Thereby call this meeting to order. This is Code Informant Special Magistrate for the City of Delray Beach. Cases will be heard in the order in which they appear on the agenda, unless we otherwise note it. Once you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed to this podium here on my left-hand side. The City will present its case first. You'll have an opportunity to review any documents submitted by the City 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 that the formal rules of evidence do not apply here. However, all testimony is taken under oath, under penalty of perjury. So I'm going to ask if you are going to testify today, or you think you might testify, or there's a possibility that you might testify, that you rise and raise your right hand now so that you can be sworn in. By the authority vested in me, as a notary of the State of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. All right, next item on the agenda is the consent agenda. Requesting approval of the consent agenda as written. I hereby approve the consent agenda. Thank you. No minutes this time. No minutes at this time. City can call the first case. Thank you. Case number one, code 26-001-108. The property owner is Rosebud 3rd Avenue, LLC. The registered agent is CMRAC, Inc. The property address is 33 Southeast 3rd Avenue. The card officer on this case is Haney's Batista Hernandez. However, this case has come into compliance as of today, so it will not be heard. Case number two, code 26-001-094. The property owner is ICON Development Holdings 2, LLC. The registered agent is ICON Equity Group, LLC. The property address is 104 Southeast 1st Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Code Enforcement Supervisor LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is LaToya Thompson, Code Supervisor for the City of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding property 104 Southeast 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. Case number code 26-001-094. The property was issued a notice of violation on September 4th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail sent on September 8th, 2026. In addition, both the property and City Hall was posted on September 8th, 2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing and first affidavit of noncompliance is attached to the case. I have not had contact with the property owner. This property was cited as originally for a 2.413 subsection B building permit for a cell sign. However, that has come to compliance. 4.6.16 subsection I subsection 1 landscape maintenance. 4.6.17 subsection D subsection 4 erosion and sediment control. As of October 14th, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached seven photos of the property to the case that I would like to introduce as evidence. Exhibit 1, taken on August 13th, 2026 of the property with dry debris and also a broken for sale sign. And that the property was left what we would call denuded without greenery, grass. Exhibit 2 is another photo shot of the property left denuded with the dry palm fronds, also with the weeds needing to be cut. Exhibit 3 is another photo of the sign with the dry palm fronds and also the land being left naked or denuded. Exhibit 4 is an affidavit of posting. Exhibit 5 is a re-inspection on October 8th. Property still left denuded. The sign was fixed and also landscape needed to be cut as well. Exhibit 6 is just another photo of still dry palm fronds and the property still left denuded. Exhibit 7 is a notice, a first affidavit non-compliance. The city is asking for an additional 30 days, which will be November 14th, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, the city is asking for a $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Thank you, Supervisor Thompson. At this time, the city would like to introduce the seven exhibits into evidence. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent, ICON Developments, Holding LLC? Seeing no one without objection, I'll accept in evidence the seven exhibits submitted by the city. Thank you. And for clarification, we're just here for the erosion and sediment controls and the minimum maintenance violations. And I know we use different words, but properties aren't allowed to have dirt on the property like that. Yes, it shouldn't be left naked. Denuded. Thank you. You're welcome. So, on the two sections, the minimum maintenance, is that in reference to the debris that's on the property? The debris and also the landscape that needed to be cut down. And the 4.6.7 D4, that's basically the dirt without dirt. Yeah, the property being naked, left without grass. Yes, if you look at Exhibit 5 here, you'll see all the grass, the trash on the left, the palm trees. Yeah, the dead palm trees. Right. And you believe 30 days is the original time to bring this into compliance? Yes, sir. All right. Case 26001094, I make the following findings of fact. And the life I notice is sufficient to find the property in violation of 4.616 I1 for the debris on the property. And 4.6.17 D4 for the open and soil without grass on top. Respondent has 30 days to come to compliance. That's our fine of $100 per day may issue. The compliance date will be 11-14-2026. Thank you. Case number 3, code 26-001088. The property owners are Delray Oasis Business Park, LLC. The registered agents are Binstock, Ruben, Sabar, Garcia, and LZPA. The address is 1205 North Federal Highway. And the code officer on the case is Randall Strawn. Question. Question. Code officer Randall Strawn here for case number 26-1088 in reference to address 1205 North Federal Highway. It was issued a business tax violation for a business tax receipt, not paying for a non-payment of their business tax license. Service was accomplished by a certified regular mail on September 8, 2008, 2026. In addition, both the city hall and the property was posted on September 3, 2026. An affidavit of the posting is also attached to the case files. I have not as yet had property owner contact with the property owner. The property was cited for a non-payment of business tax. On September 3, 2026, I, the code officer, was informed by the business tax office of a business not having an occupation license for the business, which is a violation of 110.02. As of October 14, 2026, the property has not come into compliance as of yet. I have four photographs of the property I would like to introduce as evidence. This is Exhibit 1 taken on September 3, 2026. This is the posting of the property at 1205 North Federal Highway. This is Exhibit 2. This is the posting of the affidavit that was also saying the posting to the property. This is Exhibit 3 taken on October 7, 2026. This is the front of the property at 1205 North Federal Highway. This is a salon, a business within a salon. And this is the affidavit of the non-compliance photo for Exhibit 4. Counsel, would you like to submit these in evidence? Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent, Delray Oasis Business Park, LLC? Seeing no one without objection, I'll accept these four exhibits in evidence. Officer, the salon is still operating, to the best of your knowledge? Yes. And did you say you had contact with the owner? No contact, yet. And what remedy is the city seeking? The city is seeking 30 days to come to compliance. If not, they're seeking a $50 day to find until a compliance is achieved. All right. In case 26001088, I make the following findings of fact-in-law. Find notice is sufficient to find the property in violation of 110.02. Figure it obtain a business receipt. Respondent has 30 days or until 11-14-26 to ring the property in compliance or fine up to $15 per day measure. Thank you. Case number four, code 26001086. The property owners are John and Bianca Beltrami. The property address is 4208 Palm Forest Drive North. The code officer on the case is Rubenson DeJaden. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is Rubenson DeJaden. I'm the code enforcement officer with the city of Delray Beach. I'm here in regards to 4208 Palm Forest Drive North was issued a notice of violation on August 31st, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regulars of mail sent on September 2nd, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on September 4th, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached in the case. I have not been in contact with the property owner. The property was cited for abandoned vehicle on private property 90.03, subsection A. As of today, October 15, 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 and to evidence. Exhibit number one just showing you this van that you see on 4208. The license plate is missing in Napa, unlicensed vehicle. Exhibit number three, this is just a different angle that was taken on Saturday, August 29, 2026. It's just showing you that van is without a valid license plate. Exhibit number three, this is just showing you the posting of the property that was taken on September 4th, 2026. This is just showing you the affidavit of posting that was taken on September 4th, 2026. It's exhibit number five just showing you that I took the photo on different angles on October 6th, 2026. Exhibit six, this is just showing you a different angle that I took pictures on October 6th, 2026. And it's not, it was not in compliance. Thank you. At this time, the city would like to introduce the seven exhibits into evidence. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent, John and Bianca Beltrami? Sir, can you tell me your name, please? John Beltrami. Sir, do you have any objections to the photographs or document the city just presented? No, sir. An objection so admitted. So what's going on with your van? I have someone scheduled to pick it up tomorrow evening and it will be gone. What's the city asking for here? The city was asking an addition of 15 days by October 30th, 2026 to come into compliance. If not, $100 thereafter. The city wants to give you 15 days. So if you're going to do it tomorrow, I think that's plenty. Thank you. All right. In case 26001086 to make the following findings of fact and law, I find notice is sufficient to find the property in violation 90.03a, specifically a non-licensed vehicle on the property. Respondent has 15 days or until October 30th to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $100 per day in an issue. Good luck. Thank you. Case number five, code 26001101. The property owners are Agnes, Fred Andre, and Leonie Andre Parcolout. The property address is 125 Southwest 10th Street, and the code officer on the case is Rubenson DeJaden. Good afternoon again, Special Magistrate. My name is Officer Rubenson DeJaden, code enforcement with the city of Daryl Beach. This property, 125 Southwest 10th Street, was issued a notice of violation on September 8, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mayor sent on September 9, 2026. In addition, both the property and the city hall were posted on September 9, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached. And the case, I have not have contact with the property owner. The property was cited for tree removal, land clear permit, 4.6.19, subsection E. As of today's October 15, 2026, the property has not yet come into compliance. I have attached seven photographs of the property of the case that I would like to introduce as evidence. Exhibit number one, just showing you multiple trees that were removed without permit. That was taken on August 28, 2026. Exhibit number two, just showing you at different angles, that multiple trees were removed without a bridging permit. The tree removal? It was taken on August 28, 2026. This is exhibit number three. I just showing you the affidavit of posting. That was taken on September 9, 2026. This is just showing you the posting of affidavit. I was taken on September 9, 2026. This exhibit file, just showing you on October 8, 2026, this property owner had removed tree removal without a permit. October 8, just showing you different angles, that the property had tree removal without a permit. Exhibit seven, just showing you the affidavit of non-compliance. That was taken on September 15, 2026. At this time, the city would like to introduce the exhibits. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Fred Andre. Can you tell me your name, sir? My name is Fred Andre. That is my property at 125 Southwestern Street. Since the notice has been placed on the property, I have... Hold on one second. Before you tell me anything, do you have any objections to the photographs or documents that the city just presented? I do not object to it. I do have an ongoing permit. I have an affidavit. Okay, hold on one second. For the record, I'll accept those documents and evidence. All right, go ahead, sir. You said you had an permit? Yes, I do have an owner's building affidavit. Since the day the notice has been posted on the property, I went to the city hall, I've got an owner's building affidavit. Can you show that document to the code officer, please? This is just the permit for the tree removal that you applied for? Right. It is for the disposition of the tree removal and also is for just to plant new trees in place of the other trees that have been removed. I am currently in process of obtaining the, so to speak, the large permit. This is a small permit, I guess. L-D-E-V-R 020197-2026. Yes, we've confirmed that he has applied and is in the process. Okay, yes. And I spoke to Officer David Glover. He told me that I had, like, 60 days to get those trees in order so he can approve of the other, the big permit. And I was trying to see, like, if there was, if there could be an extension because I feel like the 60 days is not adequate enough time to plant all the trees that were removed. And for the record, I wanted to state that I did not fully understand that I could not cut trees on my own property. So I just wanted to make the court know that I did not do that intentionally to violate the code. That was just, like, an accident. Once I went to go look at the law, I noticed that was a mistake I did. So I was trying to see if the court could be more lenient to, like, understanding, like, the fees. It's not that you can't cut trees. You just need a permit. Right, right. But I didn't know it was, you couldn't do that on your own property. But now that I do know that, I'm looking to, you know, settle whatever matters. I'm willing to cooperate with the court, and hopefully that it could be more lenient. Just for clarity, we're not a court. We're just a special magistrate. Special magistrate. What is the city seeking? So I just spoke to the supervisor and the code enforcement officer, and they're comfortable with 90 days to come into compliance or a $100-day fine if the respondent does not come into compliance. How does that work for you, Mr.? Sounds great. Sounds great. Mr. Andre, right? Right. All right. In case 26001101, I make the filing findings a fact, and the law fine notice is efficient. Find the property in violation of 4.6.19E, tree removal and land clearing without a permit. Respondent has 90 days, which would be 113-2027, to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $100 per day may issue. 