All right, I hereby call this meeting to order. This is the special magistrate hearing for the city of Delray Beach. Do we know why I am? It's okay. Cases are going to be called in the order in which they appear on the agenda unless otherwise noted. When you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed down to the podium here on my left-hand side. The city will put on its testimony and evidence first. You'll have an opportunity to review any evidence that the city presents or to ask questions of any of the city's witnesses, after which time you can present your own testimony and evidence, and then I will make a decision. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply here. However, all testimony is taken under oath, under penalty of perjury. So if you're going to testify today, or you think you might testify, or there's a possibility that you might testify, I ask that you rise and raise your right hand so that you can be sworn in. By the authority vested in me, as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Consent agenda? Requesting approval of the consent agenda as written. So approved. Thank you. All right. We have the minutes from June 4th, June 18th, and July 2nd. They are hereby deemed approved. Thank you. All right. Before we get started, just a quick note. This chamber is rather large, right? But sound travels really well in here. So I'm going to ask, if you need to have a conversation or something comes up, you need to take a call, please take it outside the room, because I promise you the rest of us will hear it if you take it in the room. Call the first case. Thank you. Case number one, code 26-000-852. The property owners are Natan Properties, Inc., where the resident agent is Bruce Schreiber, and Properties of Delray, Inc., where the registered agent is John F. Holt. The property address is 975 South Congress, and the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon. My name is Chantel Jean-Baptiste, code enforcement officer with the city of Delray Beach. This property, 975 South Congress Ave., was issued a notice of violation on July 7th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on August 20th, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on August 20th, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I have been in contact with owner of property. This property was cited for 110.02 business tax receipt vehicle warehouse storage. As of August 31st, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have four photographs of the property to this case that I would like to introduce. Exhibit 1 shows the front of the business and the name of the business, the Platinum Collections, photo taken on July 9th, 2026. Exhibit 2 is the posting on the property on August 20th, 2026. Exhibit 3 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 4 is noncompliance affidavit. The city is asking to cease all operations within five days, which will be September 8th, 2026, and to obtain a conditional use of approval and obtain a business tax certificate approval within 120 days, which will be January 1st, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for $250 a day until compliance is achieved. The city is also asking that these four exhibits be introduced into evidence. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Yes, David Milledge. For the record, we just moved, but 5550 West Glade Suite 620. Mr. Milledge, what is your position with the respondent? I represent the tenant for the violation. Are you an attorney, sir? Yes, sir. Does the owner of the property know that you're here on his behalf or their behalf? Yes, they should. Do you have any objections to the photographs or documents the city was trying to put in evidence? I have no objections to those photographs. Without objections, so admit. All right, sir, the floor is yours. Oh, perfect. Thank you. I appreciate it. So this unit has one existing BTR that was issued by the city. They applied for a new BTR for another portion of the property. It's a larger unit. So I think right now the contention with the city is just probably the rear third of the unit. We have submitted a conditional use application through development services. That was submitted September 1st. We are asking for additional time to process that application for the conditional use. Again, it was just submitted. So, you know, on how long things take, so probably take, say, nine months to go through the entire process. So we are requesting some additional time to get the use. Nine months to get a conditional use permit? Twelve months, then. That's – I'm not being funny. It does take a very long time nowadays to process applications of these sorts. Staff can opine. So I spoke to Mr. Miliach. He updated me on the status of what was going on with the property and his clients. Additionally, I did speak to staff from development services, and we don't know about 12 months, you know, that we did make the recommendation for 120 days in consultation with staff from development services as far as the process of the conditional use. It will take some time, but not a year. It seems to be an awful long time to process a permit. Well, there's a process. It's not just a simple building permit, right? The conditional use based on our statute, I believe this has to go to one of our boards in the city, and then if they approve it or not, then it's essentially approved by the commission. So we can't – and then you have to get on the commission agenda, right? So that's two boards, time periods, consultation with staff. That's why we believe 120 days is appropriate. In the meantime, we want the business to cease operations within five days. Your Honor, if I can make a suggestion, maybe it's just six months, and then we come back for, like, a status update at that point just to determine where we are in the process of the application. Are we diligently pursuing it, so on and so forth. But as it relates to not doing any light automotive maintenance that we're suggesting here, you know, I understand the city's position and how, you know, it's against their policy to allow businesses to continue. I don't think that we necessarily have an issue with not operating. Really, our one ask is just we have vehicles sitting within the back one-third. We would like just to keep them there, but no work, no business chattels or whatever will be there. So, you know, we could show that none of that work is going to take place. It's just the vehicles are just going to sit there until we get the approval. And, you know, we're hesitant to agree to allowing him to store vehicles on the property because that's a different section of the code that could potentially be violated, the storage of the vehicles outside of any approved use in our land development regulations. So we're hesitant to even agree to that. You know, as far as the 180 days, we wouldn't agree to setting it out for a status check either, but we, you know, maybe another 30 days on the compliance, but not that. All right. This is what I'm going to do. In case 26-0-0-0-8-5-2, I make the following findings of fact and law. I find notice is sufficient. I find the property in violation of 110.02, which is operation of a business without the business tax receipt. I'm going to give the respondent 30 days to cease operation of the business, and I'm going to give the respondent 120 days to obtain the appropriate business tax receipt. Let's set it for hearing after that 120 days. If you're, you know, making good progress and it's not your fault you're not there, we can talk about it then. All right. Thank you. So did you want to set a specific date for that? Do we have a date? Yeah, can you set it for whatever the next available hearing is after 120 days? Do we have those dates? I have September 17 is my next hearing, and after that I have October 1. And we need it after 120 days. No, the one after 120 days. If you have it, if you don't have it, that's okay. You can just put it in the order for the next available hearing after the compliance deadline of 120 days. Which is going to be January. Okay. No, I don't have that yet. Thank you. I'll make a note of this. Thank you. Wait. It's going to be January. Sorry. Yes. I believe Mr. Milledge also has case number 13. Yes, I do. That's your case as well. I spoke to code enforcement staff, and they're comfortable, since you're here, it's code 26-000681. I'm showing. Yes. If we could call that case, Madam Clerk, he has a request. Absolutely. Case number 13, code 26-000681. The property owners are Charlotte Case, Lundegand Living Revocable Trust, where Charlotte C. Lundegand is the trustee. The property address is 226 South Ocean Boulevard. And the code officer on the case is Code Enforcement Supervisor LaToya Thompson. We have a presentation, but I believe Mr. Milledge would like to make a request before we do a full hearing. Yeah. Well, we are here to request a continuance of this hearing. We are actively trying to not only bring it into compliance, but we also have a pending application before the historical board for a certificate of appropriateness. So, again, we're working through that process with the city. We would appreciate additional time to work that through. How much time? Well, based off of our expert who's here, from my understanding, that process is very long. Again, give me your ask. Our ask is 12 months, again. And we would not agree to the 12 months. We understand. We have discussed this with Historic, and this has been going on for a long time, but they have acknowledged that, you know, meetings have been scheduled and work. They're attempting. They're working with the city, right? But 120 days. I just need one moment to speak with the code enforcement officer. We're comfortable with a 90-day with the understanding that the fines would continue to