few of the pictures which were taken here on May 13th. Okay. So let's do that. If you wouldn't mind, you don't have to do every photo, but just go through the photos and identify the issues and where this has not been brought into compliance with the LDR section that you noted. And even boarding. You can go back to it. Here you go. Yeah. Is there one before that? No, it's just the posted photos. The posted photos. Those are the old photos. Gotcha. We're just going to talk about the new photos. This is just the, if you can just go through. I think that's just identifying the property. I'm going to skip this. I don't see a major issue. It looks like a piece of plywood was screwed over or nailed over this hole here. The other concern was this door. There were no doorknobs and the door was not secured. I think that they have screwed that in, perhaps. I think I maybe had heard from Mr. Lee. Here, initially, some of the initial pictures we saw on site visit was that the wood was installed on the inside of the windows, which if it's raining, that's not going to protect the interior of the structure. So then they put wood on the outside of the windows. This is not a recognized approach for the maintenance requirements for historic structures. They need to actually repair the windows. The Jollisee windows in this door here are still missing and or open. So rain is going to continue to enter the building. Same photo here that we've already looked at from a distance. Again, this is the front, a different Jollisee window where the glass is completely missing. This is a problem. It looks like the hole in the back corner, you can see a piece of plywood was screwed over that. Technically, the siding should be repaired. I think, given the circumstance, a picture like that with the plywood, that that could be deemed acceptable. But there also are requirements for how you board a structure. If they are going to take the approach of boarding windows, which here they've boarded some, partially others, if that window where you could see the glass poking through the top, if that window is damaged and it rains, the rains is going to seep in. Also here, there's a tarp on the roof. This is not a solution. The requirement for maintenance doesn't allow for the roof to be tarped. That could be done in the interim while they're waiting to have a permit approved so that no further damage occurs. But the roof itself needs to actually be repaired. And for clarification, no building permits have been submitted, correct? Not to my knowledge. Same thing with the tarp. So even for the repairs that have been done, they weren't done under a permit? No. These don't, I think, qualify as repairs. This is the same issue here, that the windows that are missing on the bottom, rain could seep in, damaging the interior of the structure. Gable, they should be putting, you know, they could put a 2x4 in here and repair this where the gables are, the gable ends or the roof eve ends are open. Here at the bottom, it's a piece of plywood, I think, with two or three screws in it that's blocking the crawl space where all the beer bottles and cans were. So, I mean, that could be deemed acceptable. This is rotten siding. This has to be repaired. You can't screw a piece of plywood over this. The intent of the maintenance code is to not let a property further degrade to the point where it ends up in demolition by neglect, which we did express the concern with this to the applicant. Because the code says if you end up in demolition by neglect, and there have been previous code cases, and there have, this isn't the only one, that the Historic Preservation Board can remove your ability to redevelop the site for five years. It's serious, these code regulations that were adopted. So these repairs are showing evidence of damage and decay. I don't know how far that goes. I don't know if there's termites happening. It also discusses termites in that maintenance code. So we're just asking that the property owner go through the site and address actual repairs, not a Band-Aid solution. That is not what the intent of 451E9 is. And thank you, Ms. Horland. Anything further? The only other thing is, I just wanted to clarify that these things have been, and the city is open to working with the property owner, correct? I'm going to say yes, as long as we're not in an adversarial role here, because there have been some emails saying we're stalling. There's no stall on our part. We did have a different code officer to begin with, which we're not going to go through the details of where he's at right now, but the project shifted. Mr. Lee picked up, moved quickly to do his inspection, communicating with staff. We're happy to have another meeting with the applicant to walk them through the process of what should happen next. We would love to see the property come into compliance and have further protections moving forward. And you have been on emails where some of these things that you actually just explained have already been explained as far back as April 7, 2026, correct? So that's in writing, but the first time we talked about it was February 24th in a meeting with the receivership team. So yes. Thank you, Ms. Hoyland. Mr. Escalante. Can you identify, Ms. Hoyland, an email where you specifically listed the items that needed to be maintained or repaired? So some of those emails. Or your team. Yes. There's one here from April 7th where my supervisor, direct supervisor, Amy Alvarez, sent you the info. This was after me coordinating with her, and she sent it to you. I've also coordinated with Mr. Lee and the code enforcement team, but this was April 7th. And my understanding, those items were addressed. After April 7th, my client met with Mr. Lee. They walked the property. The items that Mr. Lee identified were four