90 days is a long time, but it does sneak up on you, especially over the holidays, so you're going to want to get moving on that. Right. Thank you so much. Thank you, court. Thank you. Case number 6, code 2600911. The property owner is Nancy Braun. The property address is 305 Southwest 3rd Street, and the code officer on the case is Travis Jenks. Good afternoon, magistrate. My name is Travis Jenks, code enforcement officer, City of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding property 305 Southwest 3rd Street, code case 26000911. The property was issued a notice of violation on August 5th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified mailed and posted to the city hall on September 14th, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on August 5th, 2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing and first affidavit of noncompliance is attached to the case. I have been in contact with the owner of the property. The property was cited for 2.4.13 subsection B building permits. As of October 14th, 2026, the property has not come into compliance, although there is a permit on file that they have applied for. I have attached eight photos of the property to the case, and I would like to introduce them to evidence. Exhibit 1 is the schematic of the property where it was originally, the gate was originally installed on the property prior to the homeowners owning the property. Number 2 is Exhibit 2 was taken on July 28th, 2026. It just shows the gate that has since been moved close to the front of the home on the property. Exhibit 3 is another angle of the gate taken on July 28th, 2026. Exhibit 4 is just a step back, further wide shot angle of the gate taken on July 28th, 2026. Here on Exhibit 5, we have on October 10th, 2026, during my reinspection, the photo of the gate. Exhibit 6, again, is another angle taken on October 10th, 2026. Exhibit 7 is the affidavit of mailing and posting, and Exhibit 8 is the first affidavit of noncompliance. I would like to introduce these eight photos into evidence. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent, Nancy Braun? I have a moment, just for the record. When you hear your case called, please come up. We just need to swear in, Ms. Nancy, before we get started. She wasn't here present for the initial swearing. Anyone that came in late, now is your chance to. Please rise and raise your right hand if you're going to testify or you think might testify. Okay, so raise your right hand. Authority vested in me, and the real 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? I do. I'm sorry, can you state your names, please? Nancy Braun. And who do you have with you, Ms. Braun? Go ahead. Mark Bazarin. Ms. Braun, do you have any objections to the documents or photographs the city would like to put in evidence? No. Without objection, so admitted. I'm sorry, if we can have her a step closer to the microphone. It's kind of hard to hear her. Okay. Thank you. So what's going on with your fence? Pardon me? Can you tell me what's going on with your fence? There was a fence that was installed before I bought the house, and now Florida Power and Light has an easement there, so they want us to move it up so that it can be blocked off so the Florida Power and Light can get into that easement. Okay. And you need a building permit for that? We applied for it. What's the status of the permit? It's still in review, so I guess there's probably some talks. Last time I checked, between the city and the homeowner, I do. There is a review and resubmit, so I'm guessing I'm not too sure if they have taken care of that on their end, but as of last time I saw it, it was in process. And what is the city asking for here? The city is asking for additional 30 days, which would make that November 14, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, the city is asking for $50 a day until compliance is achieved. For $50 per day? Yes. Ms. Braun, the city is asking me to find that the violation exists and to give you 30 days to come into compliance. Is that a sufficient amount of time for you? Yes. All right. In case 26-0-0-0-9-1-1, I make the following findings of fact in law. If I notice it's sufficient for the property in violation of 2.4.13b, the fence needs a building permit. Responded has 30 days to come into compliance or a fine of up to $50 per day, may I ask you. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 7, code 26-001-095. The property owner is 525 Corporation. The registered agent is Anthony L. Clark. The property address is 525 Southeast 6th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Travis Jenks. Good afternoon. My name is code officer Travis Jenks with the city of Durie Beach. I'm here regarding property 525 Southeast 6th Avenue. Case number 26-001-095. The property was issued a notice of violation on September 5th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified mail and posted to City Hall on September 8th, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on September 5th, 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 owner of the property. The property was cited for 4.6.19 subsection E, subsection 1 vegetation removal permits as of October 14th, 2026. The property has not come into compliance, although there is a pending permit, which is in review with the city. I have attached six photographs of the property that I would like to introduce into evidence. Exhibit 1 is them in action when taken on September 5th, 2026 of them cutting down the trees on the property. Exhibit 2, taken on September 5th as well. Just another angle of the property. Exhibit 3 is the company that is doing the work of the property that's also taken on September 5th, 2026. Is that a smurf? Yes, it is. It is a smurf. And then Exhibit 4, taken on September 5th, 2026, is me posting the notice of violation onto the property. Exhibit 5 is the affidavit of posting and mailing. And Exhibit 6 is the affidavit of noncompliance. I would like to introduce these six photographs of the evidence, please. Is anyone here on behalf of 525 Corporation? Seeing no one without objection, I'll accept those six exhibits into