All right, I hereby call this meeting to order. This is the special magistrate for the city of Delray Beach. Cases are going to be heard in the order in which they appear on the agenda. When you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed directly to the podium on my left-hand side, which is right over there. The city will put on its testimony and evidence first. You'll have an opportunity to review any of the evidence that the city presents and to ask questions of any of the city's witnesses, after which time you can present your own testimony and evidence, and 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 even if there's just a possibility that you might testify, I'd 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? Thank you. Do we have a consent agenda? Yes. A request for approval of the changes to the agenda as written? Without objection, so approved. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from the special magistrate hearing on January 7, 2026. I have reviewed them and have executed them, and they are approved. Thank you. First item on the regular agenda. Thank you so much. If we can go back, what was postponed or changed to the agenda aside from the closed cases that was approved? Nothing. It's just the closed cases that are listed in the agenda. Okay. Thank you. Case number... Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry. No, go ahead. Case number 1, IR, Code 25-000-408. Owner's name, White Drive, Delray, 1001 LLC. The registered agent is Blaine Dickerson. The property address is 1001 White Drive, and the code officer is LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon. My name is LaToya Thompson with the City of Delray Beach Code Enforcement Division. I'm here regarding an irreparable, irreversible, illicit discharge located at 1001 White Drive, Delray Beach, Florida. On November 5, while responding to a citizen complaint regarding construction sites, I observed that the catch basin in front of the gate at set property was filled with sediment from the construction site. I also observed that the silk fence was not installed to prevent the illicit discharge from happening. This constitutes as a violation of the City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulation Code 4.6.17, Subsection D, Subsection 1, and Subsection 3, Erosion and Sentiment Control Methods, and the City of Delray Beach Code Enforcement Ordinance, Section 53.012, Subsection A-C, Discharge in the Storm Sewer. Now, the pictures are shown November 5th. Exhibit 1 was taken on November 5th, 2025. Kind of dark, but you can see that the sediment is going into the storm drain. Exhibit 2 is just another angle taken on November 5th of the sediment coming from the construction site. On November 12th, I went out during daylight to show it more clear. They did have a fabric, but the fabric ripped. Exhibit 4 shows that the fabric was ripped. As you can see, the sediment on November 12th is settled down into the fabric going down into the stormwater drain, which I did confirm with our public works stormwater here that it is our stormwater drain that leads out into the intercoastal. Exhibit 5 is the violation posted. Exhibit 6 is just another photo of the sediment coming from the construction site. And that was on November 12th? Just making sure we have the dates. Yes, ma'am. Okay. This is the affidavit of posting. I have a total of seven photos to present in evidence. A special magistrate violation was created November 19th, 2025. A special magistrate was male first class and certified male December 17th, 2025. This couldn't be corrected due to the nature because it's an irreparable, irreversible case. Certified confirmation was received December 22nd, 2025. Regular male was not returned. A violation was posted to the property January 1st. January 15th, correction, 2026. On previously, actually yesterday, February 4th, I spoke with the contractor. It was a new contractor that's taking over the site. Tonight, the representative is here today to speak furthermore on all that transpired. Those photos and exhibits into evidence, please. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Yeah, Vincent Biasello. Can you spell your last name for me, sir? B-I-A-S-I-E-L-L-O. Mr. Biasello, do you have any objections to the photographs the city would like to submit into evidence? No. Without objection, I'm going to admit those photos and evidence of city's exhibits. How many were there? Four? Seven. Seven? One through seven. Does the city have anything further? Just the city's suggestion. Ms. Warren, do you want to do that now, or do you want to hear from the respondent? We can hear from the respondent. Mr. Biasello? Yeah, we just took over the contract on – it's an existing build from another contractor, I guess, almost in January. We are putting erosion control in place, but no other comments other than that. So you weren't the construction company of record during the time that this occurred? No, it was actually under Seagate Capital Construction. Now it's under Stom Development Group Construction. The same owner? Same ownership, yes. Sorry. Just saying. I'm representing the contractor today, though. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Biasello, does the owner, which is, I guess, White Drive, Delray, 1001 LLC, know that you're here on their behalf? Correct. I work for Stom Development Group as a collective, and that's our parent company. That's just an entity that owns this property. Okay. What is the city recommending here? The city's recommending a one-time fine of $5,000 to be paid within 30 days. Mr. Biasello, do you have anything else you want to tell me? I don't think so. All right, in case IRCODE 2500408, I make the following findings of fact in the life. I notice this sufficient to find the property having been in violation of the code sections listed. I hereby adopt by reference to the testimony of the code officers to the nature of those violations, but essentially sediment being discharged into a catch basin and no silk fence being installed. I make further findings said violation is irreversible and irreparable in nature. I issue a one-time fine in the amount of $5,000. And hopefully we don't get to see you again. Thanks. Thank you. Case number two, code 25000471. The owner's name is Adam B. Block. The property address is 3637 Lakeview Boulevard. And the code officer on the case is Joseph Oliva. Good afternoon. Joseph Oliva, code enforcement officer for the city of Delray Beach. This property, 3637 Lakeview Boulevard, received a warning notice on 12-15-2025 for a boat and trail had not screened properly, outdoor storage, a construction site not being kept clean and orally, and landscape maintenance. The property was given five days to comply with the violation. An inspection was conducted on 12-22-2025, and the property was still not in compliance. A notice of violation was issued on 12-29-2025. Service was accomplished by certified mail and regular mail on 12-29-2025. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on 12-29-2025. An affidavit of the posting is attached in the case. I have had contact with the owner. The property was cited for 4.6.11 outside storage, 5145 construction and demo site, 4.6.16 I-1 minimum maintenance requirements, and 4.6.13 B-2 permissible parking boats. As of 2-5-2026, the property has come into compliance with 4.6.11 outdoor storage, 51.45 construction site, and 4.6.16 I-1 landscape maintenance, but has not come into compliance with 4.6.13 B-2. I have attached seven photographs of the property that I would like to introduce as evidence. The city is asking for an additional 30 days 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. So the photographs were taken on January 30th. Where am I going? Backwards. Oh, wait, I see, okay. So these were taken on 12-15. These were the original when the door hanger was given. And as you can see, the property had outside storage in the front, the boats on the side there. The landscape wasn't looking too hot. Then when I went to post the property with the notice of violation- It got worse. It got worse. But what had happened in this case, the owner, he's supposed to be living there, but the address that was on the property appraiser was that address, so he had no clue he even got cited. So a contractor went to the property and notified him, and then he called me like two weeks ago, and he said, oh, I'll have it all cleaned up. But the boat, because they're working, bringing stuff in the back, he said that the boat he can't put back there yet, so the city is going to give him 30 days or $50 a day. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent in this case? Mr. Block? Does the city want to submit those photos to evidence? Yes. Without objection, I'll accept into evidence. How many did you have there, officer? Seven. I'll accept into evidence the seven photographs submitted by the city, as city's exhibits one through seven. All right, in case CODE 25-000471, I make the findings a fact in life. If I notice it's sufficient, I'll find the property in violation of 4.6.13b2, which is the impermissible parking of a boat that is not properly shielded. The respondent has 30 days to come into compliance or a fine of $50 per day may issue. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Case number three, 26-000-534. The owner's name is MDG Banyan Delray Partners, LLC. The registered agent is Congency Global, Inc. The property address is 10 North Swinton Avenue. And the code officer on the case is James Easley. Evidence will also be presented by Michelle Hoyland. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is James Easley, Code Enforcement Officer in the Clean and Safe Division. I'm here regarding code case number 26-000-534, a maintenance of historic sites and buildings violation located at 10 North Swinton Avenue in the city of Delray Beach, Florida. On Friday, January 16, 2026, the historic preservation staff completed a site inspection of the subject property known as DOCS All-American. After being notified of the findings by the historic preservation team, I, James Easley, conducted an inspection. During my investigation and inspection, I observed the property to be in violation of code section 4.5.1, subsection E, subsection 9, subsection A and B, and subsections 1 through 6, maintenance of historic sites and buildings. The property owner has been asked to correct all violations, including, but not limited to, applying and obtaining all required permits for the repair or replacement of the roof, and complete all work in accordance with city standards. To immediately cover and secure any roof openings to prevent further water, repair or replace the deteriorated fascia board and rotted door on the northeast elevation. Remediate any mold, mildew, and termite activity in accordance with professional standards. And also to repair the damaged site wall on the south elevation. And to secure and maintain the property to prevent further deterioration by neglect. A formal notice of hearing was mailed, certified, and regular mail. I also posted the property on both January 30, 2026 and February 3, 2026. I have not had contact with the property owner, but I do have 34 photographs taken of the property in question. Thank you, Mr. Easley. Before we get to the photographs, I did want to ask Ms. Hoyland a couple of questions, as this was the initial observation. Good afternoon. Hi. Please state your full name and position with the... Michelle Hoyland, principal planner. Excuse me, one moment. I'd like to swear in the witness, please. Actually, while we're doing this, anyone else that's coming to the room late that hasn't been sworn in, now's your chance. Please rise and raise your right hand. By the authority vested in me, as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Thank you. Michelle Hoyland, principal planner with Development Services Historic Preservation Division. And are you familiar with the property located at 10 North Swinton Avenue? Yes. Which district is that property in? The Old School Square Historic District, and the site is individually designated to the local register of historic places as well. Is that where the DOCS project is located? Yes. And on our mere January 16th, did you and a member of your staff go out or observe any issues with that property? Yes. What, if anything, did you observe? I don't know if you want to start maybe rolling through some of the photos, or I could. You can just give us a general, and then we'll go through the photos. So the, my team and I went out and looked at the site. There are a number of issues, including a door on the northeast corner of the building that has some deterioration. There's fascia board at the northeast corner of the building. You can see in through the windows that it appears to be a roof leak occurring. And what we can only assume are potential termite droppings on the ground below the roof leak. This is interior to the site. You can also see that the interior south wall, east wall, there are sections that it looks like there's mildew or mold occurring. The windows had some type of residue on the inside of the windows, because when we touched, the exterior did not come off. We don't know if that's left over from operations when it was a restaurant, or if that's water running down from the roof. There's a site wall that was damaged as a result of a car accident a number of years ago that remains unimproved. There's a parking lot associated with docks on the west side that has, you know, cars parked in the parking lot. There's no active use, so we don't know what the cars are there for. It's not really, it's not completely overgrown, but it's not being maintained from a landscape perspective. I think that that probably covers all of it. Okay, based on your observation, this was the one of health, safety, welfare, concern, based on the condition of the property, and also the location, and that is your kind of purview of the city park. Yes, the main issue is maintenance. The doors were all locked. We did try all the doors on the buildings, so if they weren't locked, they were screwed shut. So I can't really speak to the health, safety, and welfare, is that what you said? Of the structure itself, but from the requirements in the code for maintenance of historic properties, it is not in compliance with the LDRs. Okay, thank you. Did you notify the Code Enforcement Department of your findings? I notified through chain of command, our director, who then sent that information over to the Neighborhood and Community Services Team. And did you take photographs? Yes. I just have a quick question. Just wanted to make sure we have the updated violation in your book. Mine is a little. We just go ahead and check it. Thank you. Is the city's concern all of the structures on the property? Yes. There's only one structure on the property, but yes, the entire structure. The Dunkin' Donuts, which you may be referring to, I'm not sure, sir. That's technically a separate address, but we did not look at the Dunkin' Donuts. We looked at the Docks building solely. So it's just a singular building? Correct. We looked at 10 North Splinter, which is the Docks building. And your concern is that it is not being maintained as required by the historic buildings? Yes. Guidelines? LDR section 4.5.1 E9 are the maintenance regulations that were adopted in 2018 that address things like fascia, roof material, roof condition, any kind of water decay. Fascia, door, ceiling, termites. Facades, termites. The main goal here is any visible. That's a lot of stuff. It's a lot of items. That's why I wanted to make sure you have the most updated. Yours should look like, may I just approach really quickly? I want to make sure you have everything on there that was noticed to the property owner. I think it's the same document. It's mine. I think it's the same. Can I see the clerk file, please? Please. One moment. If we could, while we're making sure that we have the right one that was noticed to the property owner, we could just go through the photographs that we're taking, Ms. Hoyland. Thank you. Go on. So, exhibit one, what is this photograph? This is the north elevation facing the east-west alley on the north side of property. And this was taken on the date that you went out to inspect? Yes. That was on January 16th or so? Cities exhibit two. As we go through the exhibits, these were all taken. Same day. Same day. If you can just explain the concerns with the property on each photograph. So, cities exhibit two. So, there's deterioration occurring at the bottom of the door. This one, this is the northeast corner of the building. Is that the red door or the burgundy door? Correct. Yes. Cities exhibit three. Zoomed in photo of the same. Cities exhibit four. This is fascia board that appears to have some deterioration occurring. You can see at the top that needs to be addressed along with gaps in the fascia board at the top where when raining, water can leak into the building, deteriorate the interior of the structure. Cities exhibit five. Same zoomed out photo. There are those two doors and water fountain appeared to be okay. The ones on the right, the door on the left, that appeared to be okay too. This is exhibit six. This is indicating how the doors are secured. Oftentimes when there are empty structures, they could be vulnerable to people entering the property. So, they are taking steps to ensure the property is locked. This is exhibit seven. This is another door on the property. There is some deterioration occurring in the door frame around. This is exhibit eight. This is looking from the north into the structure. So, we're facing south. You can see the stuff on the ground there is most likely termite damage coming. They're droppings. We assume they're droppings. That needs to be confirmed. And you also see like evidence of water damage on the floor. Yes. There's actually water in this photograph, correct? On the left side. I think so. I'm not sure if that's a reflection. This was not a rainy day. Or some type of substance on the ground that's definitely not within proper maintenance of the property, correct? Yes. Cities exhibit nine. This here, you can see that south wall where there's some mildew or mold accumulation on that wall along with the droppings that are coming from the ceiling. There's a photograph, if we keep going, where we can see the ceiling. There it is. Cities exhibit ten. This is evidence of water damage coming from something going on with the roof that needs to be fixed. Once water damage occurs, that's where the risk for termites are. And then you can have wood rot affecting the longevity of the structures. Cities six of eleven. Again, this is what appears to be some type of mold or mildew buildup on this wall. Twelve. Zoomed out photo of the northeast corner of the building. Thirteen. There are some holes here. And just so it's noted, this site is not secured by any kind of perimeter fencing. You can see holes in the tile. People do walk through the site. While we were there, several people walked through the site. So that could become a hazard. Yes, and that goes towards the danger of the health, safety, and well-being of the overall community having access to this unsecured property, correct? Okay, yes. Cities exhibit fourteen. This is a photograph of the roof overhang on the east side of the building. I can't really tell if there's any damage occurring here, but we photographed it for the file. Cities exhibit fifteen. This is the interior of the hood vent that's in, and then the roof piece is hanging down there at the top of the screen. Cities exhibit sixteen. Another not great photo of the same. Cities exhibit seventeen. This appeared to be some type of electrical outlet that was melted, and we don't know if this, I don't know if it's an outlet or a cord to some, a sign or whatever it is, but there appears to have been some type of melting happening with this. I don't know what that is. That's the site wall here on exhibit eighteen, where that car accident was. This faces West Atlantic Avenue. This is the south side of the property. That site wall has not been repaired. And that is not, I believe, in the violation that was noted, there was supposed to be a wall, and there was a car accident, and that has not been corrected or repaired, correct? Correct. Which includes exposed brick, and other, I guess, not solid items, or however you would describe it. It's further deterioration occurring, yes. Thank you. Cities exhibit nineteen. This is the south roof overhang facing West Atlantic Avenue, again photographed for the record. Cities exhibit twenty. South elevation, same as before, photographed for the record. There doesn't appear to be any kind of deterioration with the structure itself, but you can somewhat see that there appears to be some type of liquid or something that leaked on the interior of the windows. And then on the very far left of that photograph, it looks like some graffiti. Okay. City exhibit twenty-one. This is the west side of the building facing their interior parking lot. There does not appear to be, in this photo, any concerns. Cities exhibit twenty-two. This photograph shows some wiring that's unsecured. We assume the building has no power, but I don't know if