items. They were all addressed. And since April 16th, we, the receiver team, has reached out to Mr. Lee, has reached out to the assistant city attorney and your office for a list of items that you consider to be deficient. And we, hold on a second, and we have been attempting to just have a site visit with all the interested parties involved. The receiver team will be there. Someone from Historic and someone from Code can be there. And we can go through all the items and deal with them. And the issue that we're having is that we're not getting a clear, in writing, list of the items that need to be addressed. And just so everyone's clear, this property, the owner of the property is in foreclosure. There is a foreclosure judgment has been issued. The court, the circuit court of Broward County, of Palm Beach County, I'm sorry, has appointed the receiver, Warren Weiser, to manage, maintain the property, and attempt to sell the property. And that's all the order, the receivership order provides. He is supposed to basically do temporary, maintain the property, and sell it. He's been attempting to sell it. Maybe that's why you're getting some calls, because they're marketing the property out there. That's not us. We're not talking about that. Our goal is to bring someone to the city, a partner that they can work with, that they can develop the property in a way consistent with Historic and Code and the city. That's all we're trying to do. We're going through that process right now. We have had several emails with Mr. Lee. We have reached out to Ms. Hoyland. I've had conversations with Lawanda. Everybody at the city has been very, very helpful. But when it comes to this last part, what exactly are the items, sometimes code enforcement says, well, they've been taken care of, but it's up to Historic. And then it goes in a circle. The last time we spoke to your team, it was an issue with the bees. There was an issue with nesting bees on the property. We immediately took care of the issue. We got a licensed beekeeper who went out to the property and took out all the bees, and they're gone. At one point, we had to find a certificate of boarding in order to do the boarding process. My client came to the city. He went and asked, where's the application for a boarding certificate? No one knew anything about a boarding certificate. I personally called development services and requested for an application. What's the process to get a boarding certificate to board up these windows? Nothing, you know, no one knew anything about it. The other issue, just sort of as an aside, the notice is incorrect. The receiver was appointed at the end of January. Most of these items precede the receiver with the actual owner who is basically, they're gone. They're from New Jersey, and they haven't paid their loan, and the property is being foreclosed on. The notice is in the title of SEH. No, no, I'm sorry. The name on the notice is 150 Inlet Way PH LLC. It has nothing to do with this property. It has nothing to do with this property. The receiver did not find out about this notice until the neighbor who's next door saw it posted and took a picture and sent it over to the receiver team. That's one. The wrong party was on the notice. So I don't think that, you know, with respect, that you can have a lien when there hasn't been any notice. We have also not been provided with a written compliance list of what the issues are. This is the first I hear Ms. Hoyland, you know, went through the pictures and identified the siding issue. We'll take care of it. I mean, honestly, we want to work with you. I'm sorry? No, nothing. Who is Icon Development Holdings? Is that the previous owner? That's the previous owner. That's the owner. Technically, that is the current owner of the property. The receiver was appointed. And if you – I'd like to – And technically – Does the city have to notice the owner of record? And that's what I was just about to say. We are responsible for noticing the owner of record on the property appraiser website, and that's who the city noticed. We've provided courtesy notices to the receivership team once we were, you know, informed that this is the receiver. There was also a random issue with some title change with the clerk's office that they were trying to correct as well. But the city has always provided notice to whoever the proper party was on the property appraiser website as well as physically posting. So we've met our posting requirements. What's the effect of the foreclosure on an existing city lien? Is the city a party to this suit? No, but the foreclosure action has basically been stayed with the appointment of the receiver. The receiver is – his mandate from the circuit court is to maintain the property, sell the property. I have a memorandum for you if you want to see it so I can – Can you show the city attorney first, please? I emailed it to your – Is this the – it should be in your packet. Is this the document that you provided? Yeah. I provided – we provided it. There's – I'll just – I just want you to see the order appointing the receiver. The order specifically says that the receiver is not liable for any action prior to assumption of the receivership, and that's per Florida statute as well. We request that no lien be entered. Obviously, a lien would have an effect on the sales process. We've showed substantial compliance, and we've been diligent with the city. I mean, there's been many, many emails back and forth, and we're trying to work with Connor and historic and legal. We're just trying to find out just at a specific list of what we need to do. So that's within the receiver's mandate of maintaining the property. I will add that, you know, we have provided previous lists, as Ms. Espelani stated. We've been emailing back and forth. We've