Special Magistrate - Jul 02, 2026

i got the red light on there we go all right good afternoon welcome to the code enforcement hearings for july 2nd of 2026. my name is gary glassman and i am the special magistrate for today i want to go over some what i call ground rules or guidelines as to how we're going to conduct these hearings before we start so let me just do that first of all the cases will be taken in the order of the agenda and unless i'm asked otherwise but that's how the cases will be taken when i'm done doing these introductions the clerk will swear everyone in who is going to testify even if you think well maybe yes maybe no please stand when she asks you to stand and get sworn in this way we don't have to do it for each individual case we can do it as a group when your case is called proceed to the podium and get ready to present your case what will happen though is first the city will be presenting its case okay and that may include some testimony it may include some pictures may include some other evidence the city gets its chance to go first because they have the burden to prove their case after they've proven their case you as the respondent in this proceeding has an opportunity to question the code enforcement officer or and or you can simply go ahead and begin to present your case at that time that's up to you i can't advise you as to what to do that's not my job but you have that opportunity to question the code enforcement officer as they do have that opportunity to question you now i will say this civility is a key thing okay direct your questions or your comments to me questions to the other side but direct any comments to me and please let's give each other the opportunities the full opportunities to be heard let's not cross talk let's not argue that's not going to help the situation once all of the evidence has been presented then it is up to me to make a decision and let me say this um there are some cases that may have come before the magistrate in past hearings i know nothing about those cases okay i don't prejudge anything i don't read anything so i don't know what's going to be presented but i may have questions especially if the case has been presented before please understand that i ask those questions because i need a fuller understanding of your case it's not because i'm trying to be detrimental or i'm trying to be prejudiced or dishonest or something like that it's simply that i need to know all the evidence that i can get so i can make a proper decision so again if your case has been here before please understand that i know nothing about your case okay this is what we call a quasi-judicial proceeding meaning that the rules of evidence the strict rules of evidence that lawyers must adhere to in a courtroom we don't do but that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all it doesn't mean that anything goes um if there are objections to the evidence i will rule on it but again let's take it one step at a time let's not scream and yell let's not talk over each other and let's be civil with each other okay um all the testimony of course is taken under oath subject to penalties of perjury so i caution you there as well and at this point i will ask the clerk to ask everyone who is going to testify to stand and be sworn in raise your right hand 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 okay very good requesting approval of the consent agenda as written consent is given thank you we have the minutes but i'm not quite sure since i did not do the last hearing that i can approve those minutes okay thank you i don't know how i could do that so we'll have to save that for when you have that magistrate back okay call the first case please case number one code 26 000 759 the code officer on the case is chandler ferguson the property owner is fairway harbor llc um the registered agent is ct corporation systems and the property address is 1755 south federal highway and again the code officer on this case is chandler ferguson good afternoon could you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record jonathan claus c-l-a-u-s and where are you currently employed city of delray beach what is your current position inspector two specifically mechanical so as a part of your duties and responsibilities as an inspector with the city do you frequently also observe potential violations that occur in the city yes yes and did you happen to go to the property located at 1755 south federal highway in delray beach florida yes and um was that on or about may 20th 2026 or what was the time frame june 10th 2024 and this is the 1755 correct all right and what if anything did you observe when you went to that property actually as i was driving by i noticed a crane lifting an ac package unit onto the roof of the chase bank i called into the office to see if there was any permits pulled for that address and there was not i then stopped and spoke with the technician for the ac company asked if they had a permit and he specified no and then i came back and told the code officer okay did you take any picture i did i'm now showing you has been previously marked at city specific three for identification purposes do you recognize this yes what do you recognize that you do that's the ac company with their crane and one of the package units on the ground getting ready to be lifted onto the roof right and this is when you say that i believe that you asked them if they had a permit correct that's the gentleman i spoke to right there all right um city exhibit four this is just another picture just another picture correct all right city exhibit five what does this photograph that was more ac units they were getting ready to load onto the roof um and install inside because some of those are indoor units um and this city exhibit six that would be from the code okay at this time the city would like to introduce um photographs three through five into evidence are there any objections i'm not sure if anyone's here yeah i don't think so either i didn't see anyone but i'd ask it anyway okay no objections in the here then the pictures are admitted as evidence i think that's exhibits four five and six three four and five three four and five okay and um you said earlier that once you observe this and receive this information you provide it to the code enforcement correct was that to proceed with any potential violations correct i was to their supervisors so they could send out a code enforcement officer all right thank you at this time let's call our next witness mr ferguson you may proceed mr ferguson check good morning special magistrate my name is chandler ferguson code enforcement officer for the city of dairy beach case number 26 000 759 this property 1755 south south federal highway was issued a notice of violation on may 21st 2026 service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to city hall on may 22nd 2026 in addition the property was posted on may 22nd 2026 an affidavit of posting and an affidavit of non-compliance is attached in the case i have been in contact with the property owner this property was cited for installing an ac unit without obtaining an approved permit 2.4 point 13b building permits as of june 26 2026 the property has not come into compliance i have four attached photographs of the property to the case in which i would like to introduce it to evidence proceed um the city is asking for an additional 30 days for them to come into compliance which would be on august 1st 2026 if they do not come into compliance the city is asking for a hundred dollars a day until compliance is achieved can please go through your exhibits starting with exhibit one on the screen so uh this is uh the property appraisal this is the sunbiz and it's the property appraisal just indicating who yes this is this is the property owner this is just uh let you know who that is is and this is the registered agent which is ct ct corporation that is exhibit two here exhibit two this is the department of division of corporations indicating who the registered agent is for purposes of service correct correct all right so we're going to skip over to city's exhibit six and this is the posting in which i posted the uh notice of violation on may 22nd city's exhibit seven and this is the uh affidavit of posting amela city's exhibit eight and this is the first affidavit of non-compliance so you did this after the compliance date to just confirm yes yes after i checked the permits that yes it was not approved okay at this time the city would like to introduce cities exhibits one two and six through eight i have one two six seven and eight six seven eight yeah okay um no objection i would assume since nobody's here they will be admitted into evidence thank you any other testimony that you have none from the city okay again the respondent apparently not here um fairway harvors llc okay the recommendation is i believe you said come to compliance by august 1st august 1st yes 2026 or 100 a day yes that will be the decision of the magistrate thank you all right let's take the next case please thank you case number two code 26 000 760 the property owner is delray corporate center llc the registered agent is levi realty advisors llc josh levy is the registered agent the property address is 2875 south congress avenue and the code officer on the case is chandler lee i'm so sorry is chandler ferguson good afternoon could you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record yes jonathan claus c-l-a-u-s are you currently employed with the city of dart beach yes what is your current position inspector two specifically mechanical and as part of your duties and responsibilities if when while all you're inspecting you see any potential violations do you inquire and notify code enforcement yes and did you happen to visit the property located at 2875 south congress avenue yes um when did you visit that property and what if anything did you notice it was during a inspection for an ac unit on suite a on april 6 2026 when i was up there for that unit which is an end unit i noticed a few other units that were not installed per code which led me to see that they were newer looking they were shiny upon inspection of the manufacturer's date they were all new units and no permits have been pulled on the rest of the building since 2017. okay so you checked city records to confirm whether or not any permits had indeed been pulled or not for the newer acs yes you noticed okay and um what did you do after you noticed that i came and told the code enforcement supervisor all right so you reported it for a potential violation all right thank you and um did you take photographs i did so now showing you has been previously marked a city's exhibit three for identification purposes do you recognize this yes and what do you recognize it to be that's a three-ton coastal star unit for suite c and is that one of the units that you indicated that you observed and checked all the markings on it correct and i do have a picture there all right yes so city's exhibit four this is a closer yes so what does this depict that shows the tonnage of the unit and then on the serial number uh it has a 23 uh c19 which says it's the 19th week of 2023 that was manufactured and since there was no permit since 2017 i knew that it was done without a permit all right thank you city's exhibit five uh that's the same unit just from the front city's exhibit six looks like the same picture all right at this time the city would like to introduce these exhibits three through six into evidence any objections no then exhibits three four five and six are admitted into evidence and after you provided this information to the code enforcement department did that conclude your involvement with this matter no i was contacted by code enforcement um when they posted the permit and went back after talking with pole air who is another suite their suite d who thought the unit was theirs but it was not okay all right so you just confirmed that it actually belonged to this property correct all right perfect thank you do you have any questions of this witness so far uh not at this time your honor although we may wish to follow up just as the presentation develops particularly when it comes to our presentation please stay there sir in case they have some other questions for you then we'll proceed with the your city's case yes at this time i'd like to call our code enforcement officer mr ferguson good afternoon special magistrate my name is chandler ferguson code enforcement officer of the city of dairy beach case number 26 000 760 this property 2875 south congress ave was issued a notice of violation on may 22nd 2026 service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to city hall on may 22nd 2026 in addition the property was in addition the property was posted on may 22nd 2026 an affidavit of posting and an