that's any kind of point where water could be intruding into the building. But there's definitely exposed wiring. Yes. Cities exhibit twenty-three. This photograph shows the air conditioning unit. We can't tell if that unit is completely sealed, preventing any kind of water intrusion or rodents entering the building. Cities exhibit twenty-four. This is the parking lot on the west side of the docks building. I, you know, again, there is a site plan approval for this property that involves construction of a new structure. Yet the parking lot continues to be utilized and docks is not in operation. So, we don't know if there is some type of commercial activity happening here with the parking lot. Thank you. Cities exhibit twenty-five. Yes, same as before. Cities exhibit twenty-six. Another photograph looking at the south elevation where that wall was damaged from the car accident. The square is in the background. Cities exhibit twenty-seven. This is the same as before. Again, you can see some of that water leaking or whatever that is. We can't tell what it is. It needs to be confirmed if it's water leakage or some type of leftover grease from the hood vent that's there. Cities exhibit twenty-eight. East side of the building facing Swinton Avenue. That door on the right-hand side. Okay. This is not my photo, yeah. But this is a fair and accurate representation. So, just going back before we go on, I just wanted to be clear, up to twenty-five, I believe. I think so. Those are the photographs that you submitted to the code enforcement department, correct? Yeah. Anything with a time stamp in the bottom corner is not my photograph. Okay. And based on your review of this case and of the building, are these types of things that could be, immediate actions could be taken with building permits and review with your department? Yes. If I could expand on that. Sure. The primary purpose of the maintenance requirements that are in the code were created in 2018 by a special task force initiated by the city commission. They adopted the ordinance to create these regulations. The goal was to put specific requirements for maintenance in the code in order to thwart demolition by neglect. So, when properties aren't being maintained, they fall into structural unsoundness. And then the next thing that happens is an owner comes in and says, well, we need to demolish the structure now. There are further, we could talk if you wish, there are further penalties in the code that if somebody is cited for maintenance concerns and they aren't maintaining the property and they move towards demolition by neglect, the historic preservation board and the city have the authority to not allow any development on that property for a five-year period of time. So, yes, they could come in, get a building permit. They don't need to go to the board to get a building permit to do repairs and maintenance. But, yes, they could immediately come in and get these things addressed. I'm not sure why they haven't to date. But, absolutely, this is not that hard to rectify. Can you just explain a little bit about what you mean by demolition by neglect? So, if the building had a roof leak and the walls were failing and the structure became affected and then a structural engineer came in and said, well, your building's not structurally sound, that is neglect and not maintaining the building that would then have to result in the building official potentially deeming a structure unhabitable and then it would have to be demolished. This is sometimes a task that the city prefers not to do, but it is an approach that owners will take in an effort to start with a clean slate. No buildings on the property, let's build whatever we want. The historic structure went away. So, that's why that 451E9 was put into place. And we loosely call it, it's not called this in the code, but we loosely call it a scorched earth policy. So, our goal is to get out, notify owners, help them get into compliance, and keep the building in good repair. And in this case, there were clear identifiable items that were clearly indicated in this and corrective action to prevent any of that type of demolition or neglect or any other further deterioration of the property, correct? Correct. Thank you, Ms. Hoyland. Thank you. We're going to go back to Mr. Easley. So, Ms. Hoyland testified that her and her staff members, they went out there, they observed these items, and then they notified code staff. In honor, about January 27th, did you go out and take some photographs of the property? I did, yes. And did you observe kind of all this deterioration and items that Ms. Hoyland just discussed? Yes. So, let's take a look at some photographs. So, now I'm going to show you what has been previously marked as City's Exhibit 26. If you can just go through these photographs as I click through them and explain what you observed. Yeah, upon my investigation and inspection of the property, I was able to confirm what was sent to us by that team. And so, on January 27th, I took photos of the property. You can see the condition of the wall. Okay. And is that where the accident was? And as we were talking about, I'm just going to point to it because it may not be obvious, but this, right, where this concrete area was supposed to be? Correct. Yes. And it was supposed to look like, I guess, on this side? Okay. Correct? It's supposed to look like what the red top? Yes. Yes, that is correct. Thank you. The red top. City's Exhibit 27? Yes. Again, it's an accurate depiction of what I observed in the field. You can see the condition of the property and exposed wiring coming down from the overhang. That's at the top next to where the actual exhibit stance is. Correct. Correct. 28? It's just an overall photo of the property taken again on January 27th of 2026. 29? Yeah, you can see the exposed wiring that was already mentioned and possible water intrusion by the openings of the destruction. Also, like a little AC thing. I'm not sure what's going on with that as well. Correct. Thank you. It is true. Definitely lack of maintenance. 30? Yes. Yes. You can see, again, another angle of the property and the vehicles that was mentioned before in the parking lot. 31? Exhibit 31 was taken on January 30th. That's the day that I actually posted the property. You can see the posting with the blue tape on the building. It's the day that I posted the property. All right. City's Exhibit 32? Exhibit 32 is my affidavit of posting that I indeed posted the property on January 30th of 2026. Thank you. City's Exhibit 33, is this? Yes, Exhibit 33. Wait, I believe this must be accidental, so we're going to stop it. Oh, okay. City's Exhibit 33. Yeah, Exhibit 33 is another address that's listed on file to make sure we had proper notice. I posted the property at this address. Is that where the registered agent is? Yeah, February 3rd, 2026, I posted the address that we have on record for the registered agent. And Exhibit 34 is my affidavit of posting that I, James Easley, did post the property on February 3rd of 2026. Thank you. So just a quick question. Going back to the photographs, I'm going to go back to Ms. Horland. Did this come to your attention, this came to your attention based on staff observations, correct? Correct. Staff had driven by, were frequently out at the property across the street. We've walked by, driven by, and saw these issues. There is an active application in the process for, I believe it's plotting. When an application comes in, the applicant has to acknowledge that we can go to the site and take photographs, enter the site. And so we knew that that was the case, and we thought, let's take a look at what's going on. Had the city also received a citizen complaint? We had some questions. I wouldn't say straight complaints, but we had questions from one or two members of the community asking about the status of the property. Like what's going on? Why does it look like... What's going on? What is the expiration date of the project? And what's the status? What is it? I don't remember the exact term, and I know I'm under oath, so I don't want to say that the question was, can the property owner be sited? But it was to that... I'm concerned. Yeah. I see that inquiry about it from a citizen. Yes. Yeah. And where exactly is this property located? I'm not sure if we see that street. Is it in a polarizing place in the city? It is a prominent intersection, the northwest corner of Swinton and Atlantic Avenue. Docks has been there for a number of years. It's directly west of Old School Square and directly north of the new Sunday Village project. At this time, we would like to introduce the 34 exhibit object. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Steve Michael. Can you spell your last name for me, sir? M-I-C-H-A-E-L. Mr. Michael, do you have any objections to the documents the city would like to put in evidence? No. Without objection, so admitted exhibits 1 through 34. City, do you have anything further? No. Mr. Michael? Hi. Hello. Yes, so the building, we have had approved plans for some time, and we've just recently, not too long ago, completed everything up to the end of our plat work for replatting. And we do have a project that we're building, and hopefully we're closing the construction loan in the next few weeks. It's been a little bit of a long road. But we've always, I don't, you know, first of all, I don't disagree. We have not done anything on the inside of the building since we bought it. And I was brought, this was brought to my attention this week. When did you buy the property? 20, 2019, the end of 2019. I'm Mark Rall. I'm the attorney and also the closing agent. I'm also the attorney at record for plat approval. The property was purchased in December of 2020. And I presume it has not been in operation since then? It was for a little while, longer, probably six months, and then it was not in operation ever since. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead, sir. So, and we've always, you know, we were perfectly aware this is a very important corner. We have no, obviously, we don't ever have an intention of doing anything to this building because we voluntarily made this a historic building. And we have a signed lease for a new operator once it's completely renovated and the rest of the project's done, which is what we're planning to do soon. The outside, we always maintain as much as we can. We're there every week with a maintenance staff doing landscaping, building. We pretty much open communication with code whenever there's an issue. They call us. If there's garbage or paint, we go immediately and clean it. I really wasn't aware of this until this week. That's why I didn't reach out to the code officer because there's already a hearing coming up a few days later. I thought I'd just explain where we're at. The inside did have a contractor come to the inside to see the damage, and there is some water damage on the ceiling. It's a concrete slab and concrete block building. So, you know, that's a slab ceiling. The point where the hood is penetrating through the concrete slab has water leakage. We're going to have a roofing contractor out there this week, but we're still, again, we're right on the verge of starting a renovation to the entire building, building new parapets. Just to give you a background of what we're doing, but it is something that I think Michelle's correct on. The inside needs to be addressed right away. It didn't, it did, we didn't see the, some of that water damage that was happening to the paint and to the fascia, and I, you know, I propose that we will immediately take care of that if it's, if there's permits that are necessary for any of the work. I don't know what the roof damage is at this point other than we have some water that has, has, has paint, has chipped off some of the paint on the ceiling. But we will take care of that. We will clean up the, all the mildew on the walls. It's in the front room, basically, is where, where the hood is penetrating the ceilings. Maybe we can also work with staff, or once we get it done, before the construction starts, that they're satisfied with, with what we do. I, I, I 100% understand what Michelle's saying. As far as the parking lot, we could, we would have fenced off the parking lot, but we really have, and the, and the property, we really left it so that people can park, because there's always a parking issue. It may, if that's something that you want us to do, we'll do that right away. But we really did it as a courtesy to the city for parking. I mean, we don't use it. We don't do any activities there. People do park there. We don't enforce any of our, our tow, you know, our parking restrictions. We let people park there. We use it for various things. But we're happy to fence it off if that's something you, you guys feel is necessary. And we're hoping our construction loan closes in the next two weeks so that we can apply for our final building permit and finalize the plat. But I can wait. Yeah, if I can add, too. Sorry, can you state your name again for the record? Mark Kroll, Delray Beach. Part of the plat approval process required us to get a $476,000 performance bond in favor of the city, which we've gotten and we've actually sent to them. I've also gotten verification that the plat is ready to, all the comments, all the TAC comments have been satisfied, and that we can go ahead and proceed with the Mylar. So what happened was is that when this property currently consists of three separate lots, as far as legal description goes, and with regards to the city center Delray project, a plat unifying all the lots is required. And basically that's been done, and it's been approved by the city. So, again, I'm the closing agent for a construction loan. We're in the process of closing on a $20 million construction loan. So this city center requirement with regards to this whole project is that docks be rehabbed and ultimately deemed historic. And so, obviously, there's current issues right now that need to be addressed. But in the long run, we have a contractor, Butters Construction, I think they're out of Coral Springs and Pompano. They're very reputable. They're going to be the contractor on it, and the project's going to proceed. And in conjunction with that, docks is going to be rehabbed and preserved and deemed historic because that's a condition of the approval for city center Delray is that, you know, Dunkin' Donuts is going to come down, and behind docks there's going to be a structure that's already been approved. And, by the way, the approval is good through, currently right now, the approval is good through December of 2028. So, obviously, we'll be hitting ground and we'll be substantially completed well prior to December of 2028. Good afternoon, Mr. Michael. I believe you stated that this is on the verge of construction, this property? Correct. Isn't it true that you haven't submitted any building permits even before? Okay. And I believe you also stated that you haven't really been doing anything with the property since at least 2021, correct? Doing anything with the property? Yeah, you said I haven't done anything with the property since we purchased it. Yeah, no, no, it's been vacant. I don't have anything further. What's the city seeking here? Oh, so I just wanted to clarify one more question. I just have one more question. Ms. Hoyland, has this property already received historic designation? Yes. The property is deemed historic. The ordinance was adopted. The LDRs were amended to include it on the local register of historic places. So, we may be mincing words, but just because it's a procedural thing, the term ultimately deemed historic, it already is deemed historic. So, I just wanted to make that clarification. Thank you. We just wanted to clarify that because he was cited under the maintenance of historic properties, and I didn't want there to be an issue with that. So, no. Mr. Easley, if you can provide your recommendation. Yes, Special Magistrate, the city suggests the property owner be granted 30 days to bring the property into compliance or face a fine of $1,000 per day until all violations are corrected. I'm fine with 30 days to rectify all these issues. The only one that may not – we have the knee wall that was damaged with the accident. If I can – we're building a whole new knee wall around the property – I'm sorry, around docks. You know, if we can maybe block it off or something – instead of going and building a knee wall, it's going to be torn down very shortly. It would be – if I would ask if we can either leave that or we protect it somehow with some sort of wood framing just to make sure nobody touches it. But, again, I'm happy to fence the property if that's something you guys do want me to do. But other than that, everything else is no problem. So, in this notice itself, it's clearly indicated what the city is seeking. However, you can work with staff to bring this into compliance in accordance with the violation if the Special Magistrate wants to rule in that manner instead of specific compliance measures. And staff is willing to help just bring them into compliance. I mean – I have no expertise in construction. I am not going to mandate specific remedies. I'll leave that to the staff and to you. Okay. But I'll give you the 30 days, and hopefully, you know, if you have some ideas about how you want to go about it, do check with the staff. As is the case, if you feel like you brought it into compliance and the staff doesn't, you come back to me and we'll talk about it. But, yeah, I'll give you the 30 days. Thank you. All right. In case 26-0-0-0-5-3-4, I make the following findings of facts and law. I find notices sufficient to find the property in violation of the list of code sections I adopt by reference to testimony of the code officers and city staff. It's the nature of those violations. I give the respondent 30 days to come into compliance or a fine of up to $1,000 per day may issue. Good luck. Thank you. Case number four. Code 26-0-0-0-5-3-6. The owner's name is Icon Development Holdings. Case number two, LLC. The registered agent is Icon Equity Group, LLC. And the property address is 27 South Swinton Avenue. Connor Lee is the code officer on the case. However, the information will be presented by code officer James Easley. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is James Easley, code enforcement officer in the Clean and Safe Division. I'm here regarding code case number 26-0-0-0-5-3-6, a maintenance of historic sites and buildings violation located at 27 South Swinton Avenue in Delray Beach, Florida. On Friday, January 16th, 2026, the historic preservation staff completed a site inspection of the subject property. After being notified of the findings by the preservation team, I conducted an inspection. And during my investigation, I observed the property to be in violation of section code 4.5.1-E9, subsection A, B, and subsections 1-6, maintenance of historic sites and buildings. The property owner was asked to correct all violations included, but not limited to, applying and obtaining all required permits and completing all work in accordance with the City of Delray Beach standards. All structures on the property must be secured. The fencing along the property must be repaired, as well as all broken windows and doors. All trash, litter, and debris must be removed from the property. Overgrown landscaping must be properly maintained and manicured within the property. And secure and maintain the property to prevent further deterioration by neglect. A formal notice of hearing was mail, certified in regular mail. I also posted the property on January 30th of 2026. I have not had any contact with the owner of the property, but we do have 87 photographs taken of the property in question. You're going to introduce 87 photographs? It's your case. You want to introduce 87? It's in your book. Yeah. Just quickly, Miss, good afternoon. Could you please say your call name and your position with the City? Michelle Williams, Central Planner and Development Services with the Historic Preservation Division. Can you describe the property located at 27 South East, I'm sorry, 27 South Swinton Avenue? So this property is on the east side of Swinton Avenue, between Atlantic Avenue and Southeast 1st Street. There are four structures on this property. We know it via their site plan approval at Swinton Social. And all four structures are considered contributing or historic. Okay. And for each of these, is your record? They are historic of record. Yes. Okay. We refer to those as contributing structures. The maintenance requirements for the LDRs apply to any structure in the historic district. But these are particularly stored, known as contributors. Okay. In honor of January 16th, did you and another member of your staff complete a site inspection of the property and all the buildings on it? Yes. And just generally explain what was going through, what was going on, and then we can just click and go through all of these. So again, we have a site plan application that's still sitting in the process, not finalized for this site. And the applicants sign a form that says that it can be photographed if the site inspections occurred. We noticed that the fencing around the buildings