had so many hands on deck from the city to try to provide them with what they need. Recently, I know that even the Director of Community Services office has had her staff try to reach out so we can at least try to schedule a meeting. I know that there might be some scheduling conflicts or issues, but the city has always maintained that it's willing to have that meeting. So, you know, the city is fine with having them sit down. But at this point, it's not in compliance, and it's insufficient. And this looks like obvious patchwork and not in compliance with our maintenance requirements, especially for historic districts. So we would just ask that the lien be put in place. And then if this does come into compliance, they're more than welcome to come back for a lien or fire reduction hearing. Mr. Espelani, are you arguing that I don't have the authority to issue a lien at this time? That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that... Tell me what you're... What are you trying to tell me? I'm saying that the gist of the maintenance obligations occurred prior to the receiver being appointed. Right. And per the receiver order, the receiver is only responsible for items basically after the receiver has been appointed. And that's also per Florida statute. So you can... What I am asking you to do is to take into account that we've been diligent in attempting to address the city's concerns, historic concerns, code enforcement's concerns. What we're looking for is a meeting at the property, a point person that we can, you know, address and see what the issues are and address them. And we have appointed a point person, and we have stated that we will meet with them. So I'm not sure. Administratively, I don't believe that the special magistrate can direct the city on who to appoint for what and how to handle... I can't do that. But, I mean, it sounds like you need a meeting. I suspect the city is willing to give you one. I wouldn't put that in an order, but I'm sure the city... You'll go out to the property and walk it with them, right? Correct. We have... Yes. The question in front of me today is what to do about the running fine on the property and whether, I guess, the city is asking me to lean the property in the amount of the running fine and to continue it, right? Is that essentially what the city is asking me to do? Yes. I guess what I'm confused about, Mr. Esfonte, is I'm looking at the order from the circuit court. Is it your position that this order precludes the existing fines from being assessed against the... I guess I don't even know who's in... I guess the receiver is in charge of the property, right? That is correct. So is it your position that this order precludes a code enforcement magistrate from assessing an order that was initially against the property owner or against the property as it exists today? My position is that per the court order and Florida statute, Your Honor can assess a lien or fines only for acts after the receiver took over the property, which was, I believe, the receiver order was at the end of January, maybe January 21st. The original notice that was to the original property owner was sometime for earlier January. It was prior to that. But what I am saying is that the receiver does have a mandate, okay? The receiver, for example, this is not... But the receiver cannot replace the roof. He cannot take out permits. The receiver cannot develop this property. The receiver's mandate is just to maintain it and to sell it. He's been actively trying to sell the property, and he's actively been trying to sort of maintain the property as best he can to leave it in the same condition that he founded it. I mean, he's gone above and beyond, to be honest with you. They've painted the structures. They've boarded up some windows. There were signs of trespass. Those have been cleaned up. There were issues with bees. There were some holes there that those have been, you know, boarded up. What would you have me do here? Either continue the hearing or just find substantial compliance that we've complied, that we've been diligent. Well, I'm not going to find substantial compliance because I don't think that's accurate. I think the weight of the testimony here is that there's still a fair amount of work that needs to be done. So I can't find that. I mean, I suppose I could continue the hearing, but that wouldn't necessarily... That would just delay the decision rather than address it. But honestly, Ms. Warren, I'm not sure what the legal standing is here. I mean, I guess the question that, you know, if you have concerns about is, you know, we've noticed the property. The receiver took over for receivership. Is the issue whether or not the initial property owner would be able to make those corrections or file for the permit? Because the receiver's duty, as he stated, is to maintain the property. So they're still responsible just as the property owner would have been to maintain the property. They're technically not a party to this violation. So if they're... Then are they acting on behalf of the property owner? Because we're... This is against the property owner. The receivership is just kind of... That I agree with you. Right. Well, you understand what I'm saying? So it's... I don't think that that means that we don't have jurisdiction or we can't proceed with the case. The question is, you know, what's their authorization? Does this completely take away the owner's responsibility for the property? I don't necessarily agree with that because liens are against the property, right? And the owner, not... Or the land. They follow the land and the owner. Correct. Not... I don't believe a receivership takes over ownership because that was one of the issues with the court filing they had once the receiver or something, I believe, it