affidavit of non-compliance is attached in the case i have been in contact with the property owner this property was cited for installing ac units without without obtaining an approved permit 2.4.13 b as of june 26 2026 the property has not come into compliance i have attached six photographs of the property to the case which i would like to introduce into evidence all right so let's talk about city's exhibit one what is this exhibit exhibit all right so this is uh this is the property appraisal and um pretty much uh let you know who the property owner is in the location okay thank you city's exhibit two this is the sum biz letting you know uh the register agent and all the information and uh the mailing address and that's for purposes of additional service correct all right so are you familiar with cities exhibit four would these provide it to you correct yes yes okay um cities exhibit seven what is this this was the posting uh the day that i posted the notice of violation and that was on may 22nd 2026 yes okay cities exhibit eight that was that's for another property oh so this isn't relevant no okay sorry sorry about that uh city's exhibit nine uh this is the post-it and melon this is pretty much um the affidavit of posted and melon and this is the affidavit of non-compliance all right so we have just make sure we have all the correct photographs city's exhibits one two seven eight no seven so one two seven nine and ten we'd like to introduce those into evidence any objections no your honor okay then exhibits numbers one two seven nine and ten are admitted into evidence do you have any further testimony sir at this time no hello okay questions of this particular witness uh i will have questions of this witness i believe but first i'd like to begin my presentation well that's kind of taking it out of order but i'll allow it so long as we can stay on track i don't want to get too far afield you can start your presentation and then if you have some questions that'll be fine thank you your honor so i'd like to first start off by providing my appearance my name is jacob roth of contrarino roth llc i represent levy real estate advisors with regard to this code compliance matter and i'd like to start off just by acknowledging and stating the facts as far as we're aware of them just because it's a little bit of a tricky situation i think due to some miscommunications along the way so to start off the ac units as far as we're familiar with them for the property that were not permitted were for suites b c and g those units were installed since november of last year and they were not permitted we are currently in the process of submitting a permit for these units we have every interest in being in compliance and taking care of that we have no issue trying to do that the issue that has happened so far is that when we originally received the notice the notice as far as i'm familiar with was not provided directly to levy real estate advisors but instead provided to the tenant in suite d which is a polar air conditioning air conditioning services and suite d is not a unit for which there was an ac unit installed that was unpermitted so they were the wrong tenant to be having a problem with the ac unit it's instead suite c that we understand that to have been intended for so we found out about the unpermitted unit when polar brought it to our attention and then we worked with mr chandler to figure out which particular unit had the unpermitted ac unit installed we ultimately determined with mr chandler's help that it was suite c and so we initiated for a contractor uh the contractor installed the unit coastal to submit a permit to take care of that then in subsequent conversations between and forgive me for mispronouncing it is it mr claus or clause clause mr claus had subsequent conversations with coastal the contractor who had installed the units and we discovered that suites b and g additionally had ac units that had been installed installed without permits once we acquired that info and confirmed it with the city which was as of june 24th uh so last week we init the coastal initiated revising its permit application so that we get all three units included in the permit application that is now with we be real estate advisors to sign off on we'll be submitting that shortly the purpose of me providing this clarification is just to inform the city that we only really understood the units in question that had to be permitted about basically the end of june and we're rapidly working to take care of this issue so to the extent that there was not effective notice about the particular ac unit in question being for suite c and then additionally for suites b and g we ask that a violation not be considered to be found because we only warned about it belatedly and our request is ultimately just 60 days for us to get the permit take care of any outstanding issues coming into compliance and then to revisit the issue uh if anything's out of compliance at that time again do you have any questions of the witness now or are you satisfied with your presentation i'm satisfied with my presentation if the issue of notice to we be real estate advisors is further contested i'd have some questions for mr chaneler about the notice like where the notice was sent to but if that's not fought on i don't want to waste anyone's time by delving into it so okay i think that's more i can make a legal argument as far as notice goes um we don't have the image up here on the screen but upon review of the case this is kind of it's an interesting issue because it's really one massive like plot like plat right so there are multiple i guess like plots on this entire plat of the property so you know the ac units were kind of spread out on top of the building but in any event delray corporate center llc owns the entire area and that's who we provided notice to and mr um chandler placed it on one while he placed it on one of the individual business units it was posted overall generally on the property we were able to you know to clarify i don't know which suite the ac belonged to but overall it's unpermitted acs on top of the entire building that is owned by delray corporate center llc so our position is that notice was sufficient not only we posted generally on the property we also mailed it to the property listed and the property appraiser website as well uh that's why we provided that information of who the register agent was to prove that we also submitted additional notice to the register agent in accordance with chapter 162 okay thank you let me just let me ask a question it seems that there are three units that were placed on the roof for suites b c and g is that is that correct mr ferguson correct okay and none of them had permits when they were installed no no approved permits okay and that both sides are working towards getting the permits for all three suites would that be accurate yes okay and what is the the city's recommendation or the city's concern you heard you heard the property owner say or the property representative that they need 60 days to get the permits and we're giving them an additional 30 days and that'll be to august 1st 2026 if not it'll be a 100 a dance of compliances achieved okay can you get them done by august 1st 2026 your honor i think that is possible i just don't want to bet a risk of violation on 30 days as opposed to 60 days which i'm very confident about by comparison i just would prefer not to be back here in 30 days making a pitch for a 30-day extension again when 60 days i believe it really could just be wrapped up and good and we wouldn't have to go through it again okay i spoke to the building inspector and he advised me that they have already submitted an application for one of the units so suite c which was the comfort star already has the permit issued suites b and g will need to be they were submitted but there were some deficiencies so they are working on those once we get the deficiencies fixed it's out the door within three days so based on that do you feel that 30 days is a reasonable amount of more than sufficient okay thank you all right what i'm going to do is provide for the 30 days to get the permits based upon the testimony and the ability to get it done if for some reason you can't yes i'm sorry to have to drag you back here again but that's the way these things go or there will be a fine instituted of 100 per day as to the notice i don't have to rule on that since i'm ruling that the all of the permits need to be done by august 1st however i will say that if i had to rule on it i would rule in favor of the city on it because i do think the notice was sufficient but i don't think i need to do that so long as we get this done fair enough yes your honor thank you okay then my ruling will be uh all the permits i think one has already been established but the other two permits need to be in place by august 1 2026 where there will be a 100 a day fine instituted uh anything else but i will you know i may i may i ask um mr glassman that you actually find and make a finding that the property is out of compliance outside of the compliance date yes and that we did have proper notice okay thank you i'll do that because i i don't really like to leave these things hanging either judges and magistrates don't like to decide things when they don't have to but in that case i will simply say that it's my finding that the property was out of compliance and that the notice was proper thank you let's leave it at that thank you sir thank you thank you case number three code 26 zero zero zero seven six one the property owner is joan s goldberg the property address is 4504 white cedar lane and the property owner and the code officer on the case is chandler ferguson good afternoon could you please state your full name and your last name for the record sir jonathan claus c-l-a-u-s are you currently employed with the city of delroy beach yes in what capacity inspector two specifically mechanical and did you inspect or go onto the property located at 4504 white cedar lane delroy beach florida yes and what if anything did you observe regarding an unpermitted ac unit on the property as i was driving by from a neighbor's inspection i noticed that there was some ac duct work spread across the driveway with cousins air truck since they had previously done addition work i knew that that was not included in the scope and that permit was previously closed out i then researched and realized they had not pulled a permit for all new ac duct work took pictures i actually contacted cousins air prior to contacting code enforcement and subsequently i saw them again continuing work on the following day those days were november 4th 2025 and november 5th 2025 okay and you say that you took pictures correct yes i'm now sharing what has been previously marked as cities exhibit two for identification purposes do you recognize this yes those were the pictures i took from the road and is that the cousins um business you referred to earlier correct on the truck um cities exhibit three yes that's the picture i took with the address of the 4504 all right cities exhibit four also showing that i was just driving by was not driving at the top okay glad cities exhibit five a picture taken from the truck showing the uh the two trucks with the ductwork on the driveway okay and just for clarification with that being the center of the photograph with the individual with like a highlighter green type shirt correct that was one of the technicians there were multiple technicians on site all right um at this time the city would like to introduce cities exhibits two through five into evidence is the respondent present okay no objection then therefore the exhibits two three and five will be admitted into evidence so after you notice those and those uh major observations on both of those states um what if anything did you do next i contacted michael with cousins air because we do have a good working relationship uh anytime they have an inspection he's the one who contacts me for a time and an arrival time so i let him know via text first i asked him where his permit was for that he stated that they didn't have one he didn't know anything about it and then there was a phone call that followed but the phone call was not necessarily in regards to this property he just said he would look into it okay and did you then provide this information over to the code enforcement department for further investigation yes okay thank you at this time the city would like to call mr ferguson you may proceed good afternoon special magistrate my name is chandler ferguson code enforcement officer for the city of dairy beach case number 26 000 761 this property 4504 white cedar lane was issued a notice of violation on may 22nd 2026 service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to city hall on may 26 2026 in addition the