came down, and we could see from the street that there were broken windows, clothes hanging inside. So we completed a site inspection where we walked the site around each of the structures. Okay. So the four structures. And this generally, in this city, our owners of the storage structures, are they required to keep the property and the repair and properly maintain both the exterior and the side to prevent any destruction or decay? Okay. Yes. And LDR section 4.5.1 E9 are the maintenance regulations and the penalties associated with non-compliance. All right. So we're just going to go through the exhibits, and if you could just explain to me what you observed. And these exhibits are based on your observations of your initial inspection. Yes. Okay. Exhibit 1. This is the northmost building on the site. This is the rear. There appears to be a lawn chair on the porch, and along with some other garbage and things. It appears to be that somebody may be sleeping here. And then on the side of the building, I have an issue with the patient board. The windows are a concern. The crawl space enclosures. There's missing pieces of fascia. The fence is down along the north property line. And as we roll through the pictures, I'll show you more. There's cars parked behind this structure. So these are the two. This is the same structure as I was just explaining. The one of that lawn chair, the fence coming down, and this irrigation occurring stands here in the structure. Great. This is a side elevation where the window is completely missing. I believe this is the south side of that same building. You're feeling paint here as well. Four. Four, same picture, a little bit closer. Any structure? Five. That's looking inside that window. There is evidence. There's droppings on the floor. We aren't sure if that's human or animal. And the structure is getting wet inside. Six. This is another view of that same structure. This is the east side or rear. We photographed this to show the damage occurring with the gable wood inside it. Seven. This is a zoomed out view of the backyard of that structure. There are cars queuing in the alley. We aren't sure what that's about, but there were people in the cars and there were people not in the cars. And that's not a group area. That is not a group for parking. Eight. This is north side of that same building. The fence is falling in onto the adjacent property. And there is garbage. Trees are touching the building, which makes that building susceptible to rodents. Nine. This is that same fence. You can see it's rotting and deteriorating and detaching from its support posts. Ten. This is hard to see in this photo, but it's taken to show the garbage throughout the site. What's in the background is the Sandy Village parking garage under construction and associated financing with that project. Eleven. More garbage on the site. Twelve. This is the front of the northernmost building. The window is boarded in this image. Thirteen. The subject structure is on the right and the adjacent structure to the north on the left, which is orange. That is under a site plan as well right now. And then we'll look at the garbage if you can just describe either this gym, a visual of what the property looks like or if there's a... This is a visual documenting the condition of property at this time. Okay. And what areas of maintenance are generally? I will. Fourteen. So here, this photograph, we're going to get next. The subsequent photographs are going to be in the carport and close-up, but what you can see right in front of the front door is that there is ceiling wood that is coming off of the structure. Fifteen. There is a zoomed-in picture of that wood that's starting to pull away from the structure. So the wood started pulling away, you have to have issues with the ceiling of the overhauling? The facial work. Facial work, yeah. Fifteen. The same picture, just another angle of the previous. Seventeen. More pieces of the ceiling. This is in the carport. We can see they're starting to detach from the structure. We aren't sure if that's just age or if there's any type of water intrusion. Eighteen. Here you can see, we'll zoom in as well, this door is not locked. This door can be opened and you can walk inside and there are candles on the stoop there. Because it's very clear and obvious somebody's inside the structure. We weren't sure if they were there while we were there. What is this is done for? Is it done for residential or commercial? It's not residential or commercial, and there's site plan approval, which has been in the process since 2011. It has just continued along through legislative amendments or legislative extensions. That is for commercial use on this property. Okay, so I believe one of the issues. Did you say this has been under approval for 15 years? For the state of Florida, if I may? Sure. Can I just read out the question? Yeah. Under previous governor, maybe two, three governors prior to the current governor created a legislative extension process when we're under state of emergency, such as a tropical storm, a hurricane, Zika virus, COVID. Any development approvals that are in the process can ask for additional time, effectively extending the expiration date of their project. The current government and governor legislative amendments decisions were made to put a max tolling period on that of four years. So this will have a final expiration date, but it has been sitting in our process for 15 years. It's kind of linked along with those legislative extensions. So one of the notes in the violation was that there were some issues with potential stray cats that were on the property, cats that were on the property. There's photos, yeah. Right. But specifically, I want to talk to you about the door. You said it's not secured. So there's indication of presence of individuals reviving or at least trespassing, which is also a bit of a safety concern, being this properly is not properly maintained or secured, correct? Correct. Okay, thank you. 19? This is that same carport, just an additional view. I think that window is broken, perhaps. I can't tell in this photo. When we found a broken window, we zoomed in. Good point. This is, again, evidence of somebody lighting candles. Some of them are oil-based, which can really quickly get out of control. This is how we can see buildings burned down. I will address that further concern with the south building. 21? This is the fact that there's no locks or the building, the door's not screwed shut. It actually was partially ajar. I couldn't really get a great photo of it. I got nervous and wanted to get out of there. 42? This north side of that same structure where you can see the fence is completely falling in onto the adjacent property. 42? This is an open window. We showed this photograph once before as an additional view of that broken window. Is that black? That's a blanket. No, but there's something right above. I think it's cigarettes. 44? So this is one of the other structures on the property. This is one south of the one we just talked about. You can see here that there is deterioration occurring around the window frames. 45? There's missing windows. This is the front of that structure. So this is the one directly south of 27 that we just talked about. There are Jolli-Sea windows. There's pants hanging in the... You can go to the next one. 26, yeah. 26. This is the same view, zoomed in. There are pants hanging in the window. So an old cabinet is placed in the window. I'm not sure why. And that window pane is missing? Yes. Jolli-Sea windows are completely missing here. 27. Again, we've got windows missing on the front door of the structure. Deterioration in the wood siding occurring. This is another view of those pants hanging in the window. This is the back of that structure, which you'll see in the subsequent photos. There are missing windows, you can see. And there's graffiti around the structure. This isn't fenced off. No. 30? This is that same view. Another broken window. Another broken window with plywood from the interior, so the structure is getting wet on the inside. Yes, there's a lot more. Here's the other side. North side of the structure. I don't know why there is a sheet hanging on the door. I did not attempt to open any of these doors, but there are broken windows in that door as well. In that street where the cars are, is that Swinton? Yes. Okay, and this is close to? Yes, just south of Atlantic. Missing windows here. Those windows are left open. And graffiti. And decay. Okay. Here's another broken window. Let's talk on the... There's more decay around that stoop where the wood is on the right side. It's siding boards. Missing jealousy windows. This is in the carport of the same structure. Electrical outlet does not appear to be secured. Open. It's wide open. I could, if I was brave enough, could have crawled in there. 35? The crawl space below the structure that... I don't think that would have been a good idea. No. No. There's garbage. The crawl space is missing. It's wood. Wood, I don't know what you would call that, but it should be blocked there where the crawl space is to prevent rodents and cats and dogs and things like that coming in. You can see some of the wood is falling down in the upper left-hand corner of this picture. This is a zoomed-out photo of the structure we've been discussing. 