evidence, the city's composite exhibit. Thank you. The city's asking for an additional 30 days, which should make this November 14th, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If not, the city's asking for $100 per day until compliance is achieved. Do you have any contact with the property owner in this case? No, sir. Any evidence that they responded to your citation? No, sir. Not to me personally. But there is a permit active that's been applied for. But, so again, it's in review. And you believe 30 days is a reasonable time for them to bring this into compliance? I should. I believe so. In case 26001095, I make the following findings of Fact of Life. I notice it's sufficient to find the property in violation of 4.6.19E1. They removed the vegetation and trees without a permit. Respondent has 30 days or until 11-14-2026 to bring the property in compliance for a fine of $100 per day. Maisha. Thank you. Case number 8. The property owner is KC and Boyes Holdings, LLC. The registered agent is Kelly Castillo. The property address is 260 Northeast 14th Street. And the code officer on the case is Travis Jinks. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The next case, the next case code 2600137, it's also the same property and the violations were observed starting at the same time frame. So, if we can call that case as well, Madam Clerk. Absolutely. Thank you. One last thing. If you can call that case and then she wasn't sworn in as well. I'm going to turn to you on my test phone. Oh, okay. Absolutely. Case number 9. It's code 26001137. Property owner is KC and Boyes Holdings, LLC. Registered agent is Kelly Castillo. The property address is also 260 Northeast 14th Street. And the code officer for this case will also be Travis Jinks. Good afternoon. My name is Travis. I'm with the counselor. Would you like to make your appearance? Yes. That's Debbie George Alton on behalf of KC and Boyes Holdings, LLC. That's A-L-T-E-N. A-L-T-E-N. Alton. Thank you, Ms. I'm sorry. Go ahead. No worries. Good afternoon. My name is Travis Jinks, code enforcement officer to Derrick Beach. I'm here regarding property 260 Northeast 14th Street, Derrick Beach, Florida. Case number 26001112. The property was issued an irreversible, irreparable hearing notice on September 16th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mails sent on October 5th, 2026. In addition, both property and city hall were posted October 5th, 2026. An affidavit of posting mailing is attached to the case. I have not been in contact with the owner of the property. The property was cited for 53.02, subsection A through C, discharge in storm sewer. On September 16th, 2026, I deserved debris from the construction site falling into the storm water system. And I have attached three photographs on the property of the case, three photographs on the property that I would like to introduce it to evidence. Excuse me, magistrate. Before we proceed, I just need to restate the case number for case number 8. I realized I missed a 1. Go ahead. So case number 8, IR, code 26001112 is the code case for case number 8. I just want it to be on the record. Thank you. Yeah. Exhibit 1 shows on September 10th, or I'm sorry, September 16th, 2026, the property of the violation where you can see the trash that is sitting directly behind the storm drain. And you can see the debris start to flow in the storm sewer drain. Exhibit 2, taken on the same day, September 10th, 2026, is the close-up of the storm sewer drain. There is no sock, no filter fabric, anything that catches the debris from falling in and going to the storm sewer drain. Exhibit 3 is the affidavit of posting, mailing for that. Okay. So we can just go back to Exhibit, let's see, Exhibit 2, okay? So I, and go back to Exhibit 1. So you indicated that we're here for an irreparable or irreversible violation for items on that property going into the city's storm water system, correct? Yes. And from the slope on the property, if it rained, would that, would that, the items or debris go into the storm water system? Yes, ma'am. And had it rained, if you were aware, had it rained before that? I'm quite sure it's Florida, so it rains all the way. Well, okay, right, but we're here for facts. So, city's Exhibit 2 here, you see that blue information and all that debris on top. Is that indicative of rainwater dragging those items into the drain water system? Yes. And did you indeed look into the drain water system? Yes. And could you tell that items were in the drain water system? A bunch of stuff. Rocks, pieces of gravel, cement, possibly. I'm not 100% sure. Just trees, pieces, that kind of stuff. Correct. And the areas that you patrol are normally in that area where this construction site is, correct? Yes. So, you're familiar with the property and have been observing this, correct? Yes. Okay, thank you. At this time, the city would like to introduce, for purposes of this, Exhibits 1, 2, 3, A, and B. No objection. All right, without objection, so admitted. Ms. Alton, do you have any questions for the code officer? I do not accept that. Just have you gone back to the property? Yes. Have you – it's my understanding that the situation was cured. Is that not correct? Not fully. Okay. We'll take that on to the next part of the case. Okay. This is on part two. So, if we can go to the presentation for the next case. Yes, ma'am. So, on – again, I'm here regarding the property 260, Northeast 14th Street, case number 001137. The property was posted, notice of violation, on September 16th, 2026. In addition, it was posted to City Hall on September – excuse me – October 5th, 2026. It was also, in addition, posted to City Hall – to the property on September 16th, 2026. An affidavit of mailing and posting of noncompliance is attached to the case. I have not been in contact with the owner of the property. The property was cited for 4.6.16, subsection D, subsection 2, erosion and sediment control, and also 4.4.3, subsection I, subsection 1 through 11, which has come into compliance since then. It's construction site maintenance. Okay. As of October 14th, the property has not fully come into compliance. I have attached 10 photos of the property, the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. Here we have Exhibit 1. Again, is the taking of the widescreen of the whole property there, where you can see the debris, with no dumpster, no silt fence. Again, no filth fabric or sock for the storm sewer drain, and it just looks messy to be cleaned up. Exhibit 2 is a close-up of the material that was left on the property and not used and put in the dumpster. Exhibit 3, taken on September 10th, is just another angle of more debris and more trash that is on the property. Exhibit 4, September 10th as well, is another angle of the property where you can see some more debris and trash, some boards, 2x4s all over the property. Exhibit 5 was taken on October 9th. It's a re-inspection of the property, where they did add the aggregate. They do have a dumpster and did take care of the construction site maintenance. Although they do have their sill fence up, the sill fence is down, and you can see some of the debris, the rocks still falling into the sewer drain area. Is that the bottom of the photograph near the date? Did you say yes? Yes. Exhibit 6 is October 9th as well. Exhibit 6 is another shot where they did add the aggregate down on the property, and it's shown that they do have a dumpster. Exhibit 7, taken on October 9th, 2026, again, of the sill fence that was installed. Exhibit 8 is a close-up of where the partial compliance tends to be, where the sill fence is down, the aggregates are falling into the storm drain as well. Exhibit 9 is the affidavit of mailing and posting, and Exhibit 10 is the affidavit of noncompliance. At this time, the city would like to introduce the 10 Exhibit Center evidence. No objection. The city, for case 26001112, the city is asking for a one-time fine of $5,000 to be paid within 30 days, which would be on November 14th, 2026. And for case 001137, the city is asking for $100 a day until compliance is achieved, which would be the same November 14th, 2026. 