property was posted on may 28th 2026 an affidavit of posting and an affidavit of non-compliance is attached in the case i have not been in contact with the property owner this property was cited for installing an ac unit without obtaining an approved permit 2.4.13 b as of june 23rd 2026 the property has not come into compliance i have attached four photographs to the of the property to the case that i would like to introduce into evidence thank you let's start with exhibit one what does this depict this is the property appraisal uh and this is uh pretty much the property owner and their address so we can mail them the mail send them the mail thank you yeah um city's exhibit this is showing uh the posting on may 28th when i posted the property the notice of violation and the hearing notice this was the affidavit of posting which was posted on the 28th of may city exhibit eight and this was the affidavit of non-compliant so this is the affidavit that you do to confirm that the property was not yes yes at this time the city would like to introduce exhibit one and six through eight okay hearing no objection they will be admitted into evidence thank you the city has no further testimony all right is there a recommendation yes uh the city is asking for additional 30 days for them to come into compliance which will be on august 1st 2026 if they do not come into compliance then the city is asking for 100 a day until compliance is achieved okay i make a finding that the property owner is was not and still is not in compliance that they have until 30 days august 1st 2026 to come into compliance if not there will be a 100 a day fine and if you could make a finding that sufficient notice was provided i'm sorry if you can make a finding that sufficient notice was of the hearing was provided to the property owner all right all right i i'll i can do that sufficient notice i'll find also that sufficient notice was provided to the property owner for the case thank you thank you thank you case number four code 26 000 487 the property owner is thomas j burke the property address is 202 southeast 4th avenue the code officer on the case is supervisor latoya thompson good afternoon we're first going to start with mr david glover good afternoon mr glover could you please state your full name and last name and spell your last name for the record uh david glover uh g-l-o-v-e-r and are you employed with the city of dara beach yes and what capacity i am the senior landscape planner for the city and could you briefly explain what are your duties and responsibilities as a senior landscaper um my duties is to uh advise um different departments on different landscape regulations and also provide uh assessment and review for site plans and landscape plans correct so if someone were to come in and want to add um any type of vegetation or trees on their property that's something that you would review to um see if that's suitable yes okay and are you familiar with the property located at 202 southeast 4th avenue in delver beach florida yes did they come before the city for any type of site plan review or any type of review regarding landscaping uh so to answer that question uh to refer to what this picture is portraying at that time they did not come into the city for a permit okay so let me ask you this let's go straight into the pictures i'm now showing you what's been previously marked a city's exhibit one for identification purposes um what area in the city is this located in that's located in the city's right away so this is the city's property correct yes and is that uh property um adjacent to 202 uh southeast 4th avenue delver beach florida yes and as a part of this property um how did this incident come about um so this incident um for my knowledge came up in uh over a year ago back in i believe in february when this property was being constructed i was contacted by the contractor at that time suggesting that the homeowner wanted to provide some type of landscape material in the right away at that time we advised them that they had a approved landscape plan already at the time and that they would have to come in and supply the necessary paperwork and do a revision for um asking to put landscape in the right away um i didn't hear anything from them um after that um the property was approved uh with the current approved landscape plan um the landscape was i mean the property was inspected and co'd and closed out per the approved landscape plan um around a few months later i believe around in no uh december uh it was an engineer inspector in the area and noticed uh some landscaper attempting to put landscape within the right away um at that time they notified uh code enforcement code enforcement went out to the site made contact with the landscapers and asked them to cease and to contact the city and provide permits or get permits or find out what they needed to do um code enforcement revisit the site maybe a day or two later and that's when we noticed that the site was in this state that you see now so let's break this down you initially stated that they indeed had an approved landscape plan correct yes and to confirm what we see here in these photographs those trees that was not in their approved landscaping plan no all right so then they were approved they were sealed for that yes and then later on you say that you were advised by the engineering department as well as code enforcement that there had been a work done in the right of way without any approvals correct correct and a part of that work was they were attempting to install trees and they were told you know that that wasn't approved at that point yes correct and then a few days later you know after another inspection we found that they didn't stop they continued to put the trees in the cities right away correct correct so the work for what we're here for we're here for basically you know approved work on the property which included the trees that were there correct said it again we were here for and doing the work without in the cities right away without a permit which included the trees being installed yes without the proper approval or not even any type of modification to the landscaping plan correct all right so i'm not going to show you city's exhibit two uh what does this picture depict uh this this is at the time when they was um installed in the landscape in the right of way so this is and before it was complete yes all right um and this is city's exhibit three on december 12th is another angle yes okay and after all of this did you provide this information to the code enforcement department or request that they proceed with the violation yes and so fast forward from december 12th until now um has the city been attempting to work with the property owner to explain to them what they need to do to come into compliance yes okay all right before we that's the testimony of this witness yes okay before we proceed identify yourself please and if you have questions of this witness yes thank you uh my name is david schmidt i'm representing mr burke who's the the property owner i'm an attorney okay lucky you yes all right proceed all right uh mr glover um looking at exhibit three the tall trees that are depicted in that photo what type of trees are those uh coconut bombs and are they permitted in single-family residential landscaping in the city uh and to some degree or how you're wording that i wouldn't i couldn't i couldn't tell you yes or no it would depend on a review and assessment of where they're located and um how they're being used but are they permitted trees under the landscape code for single-family residential they are permitted trees under 4.616 in a limited capacity due to the yellow leafing of them and it gives me the authority under my review and assessment to limit them allow them or do not allow them okay and the smaller trees depicted in that picture do you know what type of trees those are um yeah those are brazilian beauty leaves and are they allowed under the city code and single-family residential property again those trees are allowed but it is under my jurisdiction to do a review and assessment of where they're located and how they're being used for me to say yes or no okay and you testified that the landscaping has been installed in the right of way which is owned by the city who is supposed to maintain that right away under ldrs it is stated that the adjacent property owner is supposed to maintain all right and now are they required to install irrigation uh they're in they're required to install sod and irrigation all right and does the city prohibit parking in swales um i'm not an expert to testify for that okay so you don't know i'm not an expert to testify on that it doesn't matter if you're an expert or not do you know of your personal knowledge whether the city allows parking in swales i am not an expert to testify okay let's go on all right um i have no other questions for this witness your honor anything that you would like to add based on the questions that were asked of you sir sure now at this time the city would like to call miss thompson all right proceed go back through your your photographs as well miss thompson good afternoon special magistrate my name is latoya thompson code supervisor for the city of delray beach code enforcement division i'm here regarding work without permit located at 202 southeast 4th avenue delray beach on december 12th 2025 code enforcement was informed by the engineering department regarding work performed within the city's right of way without a permit at 202 southeast 4th avenue delray beach on december 29th 2026 phil cartwright code administrator and i investigated the property and observed coconut trees and bushes planted within the swale it should be noted that the landscape company at the time of observation december 12th around december 12th was directed not to place the trees and other vegetation in the cities right away this constitutes as a violation of the city of delray beach land development regulations section 2.4.13 subsection b building permit the original magistrate violation was issued on january 6 2026 was mail first class certified mail and posted to city hall on january 13th 2026 the compliance compliance was required by february 6 2026 the violation was posted on the property january 14 2026 february 19 2026 a magistrate hearing was rescheduled for march 19 2026 a magistrate violation the violation was re-noticed on february 25th 2026 the violation was posted to the property on february 26 2026 on march 13th 2026 i conducted a re-inspection of the property and observed the coconut trees and the trees and the bushes are still in the trees and the bushes are still in the soil therefore the property was still out of compliance i've had had contact with the property owner's legal representation during the magistrate hearing on march 19th 2026 both parties the city of delray beach and the legal representative for the property owner agreed to a 60-day continuance a magistrate violation was re-issued on may 20th 2026 was mail first class certified mail and posted city hall on may 20th 2026 the violation was posted on the property on may 20th 2026 a re-inspection was conducted on may 27th 2026 and the property remains out of compliance the case was originally scheduled for june 4th 2026 the hearing however the property owner's legal representation requested the hearing be continued to june 18th 2026 as the property owner was unable to attend due to medical reasons a magistrate violation was re-issued on june 5th 2026 it was mail first class certified mail and posted to city hall on june 8th 2026 the violation was posted on the property on june 5th 2026 during the special magistrate hearing on june 18th 2026 the property owner's attorney stated that he had video evidence to present however because the evidence was not submitted by the required deadline he requested a continuance the continuance the hearings with the hearing continued to july 2nd 2026 a magistrate notice violation was re-issued on june 20th 2026 male first class certified mail and posted to city hall june 22nd 2026 the violation was posted on the property june 20th correction it was mail certified first class first class and posted to city hall june 22nd 2026 the violation was posted to the property june 20th 2026 as of the day the pro as of today the property remains out of compliance i have several photos to submit into evidence the city suggests that all unpermitted vegetation and trees be removed from the city's right of way restored back to its original state within or by july 18 2026 or or a fine of 250 dollars per day will be assessed to the property until compliance is achieved the photos exhibits now that i will go through is just all those dates that i said let's just go through the photographs so you can just go through the exhibits um state what the photographs