37? Another photograph of the same structure. Record for the file of its condition. This is the third structure from the north. This is from the rear, looking west. Swinton is in the background. You can see that some of these windows are boarded up, but it appears that the boarding above one of the windows has been taken off. 39? This is missing windows on the same structure. This is the south side. You can tell that people have been inside the structure. This is looking into that structure from that broken window. You can see, again, there's evidence of decay occurring with this wood around the doors. That plywood that's there, pieces of the siding are starting to pull away. This is the front of that structure, the third from the north. The front is not as terrible as the other structures. I think all windows are in place on the front. Okay, fine, is that nice? Yes. Same photograph, same structure, photograph for the record. Same structure photographed for the record. The one thing we noticed here is it appears that in the back left, that the plywood, someone's trying to get it off, because it's pulling away from the building. You can see siding is starting to deteriorate. I think this is the same. No, this is the southernmost structure. So this structure here is at the corner of Swinton and First, and this is the structure that many years ago had completely burned the interior of it due to a vagrant or somebody trespassing onto the property, and there have been repairs made. I believe that's what we're looking at here. If not, it's the third from the north. Maybe we could advance forward and come back for a second. But just to be noted, like one thing we had, there's a lot of old ones. Yes. Could you just click forward one? Forty-six. And then one more, please? So where is it going to come out of here? Well, I just want to see which structure I'm on. Yeah, I think this is the southernmost. If you go back to 45 and 46, there's holes in the roof. Shingles are missing, and there are holes in the roof. And some of this plywood appeared to be just tacked up temporarily. I got the impression that some of the plywood was pulled off and put in place, meaning it's not actually nailed on. So I don't know if somebody's using it as a temporary door. Is that electrical for a lot of care? It's not, but we do think the structures are not attached to power, connected to power. This is the southernmost structure. This is the front of it facing Swinton. This is the one that suffered almost a near loss with fire damage on the interior. This is looking at that structure from Swinton, looking east. You can barely see the barricades and fence wall for Sunday Village, which have Southeast First Street closed right now for construction. You can see a tire in the bottom left of the picture. There's garbage and debris around the site. The landscaping's overgrown. There's that tire. General debris and 450. Yes. This is, that tree is almost touching. The tree on the right is almost touching the southern. This is the southernmost structure. It's not trimmed. It's hanging down onto the building. This is looking at the building from the rear. So this is the east side of the southernmost structure. There are some more zoomed in photos that are going to show you the major concerns. That's out of space or siding. Yes. So the next photo shows a zoomed in picture of this missing, yeah, missing protective protection for the crawl space. And I think there's another zoomed in of this that shows the beer cans. Can I ask a question? So when you click forward on more pictures, a grate or a screen to protect the building from getting wet or rodents getting into the building. And I can't, I don't know where it is, but in here you can see there are dozens of cans of Modelo beer in the crawl space underneath the house. Okay, so 55. So why is it so important that this be protected? This is garbage. This is garbage. This is going to attract rodents and bugs. It's not a garbage can. It's the crawl space for the building. So this is showing us that somebody is putting those there. So we don't know if somebody is dropping them from the inside or if they're throwing them in from the outside. But this is evidence that there's trespassing occurring and it's bringing in rodents. It will bring in rodents and bugs. Or at least evidence that there's human being. Yes. I don't want to, you know. 56. Just a zoomed in photo of that garbage. But this isn't supposed to be exposed. It's important for the crawl space to be. So that the structure can be protected from the exterior. Weather. Weather. Yes. 57. So this is looking into the back of that structure where you can see they began because there was a previous code citation. I don't know how far that got, if it went to violation status or what. But we worked very closely. And we're not trying to use that with the previous owner. No, it was this owner. It was this owner. But we're not asserting that that should be used against them. Understood. Yeah. We worked very closely with this owner when they first purchased the property to fix the interior because it was almost completely burned out. So what we're seeing here are the structural supports that they put in place to protect that structure from any kind of further damage. Structural caving in, things like that. And the wood, plywood that you see in Exhibit 57 is open. And somebody is accessing the structure. They're getting into the interior. And that's what you can see here. There's something in that picture. I can't tell what it is. So, debris or tarp. Garbage, clothing. But what's most important here, you say that this is open, correct? Mm-hmm. And it, aren't those exposed nails to the right of the folder? Yes. So isn't that a danger? Yes. A little safety welfare danger here? Yes. Nails? And also, there's no flooring. It appears to be dangerous. There's no floorboards. And that's not covered at all? No. 59. This is another view of the same. This is the side, rear side, where you can see, you know, the, it's like a, when you're looking at the rear of the structure, there's a left side and there's a right side. So, again, we have the crawl space not protected and more garbage under the structure. This is a zoomed in photo of the same on Exhibit 60. Another view of the same as Exhibit 60 and 61. This is the north side of that structure. There's garbage around it. There is, you know, the, the siding on the side. It does not look like it's completely in good form. There could be some deterioration happening. Correct. This, we were trying to show how tall the grass is. Yeah, there's definitely tall. Yes. Weeds. So this is showing that there are missing pieces of, this is not fascia, this is called something else, underboard on the fascia, soffit, thank you, missing soffit. And then the trees are touching the building. So it's really highly likely that rodents are probably accessing this property. Thank you. This is a view of the south side where you can see the construction barricades for the Sunday Village Road Improvement Project. Um, so it does not provide a really clear area for the police department or code enforcement staff to navigate and circulate around the property because that road is closed right there as is the sidewalk. Especially based on the fact that we. It's for monitoring purposes. I think it's, you know, the owners should be visiting the site daily in my opinion. No, but aside from that as well as. Potentially, yes. 67. This is a, another zoomed out photo of the rear where you can see, I was pointing out there's a left and right side to the rear of this building where those crawl spaces are exposed and the, um, wood on the window is missing, the boarding. So for the record. Yes. Gable vent. And you have the bottom. Mm-hmm. There's, is this supposed to be a window or? Yes, they have it, they have it boarded and that's come off. So that's open? Yes. 68. Another view of the back corner of the property where Sunday Village is stacking some of their fencing onto this property. So that's. Or, I don't know, perhaps it's the fencing that was around this property that was stacked back there instead of being removed. I'm not sure what that is. But it's some type of debris on the property. There's some type of construction material being stored in the back corner. I'm a zoomed in photo of the same. 70. This is, um, you can see in the foreground some of that construction material in the gravel and then in the background you can see the Sunday Village new construction. And based on the code, it's the duty of the property owner to maintain and make sure there's no degree or storage such as that on the property, correct? Yes. Outside storage is not permitted in commercial districts. 71. Um, this is a zoomed out view to show the context of the site with the northern three structures. 72. That's looking at the new parking garage for Sunday Village where you can see, um, there, around that power pole there's some overgrown shrubbery and the grass is tall here. 72. This is not my photo. Okay. So based on your, your review of the parking lot, you had some concerns about a lack of maintenance, deterioration, several items, windows, load of trash, stray cats in the, um, bulls, um, presence of individuals, um, people don't want to call it trespassing because that's a legal term, but it appeared as people had been there as evidenced by the candles, correct? Yes. Um, facial boards, wood fence, and down. Um, so there were a lot of issues that disappeared to be overall neglecting and lack of proper maintenance on the property. Correct. And then, um, is this something where you might be possibly concerned with the neglect, um, on the property as well? So this. Neglect by demolition or leave? Yeah, this is a severe concern because the demolition by neglect and the maintenance code requirements that are now in the code since 2018, um, was really kind of created because of projects like this, um, where commercial, uh, site plans were approved and people would sit on the property hoping that maybe they, not that they hoped, but with perhaps the intent that they would decay and fall in on themselves. This is why we have that code section. Um, this, this property was studied when those code requirements were being created. How, what power can the city have to require people to maintain their property in good condition? Rather than letting it fall in on itself. So get, yes, again, if this is not addressed and these properties, um, result in demolition by neglect, they can be limited and not allowed to, um, reconstruct on the site for a period of five years. Right, and that would be a potential site should be due right now, um, just for a further explanation. That's correct. Thank you. I just want to ask Mr. Easley's question. So Mr. Easley, I believe, um. Um, this was presented to you by the historic staff, correct? As a problem? Yes, that is correct. And did you go out there and make your own observations to confirm whether there were, was indeed a violation on the property? Yes, yes. So on January 27th, 2026, yes, I did. So you took some photographs of your own? Yes, yes, I did. So what we're going to do is we're going to go through each photograph and explain what you observed. So 73. Yeah, you can see, uh, broken windows, Jollis is missing. And then overgrowth, overgrowth? Yeah, overgrowth, uh, yes. 74? Yeah, again, another view of Jollis is missing, uh, from, from the property, from the windows and the doors. And had you guys received complaints, um, or have there been complaints about this property from residents or was it just a staff? Yeah, I was alerted to this, uh, after the historic preservation team, uh, did their, uh, investigation and inspection. 75? And yes, so you can see the, um, the, the broken windows and the condition of the carport area. And the overgrowth and all other? The overgrowth, the lack of maintenance. 