accrue. There are no fines. Well, this is a lean and continue case. To date, there is an accrue fine of $6,000. We were initially going to ask that the property be leaned and the fines continue to accrue, but based on the fact Mr. Milley's representations and our conversations with staff and the historic staff, we're comfortable with, if you want. You know what, this is a, I'm just going to reset this for 90 days. What's the hearing 90 days from now? Thank you. That would put us, what, October, November, or December? Do we have a December hearing? Yes. 12-2. Yeah, 12-2. I have a 12-3 hearing. All right, 12-3 it is. Thank you. Just the remaining order still in effect, I suppose. Thank you. Yeah, just to resetting this. Thank you. Madam City Attorney, are we moving back to my regular? Yes, we can start back at the top. I just wanted to call the case and see what's here. Thank you. Case number two, code 26-000-954. The property owners are PM Tax and Multi-Services, LLC, where the registered agent is Business Filings Incorporated. The property address is 580-SNAP-AWAY, and the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon. My name is Chantel Jean-Baptiste, code enforcement officer for the city of Delray Beach. This property, 580-SNAP-AWAY, was issued a notice of violation on July 22, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail sent on July 24, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on July 24, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I have not been in contact with the property owner. This property was cited for 2.4.13 subsection B for building permit required for two additions on property and an extended driveway. And it was cited for 7.1.5 numbering of character on the building structure. As of August 31, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached 11 photographs of this property to this case that I would like to introduce into evidence. Exhibit 1 shows the front of the property taken on July 21, 2026. As you can see to the south of the property, the addition. Exhibit 2 is a closer photo of the property taken on July 21, 2026 of the addition to the south and the rear of the property. Exhibit 3, it's another photo taken on the north side of the property showing the addition taken on July 21, 2026. Exhibit 4, a closer photo from the same angle taken on July 21, 2026. Exhibit 5, a closer photo, front of property and missing character numbers on the structure. Exhibit 6 is where I posted the notice of violation on property on July 24, 2026. Exhibit 7 is an affidavit of posting on July 24, 2026. On August 8, I re-inspected the property and showing the extended driveway and additions still present on the property. Exhibit 9, another photo taken from the front of property on August 31, 2026. Exhibit 10, another photo taken of the property, north side of the property on August 31, 2026. Exhibit 11 is the affidavit of noncompliance. On August the 6, 2026, the owner of property applied for permits, for building permits. However, on August 12, notes was updated that the owner of property need to resubmit the permits due to owner builder. They weren't able to apply for owner builder. So, the city is asking for an additional 30 days, which will be October the 3rd, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking $100 a day until compliance is achieved. We'd also ask that the 11 exhibits be introduced into evidence. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Patrick Mondeson. Can you say it again just a little bit louder and into the mic, please? Patrick Mondeson. Can you spell your last name, sir? M-O-N-D-E-S-I-R. Mr. Mondeson, what is your position with the Respondent PM Tax and Multi-Services LLC? Mr. Mondeson. I'm sorry? I'm the owner. You're the owner. Okay. Mr. Mondeson, do you have any objection to entering into evidence the photographs and documents that the city just displayed? Objection, so admitted. Go ahead, sir. It's your turn. Yes. I tried to hire the architect and the contractor, but they asked me, you know, 30 days. It's, like, it's not enough. They need that journal time. How much time do you need, sir? 90 days. Applying, you know. The city wouldn't agree to 90 days. We would agree to 60 because there are two additions in an extended driveway. But for the, or we ask that the fine can accrue. How does 60 days work? Okay. Thank you. All right. In case 26, what is 60 days? Since we're doing dates. Madam Clerk. And that would put us on for, when's the first November hearing? November 5. So that'll put us on for 11-5. All right. Case 26, 000, 954. I make the following findings of fact and law. If I notice it is sufficient, I find the property in violation of Code Sections 2.4.13B and 7.1.5. I order the respondent to come into compliance by obtaining the building permits and putting the numbers on the structure by November 2, 2026, or a fine of up to $100 per day may issue, except for a fine assessment hearing 11-5, 2026, if necessary. Thank you for coming, sir. Thank you. Case number three, Code 26-001013. The property owner is Louis Andrews. The property address is 2987 Angler Drive. And the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon. My name is Chantel Jean-Baptiste, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Delray Beach. This property, 2987 Angler Drive, was issued a notice of violation on August 26. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on August 12, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on August 13, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I have not been in contact with the property owner. This property was cited for 7.1.5 numbering of building on structure and 4.6.16 subsection I, subsection I, landscape maintenance, which complied on August 31, 2026. As of August 31st, the property has not come into compliance with 7.1.5 numbering of building on structure. I have nine photographs of this property that I would like to introduce into evidence. Exhibit 1, photo taken on August 11, 2026, showing that property has overgrown landscape, as well, missing the property number on structure. Exhibit 2 is a second photo taken to the front of the property, showing overgrown grass on the property and right away, taken on August 11, 2026. Exhibit 3 is another photo taken to the front of the property, showing the property overgrown on the right of way. Exhibit 4, another photo from the front of the property, missing character numbers. Exhibit 5, posted a notice of violation on property on August 13, 2026. Exhibit 6 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 7 is the re-inspection of the property, photo taken on August 31, 2026, where they have complied with landscape maintenance. Exhibit 8 is another photo taken of property on August 31, 2026, where the property number, character number, is not on the building. Exhibit 9 is a noncompliance affidavit attached. The city is asking for an additional 14 days, which will be October the 17th, 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. I'm asking these photos be submitted as evidence. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent, Louis Andrews? Seeing no one without objection, I'll accept an evidence, the inventory, case file, including the photographs and documents submitted by the city. So they fixed the lawn, but they didn't put the numbers up? Correct. They did the landscape maintenance, but they didn't put the property house number on the building, on the structure. And you've had no contact at all with the owner? No. My last re-inspection, I did leave a note for them, just in case they didn't understand the notice of violation, to place the numbering on the property. 14 days seems like more than enough time to put some numbers on a building. Okay. Case 26001013, I make the following findings of fact and lie. If I notice is sufficient, find the property in violation of 7.1.5. The numbers have to be on the building, street numbers. Respondent has until October 17th, 2026, to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $50 per day in the issue. Thank you. Case number 4, Code 26-000908. The property owner is Otis Williams. The property address is 318 Southwest 6th Avenue. The code officer on the case is Code Enforcement Supervisor LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is LaToya Thompson, Code Enforcement Supervisor for the city of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding property 318 Southwest 6th Avenue, case number 2600908. The property was issued a notice of violation on July 14th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified mail, regular mail, and posted to the city hall July 16th, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on July 16th, 2026, an affidavit of posting and mailing, and first affidavit of noncompliance is attached to the case. I have not been in contact with the property owner. The property was cited for a drywall removal, which is work without permit, landscape maintenance, 4.6.16, subsection I, subsection I, subsection I, 4.6.16, subsection E, subsection III, vehicle encrouchment, which came into compliance on August 26th, 2026, and 7.8.3, maintenance of building required, which came into compliance on August 26th, 2026. As of September 3rd, 2026, the property has not come into compliance with the outstanding violations, which is the building permit 2.4.13, subsection B, for the removal of the drywall, and also 4.6.16, subsection I, 1, for the landscape maintenance. I have attached 13 photos of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. Exhibit 1, taken on July 13th, 2026, is a photo of the vehicle encrouchment, vehicle sitting on the property. Also, in the cities right away, you have trash and debris. And also on the property up front, you have trash and debris sitting out. Exhibit 2, taken on July 13th, 2026, is the