were taken and what they depict exhibit one is a photograph taken on december 12th of the vegetation that was not permitted which are the trees and the coconut trees in the swale exhibit two is just another angle as you can see they planted when head after being told not to still continue to plant the vegetation in the swale exhibit three is just another photo of the vegetation being planted in a swell taken on december 12th exhibit four is the complete of the vegetation in the swell taken on december 29th exhibit five is just a close-up of the vegetation taken on december 29th exhibit six is the posting of the property taken on january 14th exhibit 7 is the affidavit of posting exhibit 8 is a reposting taken on february 26th exhibit 9 is the affidavit of posting exhibit 10 is the re-inspection taken on march 12th property remains out of compliance exhibit 11 is a affidavit of non-compliance exhibit 12 is just the order stating the continuance exhibit 13 is a reposting taken on may 20th exhibit 14 is a re-inspection taken on may 27th exhibit 15 the reposting taken on june 5th exhibit 16 is a photo of the address to 02 southeast 4th avenue taken on june 5th exhibit 17 is the affidavit of posting exhibit 18 is a re-inspection taken on june 5th exhibit 19 is an affidavit of non-compliance exhibit 20 is a reposting taken on june 20th exhibit 21 is the address for the violator taken on june 20th exhibit 22 is an affidavit of posting exhibit 23 is a re-inspection taken on june 20th exhibit 24 is a affidavit of non-compliance no objection no objection okay i was going to let you go one by one if you wanted but uh that makes it much easier thank you sir okay does that conclude your testimony ms thompson yes sir all right do you have any questions from ms thompson sir yes ms thompson you testified that on december 12th i believe it was that um the landscaper was advised to stop do you know who advised them to stop this information was given to me from my co-administrator that they spoke to the landscaper and uh do you know who they spoke to the name of the person not quite sure okay do you know if the property owner has applied for a building permit for approval of the landscaping there was a um in the system there was a permit however this is out of their scope of approval and why is that because they didn't get approved to get the coconut trees and all the other it was just regular side and irrigation right but the violation notice says to either remove the landscaping or apply for a building permit do you know if the property owner applied for a building permit after the notice was the violation notice was issued i know that there's one i'm not specific i'm not sure what the dates on it was something applied for but not for what they have in the right of way right now okay we'll address that in our presentation thank you i have no other questions for you mr do you have any other testimony you'd like to offer given the questions that were asked of you no that's it okay any other witnesses for the city okay um i haven't heard a recommendation from the city is is there one yeah i did oh i'm sorry to repeat it please yeah city recommend date recommend suggest that all unpermitted vegetation and trees be removed from the city's right away and restored back to the original state within or by july 18th 2026 or a fine of 250 per day be assessed to the property until compliance is achieved okay thank you i didn't write that one down okay any other witnesses no sir you can make your presentation okay thank you i um and i apologize your honor i don't normally do these with evidence so i have a prepared a powerpoint presentation that contains our evidence which has been uploaded that's fine okay all right use the arrows and get you a um that's okay i mean if i can do it with this this is fine okay um if i may your honor because i know i'll have some authentication that'll need to be done for some of the photos but um if i could just go through this yeah that's okay we'll do the authentication before we try and submit it into evidence that's fine go ahead yeah um i do but i think it'd be flow a little better if i just have them testify all right so this is a from the property appraisers website this is an aerial photo of the property are you are you i'm sorry to interrupt sir are you going to mark each of these exhibits so if i could do it as a composite exhibit for the powerpoint presentation okay composite is fine okay all right um so this is public record it's the aerial that's on the property appraisers website the property's on the corner of southeast fourth avenue and southeast second street uh the north or southwest corner excuse me um this is the from the city's zoning map uh the property is that little rm in the middle of the property right at the bottom of the purple and it's sort of an island of rm uh there's property across the street that's also rm it's on the west side this is the subject landscaping which the city already uh showed you photos and testified about and i could testify i took this photo that's my shadow this is also landscaping i took this photo um this is information from the property appraisers website i don't believe the city had that uh just the zone confirming the zoning of the property this is um the permit records that the city has online uh there was a building permit applied for on december 17th uh five days after the city uh first contacted the property owner and i'll have some testimony about that because there's comments and responses to comments uh the application is still pending at this point um these are some photos i took this is landscaping of adjoining property in the right yeah and i don't know whether they were permitted or not so i prefer not to get into neighbors landscaping well i think it's relevant because it's in the swale and there's some that is very similar to what my client has installed but again i don't know if it was permitted or not so therefore i'm not going to consider the neighbors landscaping let me go through this this this is the swale area and mr burke took these photos so they'll have to authenticate them but uh immediately to the west of the property well okay is it about one of these pictures let's let him go through these pictures and then i'll let you make your objections all it all together all right rather than go picture by picture thank you okay the and i i can advise the magistrate that the pictures of the swales that i'm showing you it's not our property it's adjoining property to the west okay same same ruling as before because i don't know whether those that landscaping was permitted or not and it's not regarding the landscaping your honor it's regarding the condition of the swales because the city allows parking on swales okay i already made the decision i'm not going to consider neighboring property so let's go forward let's just focus on this property and tell me what i'm looking at here well again these are photos of swales on adjoining property okay this is the fpl guidance on installation of trees i downloaded this off the city website it makes recommendations for types of trees it does not specifically prohibit different trees and regarding maintenance of trees which we consider to be an issue in this case and then this is from the city code the ldr section 4.6.16 e6 i'm sorry about the the print but coconut this is the provision that says coconut palms are permitted on single family residential it's one of the permitted trees under the city code and so that's what i have for those um i'd like to call mr burke the property owner because um well i i have some testimony from him besides i was going to have him authenticate the photos of the swale because he took those but if i could have mr burke come up please you have been sworn in you were part of the group swearing good thank you sir okay you need to come over here please state your name for the record thomas burke all right and you own the property located at 202 south east 4th avenue i'm so sorry i just want to confirm that he actually was sworn in i know he's he came in after the fact he i asked him and he just said he was yes okay and do you own the property at 202 southeast 4th avenue i do okay um and did you have the subject landscaping installed i did okay what was the condition of the swale prior to the installation of the landscaping uh we had uh sodded it and uh been maintaining it but the cars had parked there and it was becoming rutted and it was beginning to look like the photos you showed of all the other swales on the street um decrepit and just awful mess and people parking there till three four o'clock in the morning thursday friday saturday night throwing beer cans used condoms uh just a nightmare and uh it it it it was impossible to maintain and it was deteriorating and it was looking like all the derelict blighted swales up and down the street do you park any of your vehicles on that swale no i do not um were you required to replace any of the sod in the swale after it was initially installed yeah i did and suffer any damage to the irrigation system yes okay did you have to have that repair yes okay and is that area posted for no parking no um since we're not gonna get into the photos of the swale then i don't have any other questions for mr bark so mr bark just just a couple questions um you stated that you you had been maintaining that area correct the cities right away yes and you had at one point had sod there yes correct and um you found that it had been problematic um with to maintain it to maintain it are you aware that there are other mechanisms within the city to try to prevent some of those issues without improperly planting trees correct like buttons i'm part of buttons like on the side of the road to prevent people from parking on the swale okay so you're aware of that no you're making me aware of it now buttons are they're like dome-shaped markers that are permitted to be placed on the side of the right-of-way to prohibit those or stop some of those things that's not going to stop anybody from parking there i think we both know that but but that wasn't my question let's not get argumentative let's not get argumentative please my question was that there are other mechanisms within the city to prevent these types of issues without improperly planting trees correct if that's your opinion i don't necessarily agree with you i don't know what those mechanisms that you're describing are okay but you continue to proceed with the trees um with an understanding that you didn't have the approval no these these statements are a little self-serving and a little out of context uh the work was done in a period of two days and the permit was applied for immediately by the landscaper it was an innocent mistake was he wrong for not having a permit absolutely did he immediately attempt to remedy the situation and correct it absolutely true as well so um you know if if you want a little history or background or context for this you know my question was was the work done without the permit apparently it was okay i have nothing further through any other presentation you would like to make sir no other questions for mr burgh okay mr burgh you may be seated if you care to yeah i uh just want to say that you know we moved here in 2018 i lived in the caspian apartments across the street um chose this neighborhood to stay in spent a fair amount of money developing the home and that my wife and i built there and uh wanted to uh create an environment where we would feel happy and comfortable and we thought we did that uh with the landscaping that we initially did around the home with the wall and and landscaping on both sides however we have that monolithic giant concrete at&t building across the street it's about 60 or 70 feet tall and uh we thought that the vegetation that we planted would uh kind of screen or block a little bit from our property across the way uh to the at&t building but it didn't and uh subsequently we had a discussion with uh our landscaper and came up with a plan to uh add those uh trees that would help uh screen the property across the street so we don't have to look at the giant blue at&t sign and uh also we had issues with again people parking there uh till all hours of the day and night raising cane and uh we thought it would be an improvement so um came up with a plan and uh it was installed admittedly uh without benefit of a permit but the landscaping company immediately submitted themselves to the process and sought a permit which to date is still pending um it has not to my knowledge been denied um and i don't think i'm in violation of the uh zoning ordinance uh that governs the vegetation that can be placed in the swell mr glover has uh admitted that uh all of these trees uh are are permitted under the code uh but he feels that he has the latitude of the discretion to arbitrarily deny