76? Again, you can see the condition of the, of the carport area, the missing boards and the property being, uh, secured. 77? You can see, uh, in the background, you see the missing windows. You see vehicles, uh, parked on the property. Uh, you see the overgrowth and the condition of the landscaping. 78? You can see, um, that the, uh, the property is not, uh, secured. We did put a notice on the door. 79? You can see, uh, the, uh, the power box, um, you can see other vehicles being parked, overgrowth and the condition of the landscaping. You can see the, uh, the wooden fences detached from the support beam and the condition of the landscaping at the property. 81? It's just another view. You can see that the, uh, fence is detached from the main, um, support post, uh, condition of the landscaping and the overgrowth and the, uh, broken window in the back. 82? You can see the vehicles that are parked, uh, in that, the back of the properties. So those aren't, those aren't supposed to be there? There's no? No, no. Okay. 83? There's just another angle, uh, again, the vehicles parked back there and you can see the, uh, overgrowth, the condition of the, uh, fence. 84? As you can see the, uh, the graffiti, uh, on one of the structures, uh, at the property, uh, the condition of the landscaping vehicles parked, um, at the property, overgrowth in the landscaping. 85? Uh, you can see the, uh, bottles and cans and bags, the litter and debris that's described in the notice, uh, here in exhibit 85. 86? Exhibit 86 is the, uh, posting of the notice of hearing that was conducted on January 30th of 2026, uh, at the property. Oh, that's okay. And then 87? Uh, exhibit 87 is my affidavit of posting that I, James Easley, did indeed post the property, uh, at the structure at 27 South Swinton Avenue here in the city of Delray Beach. And I believe you, I know it was a while ago, you previously testified that all the notice requirements were, were provided and you contact, you posted and mailed at the, um, the property address on the property appraiser, correct? That is correct. And have you had any, heard anything from the property owner as to why the conditions of this property? Yeah, uh, we, again, as, as you stated, we, we did, uh, uh, send the, um, the notice of hearing via, uh, uh, regular mail and certified mail. I did get a, uh, call from someone associated with the property that they said that they would, uh, they were going to be at the property on, uh, February 3rd. I did go over there to the property. There were some people at the property. Uh, they told me if I come back later, uh, everything would be taken care of. Uh, went back at 3 59 PM on, uh, February 3rd and the property is still, uh, in a, in a state of noncompliance. And then based on the nature of this property, staff felt it was necessary to bring forth this, um, this violation immediately as it is a health safety welfare concern. Absolutely. Yes. Based on everything we we've observed, including the exposed nails, windows, um, overall condition of the property. Yes. And it's not fenced at all. Not fenced, uh, extremely dangerous. Okay. Thank you. When was the last time you were at the property? Uh, February 3rd, 3 59 PM. Have you heard from the property owner since then? No, I have not. What's the city seeking here? Uh, the city suggests, uh, that a property owner be granted 30 days to bring the property into, uh, to, uh, compliance or face a fine of $1,000 per day until all violations are corrected. Do you believe that's a reasonable amount of time to bring this into compliance? Um, yes, due to the severity of the, uh, property. And, and if, you know, after going through everything again and, and further speaking with the supervisor, um, if, if we're able to get this out, even seven days to at least secure the property, especially with the, um, exposed windows, nails, um, as well. So if we could bifurcate it, at least fully secure the property, um, no, thank you. All right. In case, uh, 26, 0, 0, 0, 5, 3, 6, I make the following findings of fact on life. I noticed sufficient. I found the property in violation of listed code sections. I make further finding the condition of the property constitutes a threat to the health, safety, and welfare, the city of Delray beach. I ordered the respondent to secure the property within seven days and to bring the other issues with the property, which I adopt by reference through the testimony of the code officer and city staff to compliance within 30 days or a fine of up to $1,000 per day may issue. Thank you. Case number five. This is a noncompliance of board order and assessment of fine. Code 25, 0, 0, 0, 1, 5, 0. The owner's name is American Atlas Group, LLC. The registered agent is Onyoo Hoke. The property address is 338 Southbridge Road. And the code officer is LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon, special magistrate. Testing. Good afternoon, special magistrate. I'm code officer LaToya Thompson with the city of Delray Beach Code Enforcement Division. Case number 25, 0, 0, 1, 5, 0, was originally found to be a work without permit case. On October 6, 2025, the ruling was 60 days to correct all violation or a daily fine of $50 per day. On December 15, 2025, a board order, because this was presented in front of the board, inspection was conducted through EPL, and it shows the permit was applied for. However, it was pending respond and resubmit from the respondent. Therefore, the property is still out of compliance. On January 15, 2026, I posted the property on January 20th with a noncompliance notice. And on January 20, 2026, the notice was mailed first class and certified and posted at City Hall. As of today, February 5, 2026, the property is still out of compliance, which reads, an EPL response and resubmit from the respondent. I have three new photos to introduce as evidence and one previously shown photo from the initial hearing. This photo is the previously photo taken on August 12, 2025. This photo is the posting of the property, January 5, 2015, correction, 2026. This photo was taken February 3, 2026, of the fence, which was put up without permit. And this is the affidavit of posting and mailing. So for those additional photographs, that's just to show that the property is still out of compliance, correct? Yes, ma'am. At this time, I'd like to introduce three photographs into evidence. So admitted. I'm not sure if anyone's here for this property. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent in this case? I believe it is Onu Hoke R.A., American Atlantic Group, LLC. Seeing no one admitted without objection. What is your recommendation? We recommend that they lien the property in the amount of $2,900. And for fines to continue accruing at the daily rate of? $50 a day until compliance achieved. Thank you. What was the compliance day on the order? Was it 60 days of the hearing? And the hearing was what? The hearing was on October 6th, the ruling. I thought we were going to put the orders in here. Did we put the? Yeah, I have it. Oh, you have it. October 9th. October 9th, okay. I think maybe as a practice, instead of doing the 60 days or 30 days, we should just do day certions. Correct. Yeah, so we don't have to. Calculate these out. But so what was 60 days from October 9th? Did anyone do the math there? I can. I'll look it up just to make sure. You said October 9th, right? Yeah. 60 days would have been December 8th. And then you want to do from December 8th till today? I think that would be the 60th day, right? So we'd start on December 9th. December 9th to today. That's 58 days times 50. $2,900. I think we just confirmed your math. Yes. Look at that. Yeah. Oh, she was holding her breath. Yeah. Go for it. All right. Gase, 25,000, 150. We make the following findings of fact. So the law of fine notice is sufficient to find the property continues to be in violation of 2.4.13b, which is to obtain a fence permit. Respondent is here by CES to find the amount of $50 per day beginning on December 9th and continuing until the property comes into compliance. The accrued fine to date is $2,900 and will continue to accrue at $50 a day until compliance. Thank you. Moving on to old business. Case number 6. 2025-000-126. The property owner is James R. Moody. The property address is 2208 West Pine Ridge Court. And this is a request for a reduction of lien. And the code officer on the case is Randall Strong. Yes. Good afternoon, Magistar Rick. Good afternoon. I'm here regarding a lien reduction for property 2208 West Pine Ridge Court. Owner, James Moody. This case was originally found in a violation on April 10th, 2026 for a landscape violation. It was given 14 days to correct the violation or a $50 daily fine. The case was taken to a special magistrate on January 8th, 2026 and was reset for 30 days and received, started receiving fines. The case eventually came into compliance on January 14th, 2026. I have one photo that shows the property now in compliance. The queue final was $250 and the owner is here now requesting a lien reduction for the amount of $13,177.60. Thank you, Mr. Strong. Would you like to introduce this photograph into evidence for the record? Yes. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Sir. Can you tell me your name, please? Your name, please, sir. James Moody. Mr. Moody, do you object to this photograph? Sir. Do you object to the photograph? No, sir. Okay. Without objection, I'll accept the photograph into evidence. The crude fine is $13,177? Yes, and 60 cents. And 60 cents? Yes. And how long has this been, was this out of compliance? Yeah, it was out of compliance. It was written back on April 10th, 2025, last year. So from April to January of this year? Mr. Moody, we had a conversation about two weeks ago and he just came into compliance. It was two days after the magistrate hearing on the 14th of January. All right, Mr. Moody, it's your hearing. What are you asking me for? A reduction in the lien. I'll take it all the way off. I mean, now I'm under contract with the lawn maintenance people. The hedges trimmed and the grass cut. What's the city's position on his request? Well, the city suggests 25% of the lien amount, if you'll choose. Mr. Moody, why did it take so long to bring your property into compliance? I did not see the tape notice to the door on either one of them. And I did not get the ticket in the mail. But when I came away of it, I cleaned the place up and I came away of it. You didn't see the notice taped to your door, sir? No, sir. I did not do that one. I only took it off. But I got home. You also did certified mail. Did that come back? I did not get that one either, sir. We did certified mail and we did posting to the property. I think this was already litigated. I don't remember, please. It was previously, but this is coming back for a reduction. So the special magistrate or code enforcement board found them in violation and that notice was provided properly and all of that. I don't know how long ago was that? It was outside of 30 days. It was outside of 30 days. We were about two months in now. So it was a code enforcement case and that's when it leans. Was this a board case or was this a magistrate case? Code board case. Code board case. On the 9th of October and 4-10-25. And so the board stayed the fine? So you have board orders are in there. So you have a board order from April 10, 2025. And then we have one from January 8, 2026. Code board. Doesn't look like they stayed. It looks like they leaned it. They leaned it on the 8th. And then you have a board order from the 10th of April, 2025. Initially the 14 days. It looks like the board gave the respondent another 14 days on January. Actually, no, this is the April order. Yeah. April was 14 days. And January 8th was the lien. Yeah. I don't see any stay here. And $50 a day to continue until compliance. Mr. Mooney, my challenge here is you haven't given me a legal, statutory, or code basis to reduce your fine. The argument that you didn't receive notice isn't persuasive because the city provided the notice they're required to. They mailed it. They certify mailed it. And they posted it on your door. So I did not get that one. I did not see that one. It took it off. I got the one on the wall. Whether you saw it or not, the city complied with the requirements that they have to do for notice. So you haven't given me any new information that I would be requiring, that I would need to reduce this fine. The fact that the city already offered to reduce it to 25 percent, I'm not even sure I should be doing that based on what you testified to. But if the city will recommend that, I'll do that, which would be what? Did anyone do the math? 32.92. 32.95. Can we go with the 25 percent, sir? I'm sorry, sir. Say it again. Can we go with the 25 percent? I can't make the whole thing, but I can make my time payments on time. I'll reduce it to $3,000 even. How much time do you need? Can I go with two months? Done. I'll give you 60 days. $3,000 in 60 days? $3,000 within 60 days. Yes, sir. All right. I appreciate that, sir. All right. Case 2025, 000126. I'm going to reduce the fine to $3,000. Respondent has 60 days to pay it. If you don't pay it within the 60 days, it does return to the original amount, which is $13,000. You do understand that, sir? Can I make it? I don't have to make it all one time, do I? Well, technically, I don't think the city has any kind of payment plan, but you don't have to. I mean, you can save it up and then pay it. You just have to do it before 60 days. Can I get that document somewhere so I won't forget it? Yeah. There'll be an order. Thank you, sir. And all the people who are in prison, I thank you. Thank you. We'll get the paper at. They're going to mail it to you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Have a good one. Thank you, sir. Case number seven. Code 25-000-102. The owner's name is Ellen Ryan. Property address is 2496 Douglas Avenue. The code officer on the case is LaToya Thompson. This is a request for reduction of fines. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. I am co-officer LaToya Thompson with the city of Delray Beach, Code Enforcement Division. Case number 25-00-102 was originally found in violation on July 22, 2025 for maintenance of building for a damaged roof. A notice of violation was issued on July 22, 2025 with 30 days to apply for and obtain approved permit. This was presented to the code board on September 11, 2025, and a ruling was given to correct all violations within 30 days or a fine of $100 per day. The case came into compliance on December 26, 2025. I have included one photo from the original case and the permit. I checked EPL and it was issued as requested. Exhibit one was taken February 3, 2026 of the roof being complete. And, like I said, I checked EPL and the permit was issued like requested in the Notice of Violation. This property had accrued, once again, accrued a fine. The property came into compliance after the fact and accrued a fine of $100 per day and the total fines of $5,100. And the owner is requesting a reduction of fines. Ma'am, can you tell me your name, please? Ellen Ryan. Ms. Ryan, can you tell me what you're asking me for and why I should grant it to you? Okay. So, I'm a little confused, but I was thinking that... That's okay. We'll try and figure it out together. Good. October 9th was the meeting that I came for the code enforcement, I believe. Okay. And so, the fine began on September something? September was the ruling. September 11th. And that was... And so, I received the notice for the meeting. So, I have the order here. It looks like the code enforcement board ordered you to pay a fine of $100 per day if the violation continues after 30 days from the date of this hearing. Okay. The hearing was October 9th, so 30 days would have been November 8th, I think, right? 30 days. Yeah, that sounds right. So, the fine would have accrued from November 9th, I guess. Yes. Until it came into compliance. When it came into compliance, when? December 26th. December 26th. May I? Yes, go ahead. I'm a little confused, too, about the date it came into compliance because I've received... If this is correct, I mean, I was making notes. On December 22nd, I received a non-compliance notice for missing permits scheduled for January. Yeah. I was to come in January. Okay. But anyway, that doesn't matter. But let's see. I believe that it was approved several days prior to December 22nd, right? In EPL, it shows December 26th. What's the EPL again? That's our system where we track permits and issue notices. Because I had to call the permit department to see what was going on. What happened was October 9th. Okay. So, October 19th, I was informed about everything, and I agreed to a month. I had no idea how complicated this was going to be because my contractor with John S.T. Roofing did not have a license with the City of Del Rey in the first place, so he had to apply for that. That went fairly well. Well, but he didn't understand that he had to make up the permit. Okay. So, I thought maybe I could do the permit, but I couldn't because I don't have a license with the City either. Anyway, he began the process about October 20th because I gave him the website and the phone number that he could work from. Now, on November 5th, he submitted his first of three permit attempts. So, he had to submit three permits altogether. Actually, then he had to hire another engineer to help him, another engineer, and he also had to hire somebody to help him with the process. This is a long lot. So, I ended up compensating him for that, which was $2,800 altogether. Let's see. He was working on it, though, you know. November 21st. Now, my major confusion, and as I said in retrospect, I thought that the code enforcement and the building department were connected. So, I was calling the building department to see what was going on. And I'm not sure how this happens, but I guess there isn't actually that communication between the two departments. I don't know, but they told me at the building department, they actually told Mr. Elliver from Dynasty Roofing First that there wouldn't be any new fines as long as the process of getting the permit was in process, you know. It was being done. They were working with him. And then I also checked with him later. I had several. I went through my notes and everything. So, November 13th, I called the building department and spoke with the permit tech. He said that Mr. Elliver had admitted and submitted at that point a second permit. And then on the 21st, I called the building department to see what was going on. Again, thinking the building department and code enforcement were connected. Now, I asked them, you know, what fines would be imposed. And they said that everything was okay as long as applications and resubmissions were ongoing. So, on November 24th, I checked in again with the building department. And Mr. Elliver from Dynasty had done the same thing. So, I let it go for a while. And also, they said I would receive a notice or something. But then it became December 22nd, okay, when I received the noncompliance notice. And then I checked in with the person, I guess, yeah, in the building department, who looked at the notes and saw that it had actually been submitted and finished, I think, December 17th. So, you know, that's what I've got. And so, my ignorance and not realizing the two departments were not connected, and I should have been communicating with LaToya Thompson instead. So, I guess I'm just asking for some leniency or something, because I could do my best to check. And if I ever do this again, I'll be a lot smarter than I was the first time. I wasn't really trying to get out of making a permit. But that house... It usually helps to hire someone that's licensed in the city, but... Yeah, I know. Well, he was able to do it. See, the thing is, I had a contractor for four months, and I didn't hear from him again. Only the secretary and I were communicating. And all he had done was to put up a, what do you call it, the tarp over the roof. And it was destroyed within a couple of thunderstorms or something. So, it wasn't even protecting it. I needed to get that. And also, I had received a compliance notice again from the city. It didn't look too good with that, you know, all those damages to the roof. Let me see what the city response here is. We suggest 25% of the crew fines, which will be $1,275, because the fines was $5,100. That sounds like a pretty decent offer. And is that from October 9th to, you know, December 17th? It gets you, well, it's way less than what you would be fined, even if we went with the December 17th date. So, I think it's a pretty good offer by the city. Okay. But, October 19th is when I, I mean, that's what it reads in your note, right? December 9th. I just, you know, whatever is fair, but I just wanted to straighten that out. If I reduce it to $1,275, how much time would you need to pay? Three months. Any objection to that? I'll give you the three months. All right. Case 25-0-0-0-1-0-2. I'm going to reduce the fine from $5,100 to $1,275 payable within 90 days. If it's not paid within that time, it does return to the original amount. Okay. Good luck, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Not everything else. Is that it? Seeing no further business before us, we are adjourned. Thank you.