Special Magistrate on 2026-03-05 1:30 PM - Special Magistrate - Mar 05, 2026

All right, I hereby call this meeting to order. This is the special magistrate for the city of Delray Beach. Cases will be called in the order in which they appear on the agenda, unless we note otherwise. When you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed to the podium on my left-hand side, right over here. The city will present its testimony and evidence first. You'll have an opportunity to review any evidence the city has submitted and ask questions of any of the city's witnesses, after which time you can present your own testimony and evidence. And then I will make a decision. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply here. However, all testimony is taken under oath under penalty of perjury. So if you're going to testify today, or you think there's a possibility that you might testify today, please rise and raise your right hand so you can be sworn in. By the authority vested in me, as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. All right. Just before we get to the consent agenda, just a quick programming note. If you have a cell phone, which we almost all do, please make sure your phone is on silent. I'd also ask if you need to have a conversation with somebody or to chat with somebody or to discuss something with somebody, please take it outside, as it turns out that the sound does travel pretty well in this room. All right. Consent agenda. Magistrate, I'm requesting approval of the consent agenda as written. So approved. Thank you. I guess we have the minutes of January 8, 2026. I reviewed those minutes, and they are approved as of today, March 5th. Thank you. All right. Regular business. We don't have. Old business. So we're going to be starting with old business. We do have a case that we would like to call first with an Arabic interpreter, if we can have the interpreter come. And if you could, the clerk, before you begin, if you could just tell us your name and your position with the city. It's working. Yeah. My name is Rafiki Ibrahim. I work as the current planning principal with the development services. And are you fluent in Arabic? Yes. Okay. If we may have the clerk swear him in. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that you will translate a fair and accurate interpretation? Yes. Thank you. And if you could, Madam Interpreter, if you could restate the case number that we would like to call, and if you could please interpret. Thank you. And then if we can have the, if you could just explain that I'm asking that the respondent, homeowner, please approach the podium. In Arabic, please. Case number one, 2021, 012065. The property. Can you please pause? I mean, that was a lot. He has to interpret like kind of line by line what you're saying. Understood. Thank you. Okay. So we'll do that again. Yes. Thank you. Case number one. 2021. 012065. Property owner is Issa Mazhar. Mr. Rafiq, if you can please ask him if he has understood everything that is happening so far. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thank you. The property address is 937 Southwest 20th Court. And the code officer on this case is Rondell Straughan. Yes. And the code officer on this case is Rondell Straughan. Yes. Yes. Yes. Straughan. Okay. This is a request for time extension. Mr. Straughan, if you could please give us a synopsis. Of the status of the case. Good afternoon. Wait. He has to interpret what I said. Yeah. I think you did initially. I did. Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon. This case is regarding, this property is regarding to our case 21, 12065, regarding address 937 Southwest 20th Court. Originally found a violation on March 2, 2022, for not obtaining permits to repair the destroyer owned by fire. Ruling was 60 days to apply for permit. Say again, please. The ruling was 60 days to apply for a permit for $50 a daily fine. Yeah. The compliance date was May 3, 2022. But I buy the house since 2025. Right. And I do the permit very fast. Yes, you did. So, on August 21st, 2024, a lien was recorded on the property for non-compliance. I don't see the paper. Okay. Could you? He understands. I understand English as you say, but I can't. I joke. Okay. Sir, you can. Can you, can, assuming you, if you can understand me, if not, I can have the translator explain. The process is, is that the city makes their presentation first, after which time you'll have an opportunity to speak as well. But what I can't have is you trying to speak over the city, because then I can't hear anyone. Yeah. Yeah. And if we could, it will probably, for ease, it would be easier, although I understand he understands English, to tell him, or he may understand. If we can use the interpretation to make sure. Yes. Yes. So, because it's hard when two people are talking, if you could wait till the interpreter finishes before you respond. So, on August 21st, 2024, a lien was recorded on a property for non-compliance. The violations still exist, and there's a crude fine in the amount of $27,300. Okay. In August 2021, the property was sold on October 30th, 2014. In August 25th, 2015, to Issa Mizor, I said it right there, or right there. And he received an additional 60 days to apply, for the necessary permits. The permit was issued on February 2nd, 2026. The permit was issued on February 2nd, 2016. The owner, Issa, is here today for an extension of time to complete the current work. So, is he asking that the fines be stayed, or? Yeah, so, just, I'm going to say what the city suggests, what we suggest. What he's asking you? Oh, no, yeah, he's fine. He's here for an extension of time to complete the work. So, the fines are $50 right now. The city attorney is asking you, is he asking for a stay of the rolling fine? Yes. Yes, yes, he is. Okay, we're... The city suggests that we give the owner a 180-day extension to complete the work for the permit process. I think the city's done, right? Yes. It's your turn now. The city is asking me to give you an additional 180 days and to stay in the fine, stop the fine during those 180 days so you can come into compliance. Yeah, I noticed on your document you're asking for also a reduction of penalty. That's a little bit early. Once you're in compliance, then you can proceed to ask for a reduction. The code officer can give you some direction on how to do that. Is there anything he wants to tell me or is... He needs to connect the water and electricity because he went to the electricity company and they told him you need to finish with the city first and then you can come back to us. That's what, literally what he said. I don't know what that means. So, what is he saying? Is he saying that he needs more time? No, he needs to connect water. Water. Water and electricity and electricity and when he went to the electricity company, they told him you need to go back to the city to solve the lien and then we will connect you. That's what he said. So, they refused to connect because of the outstanding lien and fines. Correct. He finished the work and he needs to connect water and electricity as soon as possible. May I just ask staff where he is with the permit? But