the placement of those trees for whatever reason i don't understand it's a vast improvement around everything else that exists there if you look at the swell right behind me it's hard packed it's dust it's dirt it's rock it's garbage and there it's it's not attractive and all i wanted to do was maintain what i had already put in there and block the view of the at&t building to the extent that i could and uh that's all i'm trying to do i all my neighbors across the street have heavier vegetation than me and they have coconut palms and if you go down southeast third avenue to 231 southeast third avenue there's four palm trees in the swale with the wires overhead and the lights underneath and and nobody seems to care so i'm held to a different standard okay all right mr burke i understand and i want to rule on the objection i'm going to overrule it but mr burke confine yourself pretty much to your own property sir that's what i'm trying to focus on i understand your neighbors i understand what has been done let's just confine your remarks but i'm i'm being held to a standard that doesn't apply to anybody else your honor i don't understand why i'm being treated differently than all the properties around me who have similar vegetation or heavier vegetation that's the problem i have here that i'm being singled out and treated unfairly for something that doesn't apply to anybody else that's not right i hear you mr burke uh anything you would like to question since he's testified you certainly have the right to question okay okay well let me get through property owner's case first and then we'll get to rebuttal is there anything further add one other thing your honor before i finish we've tried consistently to work with the city um to find a way to resolve this i don't think i'm above the law and i'm not attempting to uh be disrespectful or arrogant and say i don't have to follow the law because i know i do we've suggested uh maintenance agreement insurance indemnification uh which i imagine okay and also i'm gonna hold on mr burke i'm gonna sustain that objection we're going too far beyond okay what i need to know to decide this case okay those discussions that you may have had may continue to have with the city different story but right now i just want to confine myself as best as possible to the the reason i brought it up your honor is because we received a an email communication very recently to my attorney where we had offered careful mr burke you don't maybe necessarily want to discuss conversations between you and your attorney no no no from the city oh okay from the city i just wanted to advise you responding to okay yeah i i'm not going to hear about any settlement discussions because that again is not something that's within my authority any discussions you've had that's good with the city it's good to hear but right now i've got to focus on this violation okay so our good faith attempts to resolve it and offer ten thousand dollars cash to the city is not something that is germane here it's not relevant it it's not because the first thing i have to do is decide if there's a violation discussions that you may have had regarding settlement or offers that you have made maybe take into consideration later but right now i have to decide if there's a violation and how we're going to proceed okay okay all right okay well i i know that my landscaper did file an application immediately upon being notified that he was required to do so to my knowledge that application uh has not been formally denied let me ask you a question you're saying that he's your your landscaper has filed an application for a permit is that what you're saying yes yes that is correct and when was that filed uh immediately in the middle of december when when this first happened okay when he was made aware that he needed to he did so immediately all right i i don't want to prejudice you or cut you off in any way but let's let's continue because i do want to consider what's going on here i think i have a pretty good understanding of it but i don't want to shortchange you in any way mr burke from being able to provide what i would call relevant testimony which is testimony regarding the permit which is why i just asked you what i did the the permit is outstanding the the discussions that we've had with the city about the permit they've offered uh different again i don't i stories at different times the settlements that conversations that you've had with them then i have nothing else your honor okay thank you sir i appreciate the things that you've said and i appreciate you coming down here thank you mr schmidt do you have any other testimony or witnesses yeah i'd like to call john taliento please confirm you were sworn in yes okay uh would you please state your name for the record john taliento and are you affiliated with a company called coastal care landscaping yes and what is your position with that company the owner okay and did you install the subject landscaping yes okay and were you not made personally right but your company installed it and prior to the installation were you aware that a permit was necessary no okay excuse me when when did you become aware that a permit was necessary when we were told during the project all right and did you subsequently apply for a building permit yes all right and this is plan review details uh the report was generated january 29th but do you see the december 17th 2025 date in the left top yes okay is that on or about the date that you applied for the permit yes all right and what what if anything was the city's response to the application there was an issue with the verbiage and the proposal that we were going to remove the swell which we did not do and we amended the proposal and resubmitted it and so these are comments from city staff yeah all right and did you respond to those comments we did okay and since you responded have you had any further follow-up from the city about the status of the app of the permit no um your honor mr taliento took a video of the surrounding neighborhood with the landscaping if you're not going to consider that then i won't yeah no i've already ruled on that that's fine i understand that there's other vegetation that's been put in on other properties but i've got a rule on this property what's been done here all right let me ask you about the coconut palms are they able to be maintained so that they don't grow up into the power lines that run along the swale yes okay and have you been maintaining the trees yes okay do you have a maintenance agreement with mr burke yes okay and the other trees the brazilian beauty leaf how tall will those grow they can grow we maintain them at a height of 15 feet okay and do you know they technically grow taller yes okay but you they're being maintained they are being maintained and um okay i have no other questions from him here on miss warren any questions yes i just have one question your company is the one who initially installed the landscaping correct it wasn't your company so you you're you're after the fact yes entered into a maintenance so you have no uh knowledge regarding the installation and the initial lack of permit no ma'am so your only testimony is that you entered a maintenance degree after the fact we installed the landscape that's in question here we did not install the initial landscape when the home was under construction oh that was my question did you install the landscaping that is that in violation yes correct and um at some point during the installation you were advised um before it was actually completed that it wasn't approved correct correct and you continued yes okay i don't have anything how tall does the uh coconut palm get in your opinion i mean 25 feet and taller maybe but it can be maintained outside of the power line to where it's not impacting anything but to growth you're saying that it could go grow the the mature growth height of a coconut palm it could grow it could grow taller than 25 feet i don't know the exact height that that it could grow to but it they can grow tall and you're you're a registered um landscaper in the city yes so how how how many projects have you done within the city hundreds and you're not familiar with the guidelines regarding what there is no guideline regarding planting coconut palms so there's no guidelines regarding landscaping in the city of dora beach is that you're testing there are guidelines all right there are guidelines for permitting landscaping within certain circumstances yes when homes are under construction not always when homes are finished so okay so that's you okay all right the home was not under construction uh we i i understand the answer okay anything further mr schmidt uh no sir any other witnesses that you have to testify no i i would i mean i realize it was submitted as a composite exhibit but with the exception of the photo of the adjoining landscaping i'd like to okay if we can go through them i just want to be clear um i know i don't you know he did it as a composite and there's there's a lot that was that you rule that you sustained on well i understand um as a composite i will accept it with the exception that the pictures that show other properties will not be considered by me as in in keeping with my earlier ruling right but i think he needs to identify what those are because you know there were so many different pictures i didn't have any markings on them on home numbers thank you your honor um these first two are of the subject landscaping and i took those right any other photos relate to the swales or neighbor landscaping and they're identified so those would be excluded based on your yeah and that's my ruling my ruling is is that the composite exhibit will be admitted with the exception of those that have shown neighboring landscaping okay okay any other testimony and i think you wanted to do something yeah i just have a couple quick um questions for mr glover who is our land city's landscape architect mr glover um can you talk a little bit about the the requirements under 4.616d regarding um tree and landscape creation as well as the status of any permanent or regarding this property violation yes you can start okay um so yes 4.616 is our landscape uh regulations chapters um it's uh specifically at 4.616 c uh 1a it talks about a landscape permit which shall be required for all work whose landscape improvements valuation is greater than 1 000 um section b it says prior to upgrading landscaping on an existing site a landscape plan shall be submitted with the following and it states you know from one all the way down to like 15 of the different categories or requirements that i need and that's showing power lines right-of-ways um um tree evaluation tree existing location and so on um also if you go down into 4.616d it talks about tree selection um adjacent within uh utility easement or so um it says required perimeter landscape buffers often conceding with utility easement careful selection of tree species essential to minimize conflicts as trees mature trees planted substantially to the effect data of this ordinance shall meet the following criteria i know they mentioned about the fpnl right tree right place we have that stated in our ordinance and section 4.616d4a with ultimate mature height and width of a tree to be planted should not exceed the available overhead growing space tree species shall be consistent with the recommendation in the most recent publication of florida power and light companies plant the right tree in the right place um it's also say trees shall not be planted within 10 feet of any underground utilities trees or overhead or trees should not have any invasive groups which will not interfere with adjacent above or underground utilities so i say all that to say that in these pictures that they're depicting uh you can clearly see that the trees are being installed already into the power lines um if they if you refer to the fpnl right place right tree space it talks about how coconut trees at a mature height can reach between the heights of 50 and 100 feet and then they ask that you have at least a 30 foot distance before the master arm and if you can see in this picture you can clearly see that the master arm is facing north i believe that would be over um the coconut palms so that means that these coconut palms are a direct impact under the florida power lines um the trees as far as the green hardwood trees that they planted those are caliphilim brazilian beauty leaves which have a mature growth around 40 to 50 feet um yes you can maintain them as a hedge or so but then if you was to depict that or do that in this scenario then the argument would not be a tree then the argument would be you are essentially maintaining it as a hedge therefore if you would go into our hedge ordinance into um you know into a 4.65 then it talks about how we have mature