went into a place or something. The clerk messed it up. Yeah. The clerk made a mistake and put the wrong... And changed the ownership to the receivership team and then they had to correct... Or to someone else. I don't know who it was. They changed the name of the owner for entities that have nothing to do with the receiver or this property, just this... Technically, as I understand it, the ICON development holding is still the owner of record. They are the owner of record. However, the court has ordered that the receiver maintain the property and the receiver sell the property. And the receiver is going to sell the property via a court order. And that's been ordered by the court. So that sale by statute will probably be free of any liens because that's what the statute, the receivership statute provides. So entering a lien here... I mean... So if I enter a lien, what happens to that and status to your property? Is it your belief that the court order and the Florida statutes would not allow that lien to attach? The lien's going to attach to the property. But again, it's a great question. That's why I file a record here. I mean, we may have to go back to the circuit court and seek guidance from the circuit court at that point. I'm not sure. To be honest with you, I'm not sure. It's going to take a title company when someone actually tries to buy the property to... Honestly, that's what's going to be... Delray Beach always gives me fun ones to try and figure out. That's what they said. But I don't think what the receivership does is take away the owner's rights and responsibilities initially for the property. It's just for maintenance and to sell the property. No, no, no. It does take... The owner is out. And I guess that's what my first question was. Yeah, the owner's out. The owner's out. The receiver basically steps into the shoes for the limited mandate to maintain and sell the property, market and sell the property, which is what he's been doing. Look, I can't... My suggestion would be to let's have a little bit more time. Give us... Let's have a meeting with code enforcement, historic out there. Let's resolve these issues and hopefully... All right. This is what I'm going to do. I'm going to leave the underlying order alone. It's still going to be operable. I'm going to reset this hearing, the non-compliance hearing for June 18th. And in the meantime, I'm going to ask that the city give some direction to the respondent about what they need to comply with. So, I mean, that doesn't change that I still have to rule on the rolling fine. But at least in the meantime, maybe you can try and bring this thing into compliance. And I'm going to ask maybe both sides to come prepared with exactly what I'm allowed to do in light of this court order. Thank you. What a question, Magistrate. Just reset it. That's all you have to put in there. Reset it. That's all you have to put in there. Continue daily fines. Yeah. Nothing changes the underlying order. Okay. Thank you. Basically, though, yeah. Thank you. Case number nine, code 26-000640. Property owner is Power Group of Companies Corp. The property address is 240 Northwest 8th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Reggie Williams. Good afternoon. This case was originally found to be a maintenance of building and landscape maintenance violation on March 25th, 2026. For unsecured structures, overgrown landscape, and loose trash. On April 16th, 2026, the ruling was to come into compliance on or before April 23rd, 2026 or pay a date fine of $100. On April 14th, I mean, on April 24th, 2026, a board order inspection was conducted and it was observed that the violation still existed. On April 29th, 2026, I posted a noncompliance hearing notice at the property. On April 29th, 2026, a noncompliance hearing notice was mailed first class, certified mail, and posted to City Hall. As of May 21st, 2026, the fine remains outstanding. I have six new photos to introduce as evidence and three previously showed photos from the initial hearing. City suggests lien the property in the amount of $2,300 and continued daily fine of $100 per day. This is an old photo from March 25th, 2026 from a different angle. March 25th, 2026, and this is in the back of the property in the alleyway of the window that's not there anymore on March 25th, 2026. Exhibit 1 is the posting of noncompliance hearing notice. Exhibit 2 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 3, taken May 20th, 2026, is a photo of the landscape with the loose trash and overgrown grass. Exhibit 4, taken May 20th, 2026, is a different angle of the landscape. Exhibit 5, taken May 20th, 2026, is the back of the property with the window that's unsecured. Exhibit 6 is an affidavit of noncompliance. Is there any evidence that they did anything at all? No. I spoke with a realtor that informed me that the property was going up for sale. So he actually called and asked. He had somebody go out with him to look at the property, and he saw the noncompliance hearing notice, and he gave me a call to try to figure out what needed to be done. And he informed me that he was going to talk to the owners of the property that's trying to sell it, to try to get them to fix it. But at this moment, they haven't done anything. Yep. Without objection, so admitted. I assume you're looking for a lien and continue? Yes. So lien a property in an amount of $2,300 and continue a daily fine of $100 per day. In case 26-0-0-0-6-4-0, I make the following findings of fact. On the life I notice, sufficient to find the property continues to be in violation of 4.6.16 I, is it I or L? One. Respondent, the lien is assessed in the amount of $2,300 and continues at $100 a day until the property comes into compliance. Thank you. I think that's it, right? We're adjourned. Thank you.