30 days again? Yes, sir. Ms. Alton, the floor is yours. I'm sorry. Can you repeat what you want for 1112? The city is asking for a one-time fine of $5,000 to be paid within 30 days. So the $5,000 fine seems excessive for this violation, and they did bring it into at least substantial compliance. Well, the... No, I think she's just making her argument to the magistrate. Yeah. Oh, she's... No. I apologize. It's supposed to be to the magistrate. It's to the magistrate. It's not to you. And then for 1137, just to be clear, you want it's 30 days to bring it into compliance? Did you say that? Yes, that is the city's recommendation. Okay. So obviously, I have no objection to 1137, but the $5,000 fine seems excessive. May I have a city speak to why a $5,000 fine? Yes. So, based on the nature of the violation, as you're aware, under Chapter 162, there are different considerations that can be made. This irreversible, irreparable fines, the maximum fine is up to $15,000 in accordance with Chapter 162. And if we go back to the photographs for this, I mean, this whole site, this can't be undone. While we can appreciate that mechanisms have been put in place, but this is a lot of items that went into the city storm drain system. You can still even see the debris on top of it. And they're just not maintaining the construction site, which is a hazard to the city and its residents. This was back on September 10th. It took them over, you know, to the next month to even try to make some of those things into consideration. So, that's why we feel like this is appropriate based on the nature of the violation. Salton, I'll give you the last one. Yeah. So, first of all, the testimony was that there was just some rocks that may have been in there. There was no testimony, no credible testimony as to whether or not it actually rained and what was actually in the storm drain. So, the $5,000 fine seems excessive, again, for what was observed in the photograph that was taken and presented as the evidence for the magistrate to consider. All right. In case code 26001112, I make the following findings of fact, and I find notice sufficient, I find the property was in violation of 53.012 with this discharge into the storm sewer. Honestly, I think the city let you off a little easy here. They could have gotten to 15, but I'm going to assess the fine of $5,000. Okay. That's irreparable and irreversible in nature. As to case 26001137, I make the following findings of fact, and I find notice sufficient, find the property in violation of 4.6.17 D.2. Erosion and sediment controls need to be to the city standard. Responders 30 days to bring that into compliance are a fine of up to $100 per day, may I ask you. Thanks for coming in. Thank you, magistrate. Thank you. Thank you. Magistrate, concerning case number 9. Yep. That's $100. 30 days or $100 per day. Thank you. Case number 10, R, code 26001187. Property address is 100 South Congress Avenue. The property owner is Congress Square Limited, and the registered agent is Harry Harrison. The code officer on the case is Yana Costa. Good afternoon. My name is Yana Costa, code enforcement officer for the city of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding property 100 South Congress Avenue, case number code 26001187. The property was issued an irreversible, irreparable hearing notice on October 6, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail sent on October 9, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on October 9, 2026. And after David of posting and mailing is attached to the case, I have not been in contact with the owner of the property. This property was cited for 53.012 A through C, discharge prohibited and storm sewer system. On October 5, 2026, I observed grease flowing from the two grease trap covers from units 2178 and 2176 into the stormwater system. I have attached eight photographs and one video of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. So, exhibit one, this was from October 5, and this is just showing the two units and then the two grease trap covers that is responsible for those two units. Exhibit two is just like a close-up. So, you can see the grease trap covers basically having all the grease around it. And that was on October 5, correct? Yes, October 5, yes. Let me go this way. Hold on. Let me go back. There you go. Exhibit three was also on October 5. And I'm just trying to show you that it does say, like, trap in the bottom, but up top you can kind of see, like, grease, but the grease is basically, like, covering the wording on the cover. Exhibit four, it's just showing now the grease going towards the parking lot. Exhibit five, also on October 5, is just a white picture that you can see that the grease is going, just going down the parking lot, like, way down. Exhibit six, this is the posting for the unit 2176. Exhibit seven, this is the posting for 2178. And then exhibit eight, this is the after David of posting a mailing picture. And then this is the video that I wanted to show you. How do I... Here. Let's look at you. So, here you can see, like, the grease just coming out of the cover, and it's just, like, streaming down. And the grease is mixed with another item, or it's just... It's just grease. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, you can kind of see, like, the brown, like, you know, it's very, like, oily. Yeah. There's, like, disclauration and everything. And that's flowing. You can see it on the white stripes. Yes. Yeah. And at this point, when this video is taken, you're just following the grease. You're just following the grease, correct, to see the direction that it's flowing? Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Grease stains all over the... Yeah. And this is also picking up other debris from the garbage, from the ground, and flowing, correct? Yes. Mm-hmm. But you changed it. That was the end? Yeah, that was the end. Mm-hmm. That was it. Are you sure? Yeah, I feel like it went into the city storm water system. There you go. Yeah. I got it. I got it. Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. There's a computer over there, right? Yes. Yeah, I don't think we have to watch it again. Yes. I think we left off and missed it. Here we go. So this is the city storm drain, correct? Yes. And is that flowing into the... Yes, it is. And from this, from that angle, you can tell how far it had traveled, correct? Yes. Mm-hmm. Okay. At this time, the city would like to introduce the nine exhibits into evidence. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Ryan Harrison. I'm sorry, Harry Harrison? Ryan Harrison. Ryan Harrison. And what is your position with Congress Square LTD? I am the COO of HHH Management, which manages the shopping center. Our offices are also at the shopping center. Do you have any objections to the documents, photographs, and video the city would like to put in evidence? No. That objection is so admitted. So, Mr. Harrison, what's going on here? It doesn't look good. Yes, it is definitely a complicated situation, and I've gotten an education on grease traps over the last 10 days. We had Raider Reuter out there the next day who determined that it was primarily a leak downstream of the grease trap, which was backing up then into the grease trap and overflowing the grease trap itself. So, especially right here, the contents of grease are at the utmost because it's currently emptying the grease trap. The next day, Raider Reuter was able to push the blockage but not clear it. They needed the bigger jet van, so they came out the next day on the 7th with the jetter van and reported an all-clear to us the next day from that trip. There was clearly another leak after that that we have been reported, and then we had Raider Reuter back out there on the 13th and got another all-clear yesterday. We are still waiting for the two comparable quotes of, you know, a major job or the less major job. There's no minor job here of where to go from here, but that is what we're waiting on at the moment. We do have an all-clear from Raider Reuter yesterday. Has anything been done to clean up the property aside from fixing correcting the backing issue? I'm not sure about that part. We're still working with the actual fixing the grease trap itself with our two tenants here, who are the two tenants who got the posting. We actually got this notice today, like two hours ago, so this was a little bit of a scramble to make it and make sure we had all of our records in place. But, yeah, this certified mail is posted on the 13th, and this was the first time that we were posted. The exhibits show that our tenants were posted, which we were notified about the error and, you know, the blockage. And, you know, we definitely have had Raider Reuter out there three times so far, and we're planning the fourth right now, just waiting for the quotes. And then we're working with our tenants here to address the issues that are within the grease trap itself. I'm unaware of any sufficient methods of addressing the grease that is already in the parking lot areas. By all means, I understand that this is a serious environmental issue, so if you have suggestions for that for us, I'm very much all ears. I don't have any other questions for him. What is the city seeking here? So the city is asking for a one-time fine, $10,000, to be paid within 30 days, which is November 14, 2026. Mr. Harrison? I mean, I don't understand how we could have acted better. We've been very proactive with getting grease trap reports from our tenants, and any time we get a blockage, we address it immediately. I understand that, on the other hand, it's a significant effort to mediate this, but the error stems from an asset that is not even under our control. It's not ours to own, maintain, or replace. So I don't really know how to gauge that fine against what other actions that we could have done in this instance. Council? I mean, it's their duty as the property owner to maintain the property and have the proper controls and the proper maintenance to ensure that things like this don't happen. I mean, as you can see from the evidence, the testimony of the officer, and specifically the video of the extent of the amount of grease that was flowing and the distance, it's a lot, right? This is going into the city stormwater system. We have to answer to our, you know, other powers as well. And based on the nature and gravity of the violations under Chapter 162, we believe that $10,000 is appropriate. Yes, Magistrate, I just wanted to say something, too. If you looked around the grease trap covers, you could see how it was caked around there. So it's been there for a little while. I'll be honest, Mr. Harrison, I've been at this for a while. And when it comes to grease discharges into the storm drain, this is one of the most severe that I've been able to view here. I mean, it's bad. And that's, I mean, I don't even know if anyone in this room can figure out how much grease went into the storm drain here. It's bad. The city's point is valid, which ultimately is, it's not the city's job to sort of police your property. It's sort of your job. And, you know, they're not the ones to come tell you, hey, it's time to check the maintenance on these things. It's sort of the property owners. And I'll be honest, the city could have been more severe than it was. It could have asked for $15,000. I think their request here, considering the extent to which the grease went in there, is actually pretty reasonable. In case 26001187, I make the following findings of fact and law. If I notice it sufficient, I'll find the property in violation of 53.01 AC. I make further findings that the violation is irreparable in nature and issue a one-time fine the amount of $10,000. Good luck. I hope you get it fixed. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to old business cases. Case number 11, code 26-000685. The property owners are Delray Place, LLC. The registered agent is Joe Carosella. The property address is 1801 South Federal Highway. And the code officer on the case is Code Enforcement Supervisor LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon. We've discussed this with the property owner, and we're in agreement to move this to the November 19th hearing date. So we're requesting a continuance. And I'm going to continue case 26-000685 to 11-19-26. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 12, code 26-000534. The property owner is MDG Banyan Delray Partners, LLC. The registered agent is Coast Gen Z Global, Inc. The property address is 10 North Swinton Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Reggie Williams. This is a reduction of fine request. Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, code enforcement officer for the city of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding property 10, North Swinton Avenue. Case number code 26-000534. A notice of violation was issued on January 27th, 2026. On February 5th, 2026, a special magistrate originally found in violation for maintenance of historical building, given 30 days to comply, or a $1,000 daily fine. On April 16th, 2026, special magistrate order given to reset case for May 21st, 2026. On May 21st, 2026, special magistrate order given for the following. Notwithstanding the property's compliance, with most of the cited violation, the maintenance of the wall remains outstanding as of May 7th, 2026. Respondents shall bring property into compliance by June 18th, 2026. Previously, daily fine of $1,000 is reduced to $200 for a period of March 7th, 2026 through April 24th, 2026, for a total of $9,600. Fine shall be paid on or before June 18th, 2026. Effective June 18th, 2026, daily fines are stayed. If compliance is not achieved by June 18th, 2026, daily fines shall resume. On June 18th, 2026, special magistrate, a status update, no new order given by the magistrate, payment of $9,600 was received. On October 1st, 2026, property owner is asking for a reduction of fine that was paid on June 18th, 2026, totaling $9,600. City suggests no reduction of fine, and the $9,600 is appropriate. And the photos I'm, I should have, wait a minute. Yeah, it's okay, you can, I mean. And these are the photos from the original hearings. This photo is from February 5th, 2026. Yeah, you can just scroll through these. So, I mean, just briefly, Mr. Wagner, I'm sure you're familiar with this case. And Mr. Michael is here for a request. Go ahead, Mr. Michael. Oh, thank you. Yes, Steve Michael from MDG Manion. Again, I'm asking, respectively, if we can, to reduce the fine. I mean, the LDRs require that, you know, you weigh three factors, gravity, corrective action, and prior violations. Before we even get there, this fine is paid. Yeah, it's paid. I had no choice because I was trying to prevent a lien on the property, and I did write a letter, an email to the director of code enforcement and said I'd like to know how would I be able to go through a mitigation of the lien because the hearing was two days later. And they had told me in the email, just, you know, here's the form that you fill out. Go to the hearing. If you have to pay it, you pay it, and then come back, and you can go through a mitigation hearing, which is what we're doing. But, you know, when I did request that mitigation hearing after the hearing, and I really had no choice because I could not afford to have a lien and put my loan into default on my construction loan, but I did, you know, fill out the form the next day. We filed it with the, we emailed it, we filed it personally with the city, and then I emailed, and they told me that once the fine is paid, you no longer can have mitigation. I then wrote an email to the city attorney stating where in the, you know, where in the law or the LDRs does it not allow me to get a mitigation hearing after I paid the fine, and I had no choice but to pay the fine. And the, I believe that we were in compliance because we submitted, we submitted after, when we originally got the fine, we had 30 days to correct the, to come into compliance. We did everything, including re-roof half the roof, and I did go to the code officer before the hearing and told him the only thing that we didn't do was the knee wall because I have construction permit applications in with the city that will, that will, as soon as we get approved, we're going to demolition all the knee walls and build new ones. So I didn't, you know, I didn't get anything from code enforcement, the officer saying, hey, you got to fix it, you have no choice. So I came to the hearing, showed proof that we corrected all of the violations that were, that were actual violations, and that the knee wall we had, we couldn't, we didn't do because we were going, it's going to be demolished soon after this hearing, and it didn't really make sense. We did submit, we did, when we submitted, we did end up after the hearing, the next day after the hearing, submitting an application for the demo, for the repair of the knee wall, and we were stuck in review, and we came back because we went past the, the allotted time to fix it, and I did state in the hearing that we have an application in with the city to, to repair the knee wall. The planner at the time during the hearing said that we did not submit a permit application. We did it just the day before, even though the screen on the, the screen showed the date that we submitted the application was way before the day before that hearing. It was actually within the timeframe that I stated. So, you know, I, I think, you know, there's nothing more we could have done with that knee wall. We did submit the next, very next day, the application to repair it. I don't, I think this is a perfect example of an, of a fine that should be mitigated because we were always, we were, if we weren't in compliance, we were in the process of being in compliance, and the only thing that held us back from being in compliance was the review process. So, I don't know if you have any questions. I mean, even without reaching that issue, I guess I'm confused. Under 162, I can reduce a fine, but if the fine is paid, what is it exactly that I'm reducing? So, you know, to Mr. Michael's point, he did reach out to the city attorney's office because he initially made a request with the code enforcement department, and the city attorney stated that we could indeed bring this back for him to request it. From my understanding of the circumstance, if you look at the board order that was signed by you on June 4th, he had until June 18th to pay the $9,600 fine or revert back to the original amount that was there because you have already reduced this. It was $1,000. I reduced it to $200. Right, exactly. You took into consideration that there was a lot going on with this property, and then all that was technically left at that point was the knee wall, so there was already a consideration and a reduction of the fine at that point. But to your question, you know, we were, you know, this appears to be kind of a unique situation based on Mr. Michael's representations, you know, in his documentation that he presented it in what he just said. It sounds like he had to pay it or he would lose some other side things, and he tried to get it in for a reduction before the deadline, but he didn't want to risk all of that and lose whatever. So I guess I suppose what could be done, even though the city doesn't believe this should be reduced further, if you were able to do that, then there would have to be a process if we received an updated order where we would have to provide a refund to him of a portion of the money that was paid. Honestly, I don't even know if I have the authority under 162 to order the city to refund a fine that's already been paid. Well, I guess it's if you have an order. But what we could do is if you're unsure, and we don't have any authority either way, I guess technically what we could do if you would like, I don't know if this would be best to make sure, you know, we were not having any available issues, or maybe what we could do is reset this for a time period, and you know, the city can look further into it, and Mr. Michael possibly can get counsel or something to look forward to it on his behalf. Yeah, Mr. Michael, what I'm