heights of allowability of what hedges could be um and also that will fall into 4.614 which will be into the site visibility um areas and this will be then considered a landscape node so then if this is being maintained to be a hedge or um to stop the mature growth of these trees then the um allowable height will be between 30 and 36 inches 0.6 14 d for our landscape nodes yes the actual property so we're clear of what you were also talking about this was before the trees yeah that's those are when the trees were immediate stall um if you can if you see those trees or the green hardwoods that's in between the coconuts those are the trees that i'm referencing as brazilian beauty leaves and if you can see that the spacing that they're that they were installed is essentially being installed as a hedge yes um just talking a little bit about i know that it was mentioned regarding is this something that just needs to be removed from the city right away or where are we with any type of applications or permitting so the property currently has a approved landscape plan from the original bill that states that is only allowed to have sod and irrigation the work that you see now depicted in this picture is unapproved the clock the resident did submit a permit application where we provided comments to the applicant no response was made back to those comments that's why the application is in a pending status that does not that doesn't mean it's approved that means that it's it's denied and its current state so he would have to address the comments that the reviewers made and then we would go through another review process and then if everything is made per the landscape regulations and engineering and everything follows through then maybe we could approve and then at that time he would have an approved landscape i'm not saying that it would be approved as what is currently pictured but those are the process and steps to get a permit approved for a right away the city has been responsive we've done several zoom calls we've done several meetings but every time that we we we make an attempt or we come out of a a conversation uh communication is dismissed or deceased and we don't receive anything i'm going to object for you already rule we're not going to hear about settlement and that's exactly what mr that's correct right and i'm telling you i'm responding about the conversations to that permit okay i understand that they have applied for a permit beyond that i don't have any i'm not whoever has to approve that permit or disapprove it so right i understand that they've applied for one and that's fine that's nice i get it this is just a defining of guilt i understand yeah i understand okay um your objection is sustained okay thank you anything else from anybody nothing from the city from the property owner may i ask mr glover a couple follow-up certainly yep we can move it along sure yes sir uh mr glover um the subject property strike that all right you cited section 4.6.16 c um now subsection a of that says that prior to the issuance of a building permit for a structure or a paving permit compliance shall be assured through review and approval of a landscape plan permitted pursuant to section 2.4.3 c including the following if applicable and you stated a landscape permit which shall be required for all work whose landscape improvement valuation is greater than a thousand dollars that section calls for a landscape permit doesn't it not a building permit yes it calls for you dean a landscape permit for work that's over a thousand dollars all right and in this case mr burke's been cited for not obtaining a building permit not a landscape permit isn't that correct uh a landscape permit is a is a specific type of permit under the building permit okay well the notice of violation just says obtain a building permit it doesn't specifically say a code section to give my client notice of what's necessary would you agree i'm not i'm not understanding where you're going all right the section you testified about requires a building permit when a building permit for structure is applied for prior to the issuance of it then you need a landscape plan there's no structure being applied for for a building permit in this case is there while he's looking counselor let me ask this question are you arguing now that the violation that was issued cited the wrong section of the code is that going to be your argument well if the city is now saying that a landscaping permit is required under this code section then yes because the building permit section cited in the code and the violation notice is a completely different section it's in 2.4 i believe okay all right let me hear the city's response like i said again a landscape permit is a it's a permit under the building permit okay and in the section that he's referring to that i gave testimony of saying that all work on existing or anything under over a thousand dollars shall require a permit it includes the same section that they were cited under as far as 2.43 i don't understand i understand mr schmidt any response to that no i'll just make okay okay well let me say this about that issue i'm not prepared to rule on that because i don't have the code in front of me i don't have the documents in front of me i have a copy if you'd like i understand but i'm not going to do it here and now so if that is something which i think would be left to a motion on your part later on down the road depending upon how this case resolves itself but i can't rule on that right at this moment because i don't have as i say all of that information in front of me and i'm not just going to rule on it based upon what i'm hearing so i need to have the code i need to have all the sections that are being cited i need to have all the documents and i don't have those at the moment then this comes as somewhat of a surprise to to hear this argument being made um but that's okay so i'm not going to rule on that presently uh anything else no mr schmidt okay i i thank you all first of all for all your testimony and i've learned things about trees and bushes and sod today that i didn't know before but that's not the issue the issue is here when distilling everything down is that there is simply no permit that's been in effect that's it and nobody disagrees with that and there is a permit required now i'm not the permit expert but there is a permit required and when you distill all the testimony and all the evidence that i've listened to and heard uh it comes down to that that there is simply not been a permit for the trees that and the bushes that are there um i also understand from listening to the testimony that this case has had quite a history which again doesn't really matter in terms of my decision but it seems like there's been some efforts but there is there a i i heard the term a magistrate's order that's already in effect is there such a thing miss warren or mr schmidt there was only an order continuing the case until this date so this is the continuing the case okay i thought that perhaps a magistrate had already issued some type of order whether there was a fine or a whether there was a violation or not okay so it was just a continuance okay so it's come to me all right fine i will find that the permit has not been issued and that the property is not in compliance because that's the testimony that i think i've heard from both sides quite frankly the question then becomes what what do we do it appears that a permit has been applied for but that there is some discussions and again i don't want to get into any settlement discussions and i don't really know the status of that particular permit where it is or how it's proceeding so i'm not really going to ask at this point that the trees that are there be torn out and just replaced with sod i just don't think that that that's appropriate given the fact that there is a pending permit not necessarily it's going to pass but that there is a pending permit did you want to yeah okay um so therefore i'm not inclined to allow this uh the removal or issue an order that's going to remove all of the trees that are existing if there are problems regarding these trees i think that needs to be worked out before the permit will be issued but it it seems as though there's some blockage here that something is not going right i would urge both sides to try to get it together so here's what i'm going to do at this point number one i do find that there is a violation and that the property is not in compliance that the permit has not been issued and again i think um mr schmidt i know you know this but for your sake mr burke you're in the city right-of-way now these are trees but still it's the city right-of-way and if something happens to those trees and causes an accident to someone or an injury to someone the city is going to have a problem with that so that's why the city is concerned about what gets placed in its right-of-way whether it's trees or another structure or anything like that so please understand the city's concern here is very legitimate and and it's taken seriously that's why they have these codes and that's why they must be followed to end this what i'm going to do is again give them 30 days to come into compliance by getting the permit if not i know it was asked for 250 i'm going to ask i'm going to order a 500 a day fine if the permit is not received within 30 days yeah and that's what i've said compliance with the code compliance with the code no no i'm not making that decision whatsoever i'm not making that finding of fact and that's not my decision it's not that everything is approved it's that there is a permit process going on from what i've been told i don't know why it's taken this long this case seems to go back into the end of last year in december of last year i don't know why it's taken so long i don't know what's happened and necessarily i don't care about that at this moment what i'm going to do as i've said is find that the property is not in compliance with the code there is a permit pending therefore i believe the permit process should take place if it is not done within 30 days then a 500 a day fine will in uh be instituted for clarification 30 days will be august 1st yeah i'm sorry yeah august 1st 2026 this is the first i i can't see that from here i don't know it does not i can see here we go represent it's not been denied your honor there were comments and responses and at the end of january and that's the where it stands right now i don't know how the permit will end up i don't know if the permit will be denied i don't know if the permit will make certain exceptions or exclusions i don't know what i'm saying simply is i want the permit process to go through on this case that has been going on for far too long for 30 more days what happens will happen mr burke and his attorney will then have to proceed from there but in terms of what i'm doing today it's 30 days 500 a day okay thank you thank you case number five code 26 000 717 the property owner is ricardo masset neto the property address is 2132 southwest 12th court and the code officer on the case is chandler ferguson i appreciate that ms warren all right we're on to the next case number five all right okay well that's going to be a problem that's a problem madam yeah uh madam court reporter i'm going to order that you have a discussion with ms warren about and eliminate any conversations between she and her client private conversations if that was if please listen please listen to what i'm saying if those were recorded those need to be eliminated okay whoever does it but i i don't want it released i don't want the transcript released to anyone until ms warren has please listen to what i'm saying until ms warren has had an opportunity to exclude any private conversations that she had with her client it i'm ordering it that it go first to ms warren before it goes to anyone i'm sorry mr schmidt is not here but that's on the record that's the way it's going to be yeah that that's that's got to be excluded that's attorney-client privilege and we're not going to violate that under any circumstances all right thank you i i know you understand but i want to be clear on the record all right next case i think we said number five did we call it yes i can call it again please do thank you case number five code 26 000 717 the property owner is ricardo massetti netto the property address is 2132 southwest 12 court and the code officer on the case is chandler ferguson good afternoon special magistrate my name is chandler ferguson code enforcement officer for the city of dairy beach case number 26 000 717 this property 2132 southwest 12 court was issued a notice of violation on may 1st 2026 service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to city hall on may 4th 2026 in addition the property was posted on may 6th 2026 an affidavit of posting and