landscape. As you can see, dead palm fronds and overgrown grass. Exhibit 3 is a close-up of the property with the trash and debris outside. Exhibit 4 is the drywall that's sitting outside of the door along with trash and debris. Exhibit 5 is just a close-up of the drywall and the trash. Exhibit 6 is a photo taken where there's reflection of the outside. However, the drywall inside, the wall was removed along this area. Exhibit 7, taken on July 16th, is the affidavit correction, the posting, the notice of violation. Just for clarification, the Exhibit 6 and 7, it looks like there's a little bit of a glare on the window, but when you were physically on the property, you could see through the window and see what you were describing, correct? Yes, ma'am. The original officer who took it, yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Exhibit 8 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 9 is taken on August 24th, the re-inspection, where the landscape is still overgrown, has not been cut. Exhibit 10 is a photo of the drywall and all the trash that was removed, taken on August 24th. Exhibit 11 is the right-of-way where trash was previously there, but it was removed, and also the address of the building. We still see some overgrowth, correct? Yes, still some overgrowth in the right-of-way, yes, ma'am. August 24th, the vehicle was removed, however, you can still see that the landscape needed to be trimmed and cut. And Exhibit 13 is the affidavit of non-compliance. The city is asking for an additional 30 days, which will be October 3rd, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for a $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Thank you. And what's still outstanding? Outstanding is the permit for the drywall removal and also the landscape maintenance. Thank you. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent in this case, Otis Williams? Seeing no one without objection, I'll accept an evidence, the evidentiary submission by the city, including the photos and documents. You said you've had no contact with this property owner? No, sir. It does look like they tried to come into compliance with some of it, right? Partial, yes. So outstanding is the building permit for the removal of the drywall, and I guess still the landscape. Landscaping needs to be maintained? Yes, sir. And you believe 30 days is a sufficient amount of time to do this? Because of the permit process. And you believe they can get that permit within 30 days? If they follow all instructions, yes, sir. All right. In case 26000908, I make the following findings of fact and law. If I notice it's sufficient, I'll find the property in violation of 2.4.13B, the building permit for the removed drywall, and 4.6.16I1, the maintenance of the landscaping. Respondent has until October 3rd to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $100 per day may issue. Thank you. Case number 5, code 26-000919. The property owner is Target Corporation. The registered agent is CT Corporation Systems. The property address is 1200 West Linton Boulevard. And the code officer on the case is Randall Straughn. Thank you. We're going to call our first witness. Mr. Secretary, could you please state your full name, spell your last name, and tell us which department you work for in the city? Yes. My name is Jonathan Claus, C-L-A-U-S. I am an Inspector 2, more specifically a mechanical inspector and plan reviewer for the city of Delray Beach, and I am currently employed. Now you're familiar with the property located at 1200 West Linton Boulevard that's the target? Yes. And could you tell us how did you become aware of the lack of AC permit violation? So on July 15th, I was on the target premise for a different permit for a different scope of work, and while on the roof for that permit, I noticed that there were 12 new AC units. Upon further inspection of them, they were serial numbers of 2025. Then I went ahead and checked all existing permits. There was no permits pulled since 2023, so then it was turned over to code enforcement. Okay, and does that conclude your involvement in the case? Yes. All right, thank you. At this time, I'd like to call Mr. Strong. Good afternoon. Randell Strong here for 1200 West Linton Boulevard regarding the target store for building the permits. This part of the property was issued a building permit violation. Service was accomplished by a certified mail sent on July 17, 2026. The green card was not signed. In addition, both the property and the city hall was posted on the property. And on July 17, 2026, an affidavit of the deposit is also attached to the case files. I have been in contact with the property store manager. This property was cited for insulation of AC units. On July 17, 2026, the code officer myself was informed by the city of Dairway Beach. Development services of work being conducted at Dairway Beach's target store without permits of insulation of AC units, which is a violation of 2.4313, 2.413, self-station B. As of September 2, 2026, the property has not come into compliance at this time. There is a permit that's on hold at this time. I've had eight photographs, but the property I would like to introduce as evidence. All right. Thank you. So you say that this was turned over to you by the inspector for the 12 AC units that were installed with that apartment, correct? And then you investigated. And you were able to obtain photographs from the inspector, correct? Yes. All right. So we're going to have him come back and just talk about the photographs that he took and observed on the property. Thank you. All right. Exhibit 1. This is one of the few new AC units with a new curb adapter. It's a York unit. This is the serial number and the model number of the unit, which is a 2025. And that was Exhibit 2, correct? Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 is another unit. Exhibit 4 is a separate unit. Exhibit 5 is another unit that's new. There was a total of 12 new units on the roof. All right. Thank you so much. Officer, they all had serial numbers from 2025? Yes. They all have been replaced at the same time. Thank you, sir. If you want to go through your photographs, Mr. Strong. Yes. Six. Exhibit 6 is a photograph that was taken on July 17, 2026 of the posting at the property, the Target store. This is a copy of the affidavit of the posting of the mail. Also, this is Exhibit 7. And Exhibit 8 is a rare special was conducted in a non-compliance affidavit stating that the permit has not come into compliance. Has not come into compliance. Has not, yes. Okay. Thank you. At this time, I'd like to introduce the 8 exhibits into evidence. Is anyone here on behalf of Target Corporation? Seeing no one without objection, I'll accept the 8 exhibits into evidence. What is the city seeking here? Recommendation. Recommendation, please. The city is asking 14 days for compliance by September 17th. If compliance is not achieved, the city is asking for $100 daily fine for compliance. Officer Strong, is 14 days enough time to obtain the permits necessary here? Yes, it is. Yeah, the building inspector isn't shaking his head as well that he believes that 14 days is enough time if he wants to come on the record. They have started the process but have not finished. Do you know what the delay is? We are waiting on them to register their contractor with the city for a business license, and then they will have to submit for planning. I'm going to make it 21 days just because I know these things. All right, case 26000919. I make the fine findings of fact-in-law. I find notice is sufficient. I found the property in violation of 7. Well, actually, the city is not pursuing 7.8.3, right? You didn't testify to it. Is there a violation for the maintenance of buildings? Yeah. Okay. That complied. Joseph will leave us. Yeah, that was complied. Okay. Thank you. Let me restate this. In case 26000919, I make the fine findings of fact-in-law. If I notice is sufficient, I found the property in violation of 2.4.13B, the missing building permits on the ACs installed on the roof. The respondent has 21 days. Anyone do the calculation? 924. 924 to bring the property into compliance or fine of up to $100 per day may issue. Thank you. Case number 6. Code 26000938. The property owner is Andrew, Audra, and Amanda Schroda. The property address is 1419 Hummingbird Drive. The code officer on the case is Randall Straughan. Good afternoon again. Randall Straughan here for case number 26938 in reference to property 1419 Hummingbird Drive. It was issued a violation for a number of rebuildments and structures and landscape maintenance. A violation was applied to the property. The service was accomplished by a certified regular mail sent on July 23, 2026. The green card was not signed. In addition, both the city hall and property was posted on July 24, 2026. The affidavit is also posted to the case files. I have not been in contact with the property owner. At this time, the property was cited for missing address numbers and dead palm trees, palm farms. On July 20, 2026, code officer myself observed dead vegetation and palm trees on the property, which is a violation of 4.616, subsection I, and subsection 1, missing address numbers on the residential, which is a violation of 7.15. As of September 2, 2026, the property has not come into compliance after having six photographs I would like for the property case to introduce as evidence at this time. Exhibit 1, taken on July 20, 2026. This exhibit right here is a photograph of an operable vehicle on the property and outside stores, which has now come into compliance. My last exhibit where the state will show that this property, that this particular part of the house is in compliance. Exhibit 2 shows dead palm farm, a dead palm farm tree, taken on July 20, 2026. Exhibit 3 shows the posting of the property, taken on July 24, 2026. This is the affidavit of the posting for exhibit 4. This is a noncompliance affidavit for exhibit 5, stating that the property is not in compliance at this time. Exhibit 6 shows, taken on August 26, 2026, shows that the property has not come into compliance at this time, and also there is no numbering on the residents. This is exhibit 7. The outside stores and the unlicensed and non-perfected vehicle has been removed from the property. This was taken on August 30, 2026. This is exhibit 7. We'd like to introduce the 7 exhibits into evidence. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent, Andrew, Audra, and Amanda Schroeder? Seeing no one, without objection, I'll accept the 7 exhibits into evidence, the city's composite exhibit. So for clarification, Mr. Strong, the two outstanding violations are 4.616, I want landscape maintenance for the tree issue, and 7.1.5 for the lack of numbering on the property. Correct. Home. Thank you. So the landscape is just that dead tree? Yes, ma'am, yes. And a number on the residents. Yes, ma'am, yes. Yes, ma'am, yes. Oh, yes, ma'am, yes. Officer Strong, what remedy are you requesting here? I'm requesting 30 days for compliance by October 30. If not, $100 a day to find compliance is cheaper. They're probably going to need a tree removal permit, no? If they want to take it down, yes, but it's moving apart from all. Either way, do you think they can get this done within 30 days? Yes, absolutely. All right. Before that. All right, in case 26-0-0-0-9-3-8, I make the following findings of fact in law, if I know this is sufficient, I'll find the property in violation of 4.6.16. I, 1, the landscape masoning, specifically the dead branches hanging from that tree, and 7.1.5, the numbering on the building. Respondent has 30 days to come to compliance and a fine of up to $100 per day may issue. 30 days would be 10-3. 10-3. Thank you. Case number 7, code 26-0-0-0-8-3-5. The property owners are Andrew and Stacey Rossisi Vale. The property address is 1820 South Ocean Boulevard, Unit 2F. And the code officer on the case is Travis Jinx. Good afternoon. My name is Travis Jinx, code enforcement officer for the City of Dovery Beach. I'm here regarding property 1820 South Ocean Boulevard, Unit 2F, case number 26-0-0-0-8-3-5. The property was issued a notice of violation on August 12, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and was posted to City Hall on August 13, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on August 12, 2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing, first affidavit of noncompliance, is attached to the case. I have been in contact with the property owner, and right now they are in the process of obtaining the permits. The property was cited for violation 2.4.13, building permits. As of August 6, 2026, the property has not come to compliance. I have attached 10 photographs of the property that I would like to introduce to the evidence. We have on June 17, 2026, here is part of the mini-split that's in the property. Here on July, June 17, there is another mini-split in the property as well. Here's another photo, Exhibit 3, for the bathroom that's being done. Exhibit 4 is the mini-split that was installed outside the property. Unit 5 is where they went in to install the property of the mini-splits. Exhibit 6 is the affidavit of notice violation that was posted on August 12. Exhibit 7 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 8 is the noncompliance of Exhibit 8. Just 8 images I want to put into evidence. And that's all. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Andrew Vale. And you're one of the owners of the property, sir? That's correct. Do you have any objections to the photographs or documents coming into evidence? I do not. Without objection, so admitted. So tell me what's going on. Okay, so when we bought the unit, I approached the president of the HOA, Brendan Keller, to let him know that we were making some renovations to the unit. I introduced him to the contractor that we had. His comment was, you do not need to get permits. So we went ahead with the construction, as you saw from the photos. And at some point... The HOA president told you you don't need to get permits? The HOA president, yes. Under oath, I'll state that again. The HOA president, Brendan Keller, told me that I did not need permits. So, anyway, so we went ahead and started... I know this doesn't help you now, but that's a question better directed at the city than at an HOA president. Exactly. Well, obviously, you know, hindsight is 20-20. But subsequently, we, as you saw from the photos, you saw that we installed mini-splits. We put the condensers where you saw them located. The president did not like where they were located. He wanted us to move them. Initially, we did not move them because there was a tree in the way. And then he decided, well, if you're not going to do that, then we'll go ahead and call the compliance officers on you, which is why we're here today. Subsequently, as soon as we received the notice, we went ahead and applied for permits. Unfortunately, our initial contractor walked off the job after he had an interaction with the HOA president. We hired a new contractor, and we're in the process of getting permits and moving ahead with the job. How much time do you need to obtain your permits, sir? I'd like 120 days just so that I'm not back here in front of you again, if that's okay. We're in the process of... We do have a master permit in place. We do have, I think, two permits already in place. We're waiting for a third. The city is asking for 90 days for them to come into compliance. Yeah, we're comfortable with the 90 days. The 90 days it is? Or the fine of... $50 per day, if not. Thank you. I do have one final question. If we're doing everything that we can to get everything in place and the 90 days comes along... The fine doesn't happen automatically. What would have to happen is if you go past the 90 days, the city will set a fine assessment hearing. And so you'll come back here and if you're like, a hurricane came through, it's not fair. You know, I'm a reasonable human being. Okay. Understood. All right. Though I would generally say that the city probably would not bring that particular hearing. But the point is that there's another hearing. All right. In case 26-000-835, I make the following findings of fact on life. If I notice it's sufficient, I found the property in violation of 2.4.13, which is construction without a permit, including the mini-split ACs in the bathroom. Respondent has 90 days. Anyone do my math for me? Or 12-2 to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $50 per day may issue. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 8, Code 26-000-955. The property owners are Delray Club, Inc. The registered agent is CT Corporation System. The property address is 2001 South Ocean Boulevard. And the code officer on the case is Travis Jinx. Good afternoon again. My name is Travis Jinx, code enforcement officer with the city of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding property 2001 South Ocean Boulevard, case number 26-000-955. The property was issued notice of violation on July 24, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on July 24, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on July 24, 2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing and first affidavit of noncompliance is attached here to the case. I have been in contact with the property manager pertaining to this case. The property was cited for 4.6.19, subsection L, prohibited species removed. Violation 4.6.19, subsection K, nuisance species removal permits. Violation 4.6.19, subsection E, subsection 1, vegetation removal permits. As of August 22, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached six photographs of the property, of the case, and I'd like to introduce them to evidence. On July 11, 2011, here are some photographs of the Australian pine trees. Here's another photograph, Exhibit 2, July 11th, of some Australian pine trees that go down to the parking lot, down toward the beach. Here's another close-up of that photo for Exhibit 3. Here is the posting of a notice of violation on July 24, 2026. Here is Exhibit 5, the affidavit of posting for July 24, 2026. The affidavit of noncompliance for Exhibit 6. The city is asking for an additional 60 days, which would be on November 2, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, the city is asking for $50 per day until compliance is chief. Would you please introduce my Exhibit's photos into evidence? Sir, can you tell me your name, please? My name is David Shane Rose. I'm the facility director for Delray Beach Club. Shang Rose? Shane. Shane? Yes, sir. Like the Western. Shane Rose? Yes, sir. Okay. Do you have any objections to the photographs or documents the city would like to put in evidence? No. No objections. Without objections, so admitted. Officer, what is compliance in this case? What is it that they have to do? Apply for the permits and have the Australian pine trees removed. They are an invasive tree. And you believe 60 days is a sufficient amount of time for them to accomplish that? Yes, sir. So what do you think? First off, we want 100% be in compliance with the city. It's a good place to start. However, it's almost 800 linear feet of Australian pines that are invasive, and we all agree that they do need to go. However, with the north and south boundary lines, there's some dispute on the ownership of the pines themselves. Currently, right now, we've engaged and retained a surveying company to get us mapped out to ownership of those trees. But with that being said, with the HOA communities to the north and to the south, if it's a shared property line, either or, it's going to require some