speaking to is that since the fine is already paid, there is no more fine. The fine's done. So the question is, under Chapter 162, the powers of a special magistrate are very particular. They're limited. I don't have, despite popular opinion, I don't have unlimited powers. I have pretty limited ones. I've been at this, you know, as I said to a case before, I've been at this for a while. I don't recall ever refunding a paid fine or how I would go about doing that because, I mean, I guess the city could choose to do whatever it wants to do, I suppose, if it wanted to, but I don't know that I can unring that bell for you. It's already been paid. I mean, I appreciate that, but I, you know, I'm not an attorney, but I did my, I read it myself, and there's nothing that would, there's nothing that speaks to the fact that you, that after the fine is paid, you can't mitigate it. I don't know how, your point of how would that work procedurally, that I don't know, but I would have, you know, I, I wanted to, you know, go through a mitigation hearing before, but I had literally two days, so I didn't have enough time to do it, so I had no choice, and as I stated during the hearing, the, I mean, I'll tell you, I mean, you know, without getting, I mean, and maybe, maybe we shouldn't get to the merits of this before we figure out what the authority is here, or at least somebody has investigated what the authority is here, but I will tell you, my, my general disposition here is, is not to be favorable towards a mitigation at this point, because I did mitigate this. I took the $1,000 fine, and I reduced it to $200, because I thought you had mostly come into compliance. $200 was my mitigation. I, I don't know that I would be inclined to revisit that, but, but I'll keep an open mind. I'm going to reset this, and if, if someone can find some authority for me to unring the bell and reduce a fine that's already been paid, I'll, I'll listen, but, but I don't know that I see that authority in Chapter 162. If we could, if you're going to incline, thank you, if we could reset this to the November 19th hearing date. We can. Are you available, Mr. Mike? I am, yeah. Thank you. All right, find me some authority to even do that. Thank you. November 19th. Thank you. Thank you. No problem. Case number 13, code 26-000-797. The property owner is Edwards Atlantic Avenue, LLC. The registered agent is NRAI Services, Inc. The property address is 601 East Atlantic Avenue, and the code officer on this case is Reggie Williams. This is a request for an extension and a stay of fine. Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. I'm here regarding property 601 East Atlantic Avenue. Case number code 26-000-797. Originally found a violation on June 16th, 2026 for maintenance the building. The case was presented to special magistrate on August 6th, 2026, given 60 days to correct all violations or $150 daily fine. I have included three photos from the original case and two new photos of the property, of the property. There are, there is a, okay, one second. Do you want to just show the photographs? Yeah. So this is from the original special magistrate on August 6th, 2026. So it's going to show the damaged muttons that need to be repaired and the maintenance, a bit of clean up the exterior markings. And I believe the property owner here is requesting an extension. Hello again. So my name is Natalie Inclan. I'm the property manager representing Edwards Atlantic Avenue. Since then, I believe there was going to be a re-inspection, I believe, on either Monday 10-5 or Tuesday 10-6, right? So I did a re-inspection on October 11th. Okay, great. So since then, you can, you can see that the pressure washing had already been taken care of, the staining on the south elevation. The Muntins project has been a little bit challenged. I've had to really work with multiple vendors. I have made extreme progress on that. I have a couple of estimates here for the aluminum pieces to come in from Texas, from the original supplier. And I also have an estimate here from a fabrication company in order to cut the muntins to pieces. And then I have to engage with a powder coating company in West Palm Beach to actually powder coat these aluminum pieces once they are cut. Between the delivery of the aluminum pieces and the cutting, we're looking at least three three to four weeks. So my request for an extension is 60 days just to allow for the material to come in, for the pieces to be cut to size, and then to have it powder coated. Once all of that is done, I then have to engage an installer who's, who we're going to have to get another scissor lift to be able to reach the very top high of the building. So I believe 60 days is sufficient. I did not request 90 days, although I should have, but I'm trying to really be proactive and work with the city to bring this property back to compliance. And I have been in, you know, in a lot of communications with the city, um, including Ms. Amy and, um, I believe some of the code enforcement officers. Thank you. Mr. Williams, if you could just go through your new exhibits to show the park condition of the property. Exhibit 1, taken October 11th, 2026, shows that the exterior markings were cleaned. And Exhibit 2, taken October 11th, 2026, shows that the exterior markings were cleaned. And I'd like to introduce these two photos into evidence. I assume you don't have any objection to that? No, sir. All right. So wait a minute. What's the city's view on the request? City suggests a stay of fines beginning October 11th, 2026, and an additional 60 days to come into compliance, which would be, which would be on December 14th, 2026. So just, just for clarity, we're just asking that the compliance date be extended 60 days and backdated. So the initial compliance date was October 5th. So we're asking for an additional 60 days from then just to make it clear. December 14th? Yes, that's fine. Or December 14th, whatever. Just extend the compliance date until December 14th or the fine of $150 daily fine accrue. Does that work for you? Could you, um, could you clarify the stay of fines? Well, it's not, it doesn't need to be stayed. We're just going to move the compliance, what they're asking me to do is move the compliance date to December 14th. So to December 14th? Right. So just for clarity, instead of saying the fines and reverting fines, fines have not technically been assessed. Usually we go in and we do like a fine assessment hearing, right? So what we're doing right now is just we're extending the compliance date from October 5th to December 14th before any fines start to accrue. Got it. Okay. Understood. So no fines, December 14th. We're good. All right. In case 26-000-0534, I hereby reset the compliance date to December 14th, 2026. If the property is not in compliance by then, a fine of up to $150 per day may accrue. Thank you. Thank you. This completes our cases. Thank you. All right. Seeing no further business before us, we are adjourned. We're all right. Okay. You're right. Thank you. All right. There are questions being聊ies. Thank you. You're welcome.