an affidavit of non-compliance is attached in the case i have been in contact with the property owner this property was cited for extending the driveway without an approved permit uh 2.4 point 13 point b uh 2.4 point 13 b building permits as of june 12 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 so this this first photo uh this first uh photograph depicts uh this is uh the property appraisal which has the property owner's information which we melded to exhibit two is uh my courtesy notice the door hanger which i posted on april 24th 2026 this is another photo on the same day of the entire property and you can see the driveway with the rocks the unpermitted extended driveway exhibit four is just a uh a photo kind of showing you the the entire uh property including the extended driveway going into the right-of-way swell area this is just another angle so you can see that the rocks uh that are in the right-of-way are in the street which is unsafe uh as well as um the the uh the sidewalk you can see the rocks are all on the sidewalk as well this uh exhibit six is a photo of the violation which i posted monday june 15 2026 this is another photo of the posting on june 15 2026 this was uh the re-inspection on which i took uh of the right-of-way on june 15th you can see that they attempted to remove the rocks from the right-of-way area but the permits were still uh not approved at the time exhibit nine is the affidavit of posting exhibit 10 is uh the non-compliance which was the day which they had to come into compliance to get those uh permits approved the city the city is asking for an additional 30 days for them to come into compliance which would be august 1st 2026 if they do not come into compliance the city is asking for a hundred dollars a day until compliance is achieved ms warren are you moving the exhibits in i take it there's no opposition since there's no property owner is that correct no correct you've had some communication with this yes yes yes stay out of state all right then i will find that the property is not in compliance that service is proper and we'll give them 30 days to come into compliance or 100 a day as a fine will be instituted thank you case number six code 26 000 779 the property owner is gene serge and louise and node the property address is 2132 dawson way the code officer on the case is chantel gene baptiste good afternoon my name is code enforcement officer gene baptiste chantel for the city of dairy beach this property 2132 dorson way was issued a notice of violation on june 2nd 2026 service was accomplished by certified and regular mail sent on june 5th 2026. in addition both the property and city hall were posted on june 5th 2026 an affidavit of posting is attached to this case i have not been in contact with the owner of property this property was cited for 4.6.16 subsection e subsection 3 landscape vehicle encroachment which complied on june 25th 2026 and it was cited for 7.8.3 maintenance of building which complied on june 25th 2026 remaining 100.07 subsection a subsection b does not comply as of june 25th as of june 28 2026 the property has not come into compliance i have a few photos of the property to this case that i would like to introduce the city is asking for an additional 30 days which will be august the 1st 2026 for them to come into compliance if they do not come into compliance then the city is asking for 50 a day until compliance is achieved exhibit one is the property address it shows the property address and the owner of property exhibit two this photo is taken from the street view on june 2nd 2026 showing that the vehicle is encroached on the landscape which the landscape is deteriorated and on the left side the vehicle is on the jack is inoperable exhibit three is a second photo taken on june 2nd 2026 showing where the vehicle is sitting on the jack is inoperable and as well as the vehicle is on the landscape exhibit four is a third photo taken from the street view showing the full property 2132 thorson way exhibit five this photo was taken on june 5th 2026 where i posted on property exhibit six is an affidavit of posting and mailing which was posted on the property on june 5th 2026 on june 25th 2026 the vehicles are removed off the landscape area parked into the driveway as well as the inoperable is off the jack however the landscape area the owner did not apply did not apply sodding so that's what we're bringing to magistrate today they have to apply for sod within 30 days or 50 daily fine and exhibit eight was the affidavit of non-compliance as of june 28 2026 of y'all i take it there is no objection because there is no property owner so therefore they are admitted into evidence any further testimony that you have no no respondent so therefore i will find that the property owner is not in compliance uh that the service was proper uh and that you are requiring them to lay down the sod that's that's what you're seeking today is for them to replace the sod that was destroyed by these cars being on the property okay and that you are giving a 30-day request for compliance till august 1st 2026 or if not then a 50 dollar fine will be instituted correct that's what i shall order all right thank you thank you case number seven code 26 000 769 the property owner is jesse and carol hunter the property address is 2892 southwest 6th street the code officer on the case is supervisor joseph oliva however the case will be presented by aaron kester good afternoon special magistrate i aaron kester code enforcement officer intern for the city of delray beach i'm presenting this case for joseph oliva code officer code enforcement supervisor for the city of delray beach case number code 26 000 769 this property 2892 southwest 6th street was issued a notice of violation on may 26 2026 service was accomplished by a certified and regular mail sent on may 29 2026 in addition both the property and city hall were posted on may 28 2026 an affidavit of posting and non-compliance are attached to the case i have been in contact with the property owner the property was cited for code 2.4.13 b building permits as of july 1st 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 the property to come into compliance by august 1st which is 30 days if they do not come into compliance the city has been asking for 100 a day until compliance is achieved thank you and just to confirm you um you've you've discussed this case with the supervisor as well as review the code enforcement file and had your own independent observations correct all right thank you exhibit one is the property appraisal which shows the owner of the property exhibit two is a picture of the front of the property showing the address this was taken on may 27 2026 exhibit three is a view from an adjacent property that we gain access from a neighbor they permitted us onto the property to take pictures this was on may 27 2026 as well exhibits four and five are also from that same property with different vantage points showing the fence extending along the property line there it's the tall yellow wood fence that's another view exhibit six is the notice the posting of the violation showing in the corner there and exhibit seven is the affidavit of posting itself exhibit eight is the first affidavit of non-compliance thank you at this time i'd like to introduce the eight exhibits into evidence the respondent therefore there's no objection therefore the exhibits are admitted is there any other evidence that you wish to offer uh yes as of today uh july 2nd the property has applied for and is in the process obtaining a permit through the building services department the permit was applied for on june 5th and is currently in the hands of the resident for corrections so they're in the permitting process is that what you would say all right okay i will find that the property is not yet in compliance and may not come into compliance but at the moment it is not in compliance and therefore is in violation of the code um i will also find that the service on the property owner was correct and proper and um i will order that the property come into compliance within 30 days which would be august 1st 2026 or there will be a 100 a day fine will be instituted thank you thank you thank you let's call the next case yes case number eight code 26 000 710 the property owner is supreme development group llc the registered agent is perry and nesblett the property address is 394 southeast fifth avenue and the code officer on the case is supervisor latoya thompson good afternoon special magistrate i'm code officer supervisor latoya thompson i'm here regarding a fence installed without a permit on april 4th 2025 2026 correction um code was notified by development service that a property located on 394 southeast fifth avenue delray beach had installed a fence without the required permits i conducted an investigation of the property and observed a dark metal fence had been installed and a cheeky hut was present on premises upon review of the land development regulation code these conditions constitute as a violation of section 2.4.13 building permit subsection b building permits i have six photos to present as evidence a magistrate a magistrate violation was created may 16th 2026 the violation was mailed first class certified mail and posted to the city hall on may 21st 2026 compliance was required by june 16th 2026 the violation was posted to the property on may 20th 2026 on june 20th 2026 i conducted a re-re-re-inspection of the re-inspection of the property during the re-inspection it was observed via epl which is our system that tracks um permits in cases during the inspection it was observed that no permit was on file for the dark fence surrounding the property or the cheeky hut therefore the property remains out of compliance however as for today i checked and a permit was submitted on june 26 2026 however it's it has currently a hold as the status the city suggests that compliance to achieve compliance on or before august 1st or a fine of a hundred dollars per day will be assessed to the property until compliance is achieved exhibit one taken april 24th is the address 394 a picture along with a portion of the black metal fence exhibit two is just another angle of the black metal fence with the address exhibit three taken on april 24th the gate that leads to another property that i will speak about exhibit four was the posting on may 20th exhibit five is the affidavit of posting exhibit six is the first affidavit of non-compliance at this time the city would like to introduce the exhibits into evidence there's no respondents so therefore no objections so therefore the exhibits are admitted into evidence is there anything further is there a recommendation if you gave it to me again i i'll i'll say it again okay um the owner must apply for and obtain an approved issue permit which requires compliance to be achieved on or before august 1st 2026 or a fine of a hundred dollars per day will be assessed against the property until compliance is achieved thank you um the property is not in compliance has not come into compliance even though a permit has been applied for yes it's the status is on hold and the status is on hold so therefore the property is not in compliance service has been proper um and i find that um they have 30 days to august 1st to come into compliance or there will be a 100 a day fine instituted anything further no sir okay thank you thank you case number nine code 26 000 743 the property owner is supreme development group llc the registered agent is perry and nesblett the property address is 396 southeast fifth avenue and again the code officer on the case is supervisor latoya thompson good afternoon special magistrate my name is code supervisor latoya thompson i'm here regarding a fence installed with a cheeky hut without a permit on april 20 on april 4th 2026 code enforcement was notified by development service that a property located at 396 southeast 5th avenue dairy beach had installed a fence and constructed a cheeky hut without the required permits i investigated the property and observed a dark metal fence had been installed and a cheeky hut was present on the premises upon review of the land development regulation code these conditions constitute as a violation of section 2.4 point 13 subsection b building permit i have eight photos to present as evidence a magistrate violation was created may 16th 2026 the violation was mail first class certified mail and posted to city hall may 21st 2026 the compliance date was required june 16th 2026 the violation was posted to the property on may 20th 2026 on june 20th 2026 i conducted a re-inspection of the property and via epl during this inspection it was observed no permit was on file for the dark metal fence surrounding the property or the cheeky hut therefore the property remained out of compliance however as of today an