coordination and some meetings to be thoughtful in the replacements and so on and so forth. And I'm also – What kind of time frame are you thinking? Well, we're asking the city a request of 12 months to plan, design, and ultimately execute within that time frame with the hopes of doing it sooner. We hope to have final CAD drawings and PDFs of all these pines by the end of the week, so hopefully that will give us a start. In the interim, we have a separate harvest report, and I also have some preliminary estimates from three different contractors for the removal and some replacement options. It's just going to take some coordination on parts of our neighbors, you know, to identify the species that wants to be replaced as well as the look, along with, you know, some privacy concerns as well. And as well, our season is effective November 1st, which is not an excuse, but there's also logistics and operational concerns on trying to get that accomplished. So considering it seems like they're trying to move forward, we're comfortable, you know, allowing for an additional 90 days, so maybe 30 days, so our recommendation will be 90 days to at least obtain the permits. The work doesn't have to be completed with the 90 days. It's just obtaining the permit. As long as we can identify who the ownership of the pines are and then coordinate it with that and nailing down a contractor. Well, it's a practical matter. I can't order you to remove trees that are not yours. So, I mean, to the extent that, you know, that I do an order here, which I will momentarily, but I can only compel you to remove the nuisance or prohibited or nuisance species that are existing on your property. So to the extent that they're on your neighboring property, I mean, you may want to coordinate with the removal with your neighbors, but I can't order you to remove those. No, no, sir. And that's the biggest question, where these pines are on the boundary line. Are they shared? Do we own half of them? Do we own 75% of them? Do we own 25% of them? It's just determined who has the ownership of those trees. And then there's an easement to the south of that property line as well. And it could, whatever individual owns that, could be a concern as well. So what I would also say is, you know, again, 90 days, but this is the type of situation where they would have to work with our landscaping department to do the application process and coming up with a plan and things like that. So if something like that does arise, then you should let them know sooner than later. And they'll let code enforcement staff know so that, you know, if we have to pivot or bring this back in or readjust, we can't. I did speak to one of the inspectors with the city. They did inform me that once you go through the process of getting a removal permit, also replacement has to be in place as well, you know, with that. And then there's some questions that I have, and I've tried to contact DEP that just see where the coastal construction line on our property, you know, does that require an additional permit from the state as well? All right. I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to do this. All right. In case 26000955, I make the following findings of fact and law, I find notice is sufficient, and I find the property in violation of illicit code section, specifically the prohibited Australian pine trees. Within 90 days, I'm going to order the respondent to obtain permits to remove any of these invasive trees that are on their property, and I'm going to ask that they identify which trees are on their property and which trees are not, and present that at our hearing in 90 days, and then come up with a plan for the removal of the remaining trees at that point. Failure to comply with this order will result in a fine of up to $50 per day. We'll set this, so this will be done by 12-2. We'll set this for hearing 12-5, right? Right. So do you want us to set, because we normally don't set the hearings, did you want us to set a status check on this one after? Yeah, because we're definitely going to need it, I can tell you already. So. I have a 12-17. I have a 12-3. No 12-3? We don't have 12-5? There's a 12-3 and then a 12-17. Because I think I literally sent something for 12-5 earlier in this hearing. No, you have a 12-3. And what was the compliance date? What's the 90 days? 12-2. Yeah, we can still have a. Let's have it at 12-3. Thank you. And we'll meet up in a few months and see where we're at, okay? Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you. Case number nine, code 26-000957. The property owner is Louise Spencer, is the Louise Spencer Estate. The property address is 234 Northeast 7th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Travis Jenks. Good afternoon. One more time. My name is Travis Jenks, code enforcement officer of the city of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding property 234 Northeast 7th Avenue, case number 26-000957. The property was issued a notice of violation on July 24th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on July 27th, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on July 24th, 2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing and first affidavit of noncompliance is attached to the case. I have not been in contact with the property owner. And the property was cited for two violations, 4.6.16, subsection I, subsection I, minimum maintenance required, and violation 7.8.3, maintenance of the building. As of August 22nd, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached 10 photographs of the property that I would like to introduce into evidence. Exhibit 1 is the front structure of the home. You see the wall has many, many cracks in it, in the front section, as long as on the south side as well. You see some fascia board rotted out on Exhibit 2 on July 22nd. July 22nd as well, this is in the rear of the property. This seems like a garage that's been damaged. Roofs caving in, walls caving in. You also have active beehive, it seems like, on the inside of the property because the alleyway is full of bees. On Exhibit 5, on July 24th, there is the posting of the notice of violation. Exhibit 6 is the affidavit of posting for July 24th, 2026. Exhibit 7 is another photo of the building, close up. Exhibit 8, for re-inspection, this was August 24th, 2026. There is, again, no work being done at all. Here's the beehive again in Exhibit 9 on August 24th in the re-inspection of 2026. I would like to introduce these 10 photographs into evidence of his and I's compliance photo, I'm sorry, as well. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent? The Luis Spencer Estate. Seeing no one without objection, I'll accept the documents, the exhibits, and evidence as the city's composite exhibit. What is your recommendation? The city is asking for an additional 30 days, which would be August 3rd, 2026, for them to come into compliance. September 3rd. October 3rd. October? Yes. If they do not come into compliance, the city is asking for $100 per day until compliance is achieved. Do you believe these are things that they can accomplish within 30 days? Getting the process started, for sure, being that we haven't had anybody in contact with. It's been, I think it's been going on three months, two months that this has been happening. And I also wanted to say, it's a little bit of a health safety concern, correct, with the bees and the condition of the property? Yes. So do you feel like they can at least obtain the permits within the 30 days? They should be supplied, for sure. Let me do it like this. In case 26000957, I make the following findings of fact and life. Find notice is sufficient. I find the property in violation of the listed code, section 7.8.3 and 4.6.16. I1, I order the respondent to obtain the permits within 30 days to repair and bring the property into compliance and finish all repairs within 60 days. Failure to meet either deadline subjects the property to a fine of $100 per day. Thank you. Case number 10, code 26000961. The property owner is Delores Carnegie. The property address is 102 Southwest 8th Street. And the code officer on the case is Travis Jenks. Good afternoon for the last time, I believe. My name is Travis Jenks, code enforcement officer for the city of Delroy Beach. I'm here regarding property 102 Southwest 8th Street. Case number 26-000961. This property received a courtesy notice on July 10th for maintenance of building and outside storage. The property was given five days to come to compliance. As an inspection was conducted on July 27, 2026. And the property was still not in compliance. And a notice of violation was posted on July 27, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on July 30, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on August 5, 2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing first affidavit of noncompliance is attached to the case. I have been in contact with the property owner's family, not with her directly, due to a language barrier. But they have not been responsive since then. The property was cited for 7.8.3, maintenance of building and outside storage. As of August 19, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached nine photographs of the property that I would like to introduce into evidence. Exhibit 1 is the outside of the building, taken on July 10, 2026. Exhibit 2 is a close-up under the carport where they have a bookshelf, some paint that's on the shelf, some other items as well. Behind the car is a washer or I'm thinking like a dryer because of the vent that's been sitting covered with the cover. Exhibit 3 is another air angle. You see an AC unit on the ground and some other items as well, taken on July 10. On July 27th, my re-inspection is in the same conditions with the bookshelf, paint, and other items. Exhibit 5 is the post-it of the notice of violation on August 5th. Exhibit 6 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 7 is another photo where they did remove the bookshelf but did leave the washer, the dryer, the grill, and a few other things as well. And here's a close-up of the photo in Exhibit 8. Here is Exhibit 9 is the affidavit of noncompliance. Could you please introduce those exhibits into evidence? Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent, Dolores Carnegie? Seeing none without objection, I'll accept those exhibits into evidence, the city's composite exhibit. So they moved some of the stuff, but there's some stuff left. Is that essentially it? Yeah. I spoke to her. I actually came out to the property with her, and I showed her what was needed to remove. She said okay, and as we see, it's still in the same conditions. What remedy were you seeking? The city's asking for an additional 15 days, which would be September 18, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If not, we are asking for $50 per day until compliance is achieved. All right. In case 26-000-961, I make the following findings of fact in life. I notice a fish and I found the property in violation of 7.8.3, which is the items documented by the code officer in the carport. Respondent has 15 days or until September 18, 2026, to bring the property in compliance or fine of up to $50 per day in my issue. Thank you. Thank you. We move on to noncompliance cases and assessment of fines. Case number 11, code 26-000-658. The property owner is Venkel Exantos. The property address is 3320 Boulevard Châtelain. And the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Does the, Madam Clerk, it appears that he needs an interpreter. Mr. Exantos, do you understand what I'm saying? Do you need an interpreter? Okay, so if we can swear on the interpreter, as well as recall the case so that he can hear everything that's happening in the hearing. Absolutely. Do you swear or affirm that you will translate a fair and accurate interpretation? Yes, I do. Thank you. And if we can swear on the respondent now, we can just have the interpreter interpret the directions of the clerk? By the authority vested in me as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm? So, he told me that he was certified in Florida as a notary of the state of Florida that you are notary of the state of Florida is notary of the state of Florida. Yes. That the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. And if we can have the interpreter speak closer into the mic as well? Case number 11, code 26-000-658. Dossier number 11, code 26-000-658. Property owner is Fenkel Exantos. Medkaida is Fenkel Exantos. Property address 3320 Boulevard, Châtelain. Alors, adresse car, alors, c'est 3320 Boulevard, Châtelain. Code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Officier qui non dossier, c'est Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon. My name is code enforcement Chantel Jean-Baptiste with the city of Delray Beach. Bonsoir, non pa, mon se Chantel Jean-Baptiste, mon se officier code pou City de Delray Beach. Property 3320 Boulevard, Châtelain. Adresse car la, c'est 3320 Boulevard, Châtelain. Originally was found in violation. Alors, car sa le même, il te jouen non violation. On May 21st, 2026. Non, date qui te 21 mai, 2026. For unpermitted addition structure. Pour sa ke ou te, ou te fè dan kai la, sa ke ou pa te font permission. Given 60 days to come into compliance. Alors, yote bo 60 jours pou te ke pa korrije problem nan. Or a $100 daily fine. Ou bien $100 par jour. A re-inspection was conducted. Alors, lui même te fè yon inspection. On July 23rd, 2026. Non, date 23 juillet, 2026. Where the property was found still out of compliance. Alors, non, date sa ke ou te toujou dans violation. On September 1st, 2026. Non, date qui te 1er septembre, 2026 la. A re-inspection was conducted prior to hearing. Alors, yote fè yon inspection avant dat jodi yala. And the property is not in compliance. Jiska à présent, ou pou ko jam korrije problem nan. I have six photographs to present to special magistrate. Alors, lui même ligue en six photo ke l'boile présente jodi yala avou. And I would like to introduce into evidence. A re-inspection as of September the 3rd. Alors, non, date qui te 3er septembre. 2026. Ou 2026 la. There is an accrued fine. Alors, te gien yon quantité de l'argent. And the amount of $4,400. Yon quantité de 400, 4,000 dollars. The city is suggesting. Alors, si ti yale même les suggérez. Lean the property in the amount of $4,400. Ou ka ba ba mette ligne sur k'e la pour 4,400. 4,400 dollars. 4,400 dollars. And continue the daily fine of $100 dollars a day. Alors, pour yon quantité pour additionner l'argent par jour. I will now show the old photos. Alors, pour yon quantité de photos yon la. Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1. I re-inspected the property on July 23rd. Chantal, lui même te inspecte et k'e la nan date qui te 23 juillet 2026. The addition is still present. Alors, ou ka ba boue et addition, lui même ou te additionne et k'e la toujou la, toujou présent. Exhibit 2. Exhibit, ou abgadé la kouna, k'il me o deya. I posted a notice on property on July 25th. I te poste et papier ou te ka bin on pute la joudi a la. 2026. Nan date qui te 25 juillet 2026. Exhibit 3. Exhibit numéro 3. Is an affidavit of posting. Sa se affidavit ki di ke m'poste et poste l'an. On September 1st. Nan date qui te 1er septembre. I re-inspected property. M'te inspecte et k'e la. Exhibit 5. Exhibit numéro 5. Closer photo of the property with addition to the side of the house. Mouy pren yon photo ki pi prè pou ka ba boue sa k'e ou te fè nan k'e la. Exhibit 6. Exhibit numéro 6. Is non-compliance affidavit. Sa se affidavit ki ou ven ou poko koriji e probleme na. I would like to say the owner of property applied for permits on August 8, 2026. Alors mouy ta vle di ke ou mem met k'e la ou te applique pou permis. Nan date ki te. Pose e de de kak. August 28, 2026. I te fer lit nan date ki te 28 août 2026. And on August 31, 2026. E pe nan date ki te. August 31. Oût 31. 2026. 2026. The owner of property has to make corrections to the documents which were submitted. Ou mem met k'e la ou te vino ou te voye papier pou te ka fer e koriji, pou te ka koriji bagayyo ou premia. So I would like to introduce these photos. M'dang an m'bou te a introduit photos a yopou evidens. Sir, can you tell me your name please? Monsieur, est-ce que ou k'a dim nou? Fiquel, exantus. Fiquels, fiquels, exantus. Fiquel, exantus. Do you have any objection to these photographs and documents being put into evidence? Est-ce que ou k'e la ou te va e jeter ou k'e la ou te va e jeter ou k'e la ou te va e dit. Ou e ou bien non? Est-ce que toutes photos a yopou e la se photo kaya. Oui. Yes. No objection. Without objection, I'll accept those in evidence. Il dit comme ça, pa ge, ou pa reti ryan et puis on tine a dossier. Oui. It's his turn to speak now. Ok, ça c'est le bar pou ka pa lé pouni à la. Et depuis, on jujou m'te vini nan, depi jou m'te vini nan nan, depi jou m'te vini nan nan, yorin nan. Since the last time I attended to the hearing, Souti m'te vini nan, yon kontraktör. As soon as I left the hearing, I hired a kontraktör. And as well, with an architect, the contractor said that the contractor had to inspect the property and the city had to do it. Also, according to his statement, he said that the contractor inspected the property. And since then, he said that he gave him a quote, how much everything is going to cost him. So you can pursue it with the permit. If we can have the interpreter interpret it verbatim exactly what he's saying. Okay, he gave him a quote, how much it's going to cost. Yeah, and I provided the amount, how much it's going to cost. He informed me what needs to be done based on the city code or the state code. And after he informed me of everything, and I called him to inspect the property, he took well over one week. Sometimes, it took two weeks. And I informed him, and I have a hearing appointment. And the GC, the general contractor, informed me that he is not going to leave his job to come to, you know, what he has to do right now. And that's why I can't do nothing with what the contractor stated. And I'm asking the jury, please, if you can help me with what I'm going to do right now. Because it has nothing to do with me, that's not my fault. The GC, the general contractor, advised me what has to be done. I've done everything. Now, when you're, right now, as of right now, I would like you to greet me 90 days, please, if you want. After 90 days, if nothing is done, now you can take action against me. We understand that it sounds like he's saying he's had some delays because of his contractor. Okay. However, we cannot agree to 90 days. And we understand that, um, we're comfortable understanding the circumstances and understanding that comments were just sent back from staff three days ago. To resetting this hearing for 30 days. So, no lien today, but the fines will continue to accrue. No, sorry. So, no, we're not going to put a word on the phone, but the money that you're going to do is always going to pay the amount of money. So, no, we're going to talk. Okay. Can I say something? Oui. Like, it's not me who's going to do it. If it's me who's going to do it, it's me who's going to do it. Yes, since this has nothing to do with me, that's not my fault. If I was doing it, and it would not take me 30 days. It's a contractor and architect, who's going to do it? It's the contractor and the architect fault. I don't have any responsibility right now. It's too much money right now. Because if it's to charge, it's the same person who can pay it. Because it's not me who's going to do it. It's just frustrating because of his contractor and... Anything further from the study? No. Okay, this is what I'm going to do. First, while I do understand your frustration, it's not the contractor who's responsible. It's the owner of the property. The contractor works for you. And there's no authority of mine to talk to your contractor. With that said, I'm going to stay the fine for 30 days. And reset this hearing for... What's the next hearing after 30 days? It's going to be October 15th. Reset this for October 15th. With that time, you should encourage your contractor to do whatever they can to bring this property into compliance. So, for all the time, it's going to be about 30 days. I'm going to be able to solve the problem now. Thank you for coming in. Thank you. Please let him know that our hearing is over, but if you would like, you can talk to the code officer. Thank you. Case number 12, code 26-000602. The property owner is Charles A. Smith III. The property address is 1033 Brooks Lane. And the code officer on the case is Code Enforcement Supervisor LaToya Thompson. This case was originally found to be in violation of Section 100.04, Subsection A through C, Seawalls, and 7.1.7, Subsection D, Subsection 4 and 5, Seawall Requirements on March 17, 2026, due to the deteriorating seawall in need of repair. On May 7, 2026, the ruling was issued requiring the property owner to bring the seawall into compliance with the current requirement of the land development regulation and the city code by July 7, 2026, or be subject to a daily fine of $100 a day. On July 8, 2026, the magistrate order inspection was conducted via EPL. During the inspection, it was observed that the application has been submitted on June 26, 2026. However, the current status of the application was respond and resubmit. Therefore, the violation remained outstanding and the daily fines began accruing. On July 22, 2026, noncompliance hearing was emailed because the property owner lives in Germany and a notice was also posted to City Hall. July 24, 2026, the notice violation was posted to the property. As of September 3, 2026, the violation remains outstanding and the accrued fines remain unpaid. For evidence, I have four new photos to introduce along with four old previous photos to present from the initial hearing. Ms. Thompson, before you proceed, just to confirm, I understand this was posted in City Hall and on the property, correct? Yes, ma'am. And you emailed the notice as well because the respondent's in Germany, correct? Yes, ma'am. Did you obtain a response confirming that the respondent was aware of this hearing? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. These are the previous photos that I'm going to go through quickly. Exhibit 1 is a screenshot of the respond and resubmit for the contractor to respond and resubmit to comments that the City needed him to reply to. Exhibit 2 is the affidavit of noncompliance. Exhibit 3 is the posting of the property for the noncompliance hearing. And Exhibit 4 is the affidavit of posting. The City recommends placing a lien on the property in the amount of $5,700 and continue the daily fines of $100 a day until the property is brought into compliance. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Yeah, my name is Lawrence Robbins. I own docks and seawalls. We're a general contractor. And I was alerted about this problem, as she said, and the wall definitely needs work. By the way, no work has been done. We jumped on it immediately. We've had engineers there at great expense. When you say immediately, when did you jump on it? Almost immediately after the hearing here when they were told they were not in compliance. And we started this permitting. We've done a lot. Notice of commencement, brought in engineers, paid them, got everything ready. We put the application. Now, I've been successfully pulling these permits in the area for 40 years. And we submitted it. And then after we submitted what we had, we were told that the City of Delray Beach, they have a marine structures review. And that wasn't going to happen until 729. So we lost a whole month. When did you submit your permit? 826. I was, excuse me, 626. I thought it would be the usual 10, 12, 14 days to get it done. And then we were told that this marine structures review. And we've done everything we can. The DE, they requested a letter from the DEP. And the DEP responded. And the letter is in your system that, no, it's not necessary. When you're just doing repairs, not changing the footprint. Unfortunately, the Army Corps of Engineers has been shut down. It was just now reinstated on the 17th because they had their agreement with the DEP had expired. So we weren't able to get a letter from them telling them the same because we are not changing this wall. We're just, we're doing work now. Now, I've had problems that I can't understand. By the way, you have an employee, David Herbert, who's a hero. For instance, the plans we submitted were this way, not that way. So we had to figure out how to resubmit them, rotate it. And then, of course, when you rotate him, his signature, his official signature did not come. But, you know, we've got all that done. I've called several times. They're requesting a, they have a question about backfilling. But this is not, we're not building a seawall on an empty lot. It's in front of a house that's been there for many years. We're underneath the pool deck. By the way, the, that picture that shows the wall, which definitely needs work on it as far as maintenance, that, that big opening belongs to the city. That's a city drain that goes to the, to the street, which is probably causing a problem. But the owner who wants to sell this place and is ready to do anything, he doesn't really care. That's why we spent the money for the engineering. And we're just blindsided by the fact that we had these problems making this thing go. As quickly as it does. And I thought that I was a pro. Apparently, I'm not. I must be an amateur because we were, we were stunned that we just couldn't get this permit pushed all the way through. And I would say. When do you anticipate? I, you know, I, I'm sure it'll be, if I can, if the city will, and I've called and called, I would just like to have one quick meeting with somebody from the city, probably in the building department to explain this one issue about backfill. And, uh, we could have this permit in, in 30 days. I thought I was going to have it in 15 or 18 days a couple months ago. But like I said, the owner is, he's, he has no problem spending money. He wants to get this done. And, uh, regardless of whether it's, there's, I guess they feel that the water on the street is coming from underneath this house and underneath this pool and ending up on the street. And it's probably that, uh, city owned drain. But that's, that's not a question. He just wants to get this done. I want, I'm trying to get this permit, been doing these permits for a long time, very successfully. So I would say, uh, now that the core is back, uh, they're reinstated, uh, I would say, and if I can meet just one person from the city with the building department that explain exactly what they want, because we've been there many times, uh, we could have this thing, we could have this thing permitted in 30 days and then commence the construction. How long do you think it'll take to do the work? Uh, it's probably about, oh, I'm going to say, uh, it's probably 15, 18, 20, probably 25 man days. So it'll be almost a month to, to do the work that they want us to do. So your position is, is that, uh, you've tried to get this thing done, but the delays are not caused by your efforts. Yeah, we've, we've failed miserably with the city as far as dealing, getting this permit through. Let me hear from the city. Um, so we were able to obtain the comments from staff, um, um, from the, the department. There's a couple of comments that need to be responded to. Some go far back is, uh, July. It's just, if he's having some of the comments, for instance, one of the comments was provide verification that the Army Corps of Engineers approving is not required. And if that's something that, that's an outside agency that he needs to comply with. Um, but we will say this delay is not on the part of the city. Um, so our position, um, after speaking with Ms. Thompson is we're comfortable with resetting this for 30 days as long as fines continue to accrue. And that will give him the opportunity to contact the engineering department, which is probably the more appropriate department here that he would need to contact. If they would kindly reply, you know, I have a full-time office and an email, you know, as long as somebody replied, we've, we've called several times, left many messages. So, uh, just so if the engineering department will, will, uh, respond and make an appointment, my office is, well, we're in Lantana, but it's only 25 minutes away at any time we can meet. We're all set. We've got plans that are approved by the engineer. We're all set to go. Yeah. I'm not going to make a, uh, a finding on the fines at this point, but I'll just reset this for, uh, what's it? October? October 15th. October 15th. All right. We'll, uh, we'll see where we are then. I'm very confident. I'm very confident it'll be done. Thank you. Case number 14, code 26, 000691. The property owner is Joseph Lamont Jr. The property address is 2049 Southwest 35th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Rubenson DeJaden. Good afternoon, uh, special magistrate. I'm here before you for a non-compliance code case 26, 000691. Originally found in violation on June 6, 2026 for an unapproved driveway. Given 30 days to come into compliance or $100 daily fine. We inspected on July 5th, 2026, where the property was found still out of compliance. On August 6, 2026, code enforcement officer DeJaden conducted a re-inspection prior to hearing, and the property is still not in compliance. I have seven photos to present to the special magistrate, and I would like to introduce those photos as evidence. As of September 3rd, 2026, there is an accrued fine in the amount of $6,000. And the city suggests lien property on, and the amount of $6,000, and continue the $100 daily fine. The first pictures, keep going. This is the last case, the one before, okay. These are the original photos, correct, that you're flipping through quickly? Correct. Okay, if you can go to the new photos, please. And exhibit number one, this is just showing you that I posted the property on Thursday, August 6, 2026. Exhibit number two, this is just showing you the posting affidavit that was taken on August 6, 2026. Exhibit number three, this is just showing you that the property is not in compliance, and the photo is shown. The date was September 1, 2026. This is just showing you the non-compliance affidavit that was taken on September 3rd, 2026. I assume you want to submit those in evidence? Would you like to submit the pictures of the evidence, please? Yes. Without objection, so admitted. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? I see no one. What is the city asking for? The city suggests lien property in the amount of $6,000, and continue the $100 daily fine. Have you had any contact with the respondent in this case? I have not. For the last couple weeks, and I think the property owner girlfriend called me probably last month, and she was asking me questions about the permit, and I referred her to the building department. As far as you know, at this time, the last time you checked, no building permit has been pulled? Well, actually, permit is under review right now. Comments were given to owner or contractor. They need to submit proper documents. How long have they been waiting on the comments? I don't have my computer right now, but for quite some times. They have a lot of comments that needs to be addressed. All right. Case 26000691, I want to make the following findings of fact-in-law. If I notice a sufficient find of the property continues to be in violation of 2.4.13b, the missing building permits, I hereby lien the property in an amount of $6,000, continuing at $100 per day until the property comes into compliance. Thank you. Thank you. We're moving on to old business. Thank you, Madam Clerk. If you can call up all three of the cases, please. Case number 15, 2025-004685. The property owner is 302 Northeast 6th Avenue, LLC. And the property address is 302 Northeast 6th Avenue. This is a status hearing. Case number 16, IR 2025-004908. The property owner is 302 Northeast 6th Avenue, LLC. Property address, same, 302 Northeast 6th Avenue. Case number 17, IR, code 25-0000010. The property owner is 302 Northeast 6th Avenue, LLC. Property address is 302 Northeast 6th Avenue. And again, this is a status hearing. Good afternoon, Magistrate Wagner. So these three cases came back on a mandate from the court in the 15th Judicial Circuit on Appellate Review. It requires that you supply amended final orders for all three cases. We're asking that each of the orders set forth the specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the actual order that was identified during those independent hearings based on the evidence and the standard that you used to make those rulings for all three matters. As I understand it, the remand from the circuit court is requiring a written findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the existing evidentiary record, together with consideration of the notice issues identified in the appellate opinion. There's no one. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent or the appellant? What would, hold on one moment. This was properly noticed, so let me just get the code enforcement officer, if you're asking, if we can just get some testimony on how this was noticed. Could you please state your name for the record? Phil Cartwright, code enforcement administrator. Mr. Cartwright, are you familiar with these three cases that we're here for today regarding 302 North East 6th Avenue, LLC? Yes, I am. And were these, was the property owner noticed for the hearing? Yes, he was. Registered agent and owner. Okay, and how is that noticed? It was hand-delivered. Okay, to both separate addresses, one to 1615 Farm Place in West Palm Beach on the fifth floor, and the other to Mr. Rodney Merrow, or to 302 North East 6th Avenue, care of Rodney Merrow at 520 Clemata Street. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes, we did. And did you also post it on the property here in Delray Beach? The property in Delray Beach, it was actually hand-delivered. Hand-delivered. Yes. Okay, thank you. That was at 302 North East 6th Avenue? That is correct. Okay. And for the record, I did email the appellate attorney that was representing Mr. Mayo, Jennifer, let me just get it, just in case you want to put it in there. I did email her, Ms. Perrone, a courtesy copy of the notice as well, and that was on September 1st. Have we heard from the respondent at all? No, we have not. I believe we did get a call. Ms. Kent got a call. If Ms. Kent can come. I don't know if she was sworn in. Ms. Kent, can you please come to the microphone? Ms. Kent, what is your position with the city? Code enforcement coordinator. And as a part of your position, are you the one that prepares and assists with drafting the orders and letters to be sent out to respondents? Yes, I do. And indeed, you're the person that prepared these notices of the letters that were sent, correct? Correct. And your phone number is on the letter? It is. And did you receive any communications from the property owner? I received communication from a David Ware, who was asking why we were having the hearing and what it was for, basically. So Mr. Ware, did he indicate that he was an agent or representative of the property? He said he represents the owner. Okay. And so he called. That means he received it, correct? Yes. And did you advise him that he needed to be here today? Yes, I did. Thank you. I was also advised, staff, that Mr. Ware was present here earlier. I don't know if he stepped out. If you want to go check the hall to see if he's outside. Okay, I'll go check. But he did sign in, and he was sitting in the corner over there. Okay, if you could just go check to see if he's outside. Thank you. It does seem a little odd to me to go through all the trouble of appealing this decision and then not being here to argue that appeal. Okay, when I just checked outside, Officer Romy said that he left. He spoke to him. He says, I don't know how you guys do this all day, and he left. Okay, thank you. So I guess you and I both agree that the requirements of the mandate are a written finding of fact and conclusion of law based upon the existing evidentiary record. Correct. And I believe the city is submitting proposed orders. I guess what I probably would like to do is give the respondent an opportunity to submit or comment on or submit their own proposed orders. So would you like us to submit individual proposed orders, or would you like me to reach out or, I'm not sure, provide a courtesy, you know, a copy of the order that I've prepared? I just don't want to create the event where we're going to be back in the circuit court because they're going to claim they didn't have an opportunity to respond, even though I think the city has properly noticed this since they were here. We did. Yeah, in a caution because, you know, I'm sure the judges don't want to be bothered by this one a second time. I do want to make sure that we give them an opportunity to be heard. I don't know why Mr. Weir left, but maybe he misunderstood something. But maybe I would give them, you know, maybe seven days to file their own papers. So do you still want to announce your findings on the record and then we submit the proposed orders or? Let's set this, we're back in, what, two weeks? Yes, on the 17th we're back. Let's do this. Let's give them seven days to submit whatever documents they want to submit, either argument or proposed orders, and then we'll issue the final orders at the hearing on the, what did we say, the 15th? 17th is our next hearing. Okay, so for clarification, both parties are to submit proposed orders to you, and then you will have? We'll submit them to the city. To the city. My apologies. To the city, and then you'll make your final findings and everything. Yeah, and I'll issue the final orders on the 17th. All right, thank you. And their presence, are you requiring their presence or? No, I can't really require it. But, I mean, they're welcome to be here. Okay. Or they can just submit their documents. Okay. But maybe they don't like to sit through our hearings. I don't know. All right, I think that's it, right? Okay. All right, no further business before us. We're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Testing, testing. They should be fine. Who's already? There was a meeting two hours ago. There was a meeting two hours ago. It's on my checklist. It's a requirement. So I'm testing. This one looks good. This one was off. This one was also off. Testing, testing. Hello. A little Cuban coffee. It's not the woods. It's a little Alabama, but I'm getting to learn more Tig crests. To, going back to欸 pension. To nothing new I have to do here. Here we go. This one is going to be ready to join us. And then I am going to add something that I'm here. There is pretty much new instantly. First of in a haircut. Can you hear the wall? I feel my, the boy says I like to go now. I'm going to be fine. I'm going to go on walk here. All right. I'll be honest. That's what we got. I'm not dancing. Yeah, and then I want to go back to that road. I learned something, but I just don't want to arrive. This last one is in front of my budget.