epl of re-inspection was conducted and the permit was is applied for however status status is on hold the city suggests that the property owner come into compliance on or before april august 1st 2026 or a fine of a hundred dollars per day will be assessed against the property until compliance is achieved exhibit one april 24th correction on april 24th not april 4th april 24th 2026 um exhibit one is a picture of the property 396 exhibit 2 on april 24th 2026 it's another photo of the metal fence on the property exhibit 3 taken on april 24th 2026 is the alleyway where the fence wraps wraps around the property it's a bit four taken on april 24th 2026 you can see the top of the cheeky hut along with the metal fence and the poles exhibit 5 taken on april 24th is a picture of the cheeky hut exhibit 6 is the posting of the property taken on may 20th exhibit 7 is the affidavit of posting exhibit 8 is the first affidavit of non-compliance at this time the city would like to introduce the photographs and exhibits into evidence there is no respondents so therefore there is no objection so therefore the exhibits are admitted into evidence any other presentation that you'd like to make no sir miss thompson thank you all right then my findings will be that the property is not in compliance that service was proper uh that the property has the property owner has until august 1st 2026 to come into compliance or there will be a fine of 100 per day yes thank you mr thompson i appreciate your efforts thank you let's call the next case please moving right along to non-compliance of board order and assessment of fine cases case number 10 2020 2016 091556 the property owners are michael z and amy b star the property address is 391 southeast second avenue and the code officer on the case is supervisor latoya thompson originally found in violation on july 11th 2017 for building maintenance parking lot maintenance outside storage accessory structure on the property motion was 45 days to come into compliance or 50 daily fine case was brought back to the hearing on march 13th 2018 for non-compliance where the code board motioned to lean the property in the amount of 9 900 and continue the daily fine the case was brought to a hearing on august 9th 2018 where the code board motioned to lean the property in the amount of 7 400 and continue the daily fine of 50 the lien was never recorded the amount is included in the accrued fine a re-inspection of the property on may 5th 2026 correction i conducted a re-inspection of the property on may 5th 2026 and the pro the property remains out of compliance there is an accrued fine one question when you said may 26 is that this year 26 may 5th 2026 yes may 5th 2026 okay thank you ma'am there is an accrued fine from march 14 2018 to july 2nd 2026 there's an accrued fine the days of of the property being out of compliance was 3032 days the amount of 151 650 i have four previous photos and six new photos to present as evidence this before we get to the photos i just want to clarify because you said the board motion so we just want to make sure that the board approved and found that the property was out of compliance and set in forth that amount and then for clarification the board approved that lien is just it was an administrative issue and it hasn't it was never recorded and we're asking for that amount for all those 300 3 000 days or so whatever you meant to be yes yes linked as of today yes ma'am yes ma'am so these are previous um photos from the prior code officers exhibit one taken on may 2nd 2026 these are of um vehicles and also there's a trailer out here exhibit two the trailers for the trash and also vehicles that are not um supposed to be parked on the property exhibit three you have a rig that's not supposed to be parked there also other vehicles that's disabled exhibit four is just the other side of the property with vehicles parked and stored there taken on may 2nd may exhibit five is the posting of the property taken on june 11th exhibit six is an affidavit of posting the city suggests that the they glean the property for amount of 151 thousand 650 and continue the daily fines anything further at this moment either ms warren or ms thompson no just the introduction of the new the new exhibit so it's my understanding and and obviously sir i'll let you give some questions that you may have and testimony but i just want to make sure i understand currently there is a fine of one hundred and fifty one thousand six hundred and fifty dollars but it has not yet been filed as a lien even as of today yes yes yes okay and that's what you're asking me to do is to file it as a lien and then continue it yes and find that the property is still out of compliance right until the property goes into compliance and right now the issue is are the cars that are parked on the property parking lot maintenance um building maintenance outside storage okay i see yeah outside storage that trailer trash shouldn't be there uh the rigs king store understand are you moving these pictures into evidence yes i am all right any objection to the photo sir but first of all before i even ask you that state your name for the record please michael star michael star all right mr star are there any objections just to the photos we're talking about um no okay all right is there anything further ms thompson or ms warren from the city at the moment none from me all right then mr star i'm going to give you your opportunity to either ask ms thompson some questions or present your evidence or both okay um i guess the first question would be it's what is 7.4.1 what is an accessory structure so you know at this point this case has already been litigated it's already been found out of compliance you know so okay well then my next question would be on 6-11 when you say you posted a notice which we see posted on the front of the door is there a reason why nothing gets sent to me directly versus being posted on a business address because if you pull up any of the information on that property i don't live at that property so you know i haven't issued or i haven't run a business out of that property in close to 10 years so i'm not sure why he's talking to be but the but the answer is i believe you are the city attorney or you're not i guess johnson hold on sir mr star let's again no worries one person at a time i'll take all your comments but one at a time no problem so miss thompson i believe you you may have addressed this already but where notice has been sent in addition to posted on the property we also said mail it to the the property i just want to clarify we sent it to the property listed on the property appraiser and if it is the business we also send it to the registered agent registered agent i believe you may have testified but if you could just reiterate that for for this entire case and based on your research of the history of the case you reviewed all the notes notices to confirm correct yes ma'am okay are you objecting sir to the notice that you've received that this year well because i haven't received the notice i mean i haven't received anything at my house from the city of del rey okay let me address that for you sir there are methods by which a code enforcement case is um started and then and when i say started i really mean what we call service a process okay uh and these are not my ways of doing it these are the ways that the statute tells us to do it and from what i'm hearing at least three of the methods have been used in this particular case whereas only one method is required so therefore i'm going to rule that the notice that has been sent to you um is is sufficient and is proper all right any other questions you have um well i guess they don't apply to any of the the things that you're listing or the pictures that you're showing because you're trying to file a lien against my property is what you're trying to do today because i think i spoke to mrs thompson one time before because there is an adjacent property across the street from me that is for sale and you know the owner you know of that property had contacted me asked me to clean up the property but all of these cars none of that stuff is mine the trailer is not mine the tractor trailer the semi truck none of those vehicles are not none of them are mine let me ask you this sir is the property yours the property is mine okay so when the property is yours yeah please let me let me continue so basic the basic the basic rule is when you own it you got to take care of it and you got you got to make sure it stays in compliance with all codes so saying that gee i don't know where this stuff comes from i understand your position but from a legal standpoint it's not sufficient okay but the city if i when i have contacted code compliance before you know they tell me that i have to have a i think a contract with the towing company and post no parking signs but when i've asked in the past it's like i mean i've left notes on cars asked the mechanic shops that are down the street people that are parking there i've asked them to move the cars multiple times you know they'll get moved one day and literally three days later cars will be parked there again i understand so yeah i can't advise you as to what to do in that particular case because i'm not your lawyer and i don't give out legal advice here so i can't tell you what to do all i can do is determine whether there's a violation and what should be done going forward with the violation while i wait you finished yeah no yeah i'm finished so this goes back to 2016 and there have been multiple times where i have been have done all the things that they've asked me to do i've put covering back on fences where they didn't want to be able to see inside the property when they changed um like restrictions of the outside usage because i do have some vehicles that were parked outside so i put screening all around the fence um i think the last time i did that was probably two years ago i can't remember the inspector's name because there's been quite a few of them that have been down the line um when the city comes through issuing citations of things that they want done um i don't ever remember getting a letter stating that it was done satisfactorily or not but i just you know going back 10 years saying that i've been non-compliant you know again you know up until the time that i stopped running a business out of the buildings you know the only thing that ever got parked there were my own vehicles okay you know so it's i i just i have a hard time with you know you can drive by there today i should have taken pictures because i mean it looks just like that today i mean there are literally eight cars parked in front of that thing okay i understand so i don't want to cut you off but i understand what you're saying i understand you know i i guess i'm just asking for um you know fairness uh yeah i mean literally 151 000 for some cars parked out in front of a building i mean i realize it's gone for a long period of time but i i just i i don't know what i can do to special ministry yep can i ask a question yeah sure um mr star how were you um notified to come here today um i got a letter okay yeah i've already let me just say i've already hold on hold on i've already ruled that that service was sufficient and proper so that we don't have to go into that all right mr star unless you have more to say i you know please understand that uh you know this case has been going on for almost 10 years yeah a long time for a long time and um well like again i'm not here to give you legal advice but things should have been done by you during those years that could have mitigated this whole matter but i have to rule on what i have in front of me today and that's simply this uh the city is asking that a lien can be filed yes sir yeah i don't think you even need my permission to do that i think the city can file a lien at any time that it likes all right then i would if it was not authorized by the board back in 2018 then i authorized that a lien be filed that's a prerogative that the city has it's not mine making that up it's that the city can do that the fact that it wasn't authorized to be done is being corrected today eight years later and that's fine um and the fine will continue as it presently exists until compliance is until compliance yes of course okay anything further from the city or mr star i have a question yes i'm sorry special magistrate yes the daily fine will continue at a rate of fifty dollars per day i believe that's the correct yes ma'am thank you that's what you testified to all right thank you thank you business thank you very much excuse me yeah sure i would recommend that all cases are concluded any further business that's it okay then very good thank you very much for being here i appreciate it all have a good afternoon and we are adjourned thank you you you you you you