this is a question, that's fine. I can ask. No, no, no. Like where? You can ask, but I'm trying to figure out where he is with the permit status. Permit is where it's processing right now. We have to get to see where we are. But he has not approved the approved permit, correct? Not yet. But do we know what's outstanding with the permit, like in the system? No, he has an approved permit. It's approved. So, they're going to give him 180 days to complete the work. To get the permit sealed. No, he has to go through. He has to do the work and do the inspection through the process. So, he has 180 days to do that. Correct. To get the permit sealed, like certificate, like to finalize. To be finalized and closed. Can I just ask, can we pause for one second? I just want to see what the order says. Let's take a quick minute or two and review the documents. Thank you. We're back in session. Thank you. So, Mr. Issa, we apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. But I have discussed this matter with the supervisors in the Code Enforcement Department. And we just want to take a closer look at the permit. Because the resolution might be, or our request might be different. So, at this time, we're going to ask that you stay the fine and reset this case for a status check in 30 days. Is that okay with you? Mwafq. He doesn't know what to say. He just needs water and electricity. We understand. And after this, maybe we can have staff, with the assistance of the interpreter, kind of explain it to you a little bit more, if that's okay with the magistrate. That's fine. You know, I'm looking at the order, and it says obtain a permit. Is he not in compliance once the permit was obtained? That's what the staff discussions were. So, we just wanted to take a closer look. All right. This is what we'll do. In this case, I'm going to stay the fine, and we'll reset this for a status hearing. When's our hearing in next month? 319 is the next hearing. All right. We'll set this for a status hearing on 319. Well, that's a little early. No, that's two weeks. 4-2 is the next month. You want to do it in April? So, I have 4-2 and 4-16. What would you prefer? April 2nd. We don't want to hold it up. All right. We're going to reset this for April 2nd. Yeah. Perfect. Perfect. Thank you. Just please make sure he understands that the fine has stopped while we're resolving this. Thank you. We're good. He has a question. Can he? I think I'm done. Is it something for the staff? We'll get a staff member out there. For the permit. For the permit. I understood him. For the permit. We can have staff answer the question. Sorry. Stopping the... I don't think there's anything I can really add. I just hear the case. So, the staff would have... If you can wait a second, sir. We'll get some lunch to help. Okay? Okay? Only the question. The payment started with... Today is not... Well, we're working on that. We want to make sure we're fair to you. So, that's why I asked. Let's call the next one. Thank you. Thank you. Case number two. 2021. 0-1-1-4-1-5. The property owner is Peter Nelson. Property address is 302 Southwest 11th Avenue. And the code officer on this case is Reggie Williams. Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. I'm here regarding property 302 Southwest 11th Avenue. Case 2-0-2-1-0-1-1-4-1-5. The property was issued a notice of violation on November 18th, 2021. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail and posted to City Hall on February 23rd, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on February 23rd, 2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing and first affidavit of compliance and uncompliance is attached in the case. I have not been in contact with the property owner. This property was signed for a fire occurring and the structure no longer meets minimum requirements established by standard building codes. Cheap building official deems structure unsafe due to fire. As of March 5th, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached eight photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city is asking for an additional 30 days for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for a $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Exhibit 1 was taken November 17th, 2021, and is showing the property that was set on fire, that had a fire. Exhibit 2 was taken November 17th, 2021, and is showing a posting of unsafe building structure. Exhibit 3 was taken November 17th, 2021, and is showing the front of the property pertaining to what the fire. Exhibit 4 is an affidavit of compliance and uncompliance. My initial inspection was done October 23rd, where I spoke with Steve Tobias and Patrick Lyons, and they informed me that the property needed a mechanical, plumbing, and building final. Exhibit 5 was taken February 23rd, 2026, and this is the posting of notice of violation. Exhibit 6 is an affidavit of posting and mailing. Exhibit 7 is a picture taken March 2nd, 2026, and it was my re-inspection prior to hearing. Exhibit 8 is an affidavit of compliance and uncompliance, just stating that the property did not come into compliance. Would you like to introduce the 8 exhibits into evidence? Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Peter Nelson. Mr. Nelson, you're the owner of the property? That's correct. Mr. Nelson, do you have any objections to the photographs the city has just tried to introduce into evidence? No. Without objection, so admitted. I'm going to let the city finish presenting their case, and then you can tell me anything you'd like me to know. Absolutely. Do you have anything else? Well, I can give the timeline of the permit. So, before we get to the whole timeline, I do want to get Mr., to give some testimony regarding the steps that the official, the building official did, okay? Could you please state your name for the record? Steve Tobias. And what is your current position with the city? Building Code Administrator. And are you familiar with this property? 302 Southwest 11th Avenue. Yes. Yes. And was it brought to your attention on or around November 17th, 2021, that this building might be unsafe? Yes. And are you familiar with the requirements of Section 7.8.3 of the city's land development regulations? Yes. In accordance with those regulations, what steps do you take as building official? To go out and review and post the property as unsafe as needed. And are you familiar with the photographs that the code enforcement, Mr. Williams, reviewed earlier with the condition of the property back in November 17th, 2021? Yes. And based off that, did you submit or document a notice of unsafe building or structure? Did you execute that? Yes. And within that, in accordance with our city's land development regulations, do you advise the property owner that the building is indeed unsafe based on your observations? Yes. And do you also advise the property owner that there are certain things that need to come into compliance to bring the building into proper condition? Yes. And is that done in this situation here? I believe that was done back in 2021. I'm not sure if there was an exhibit for that. If not, it's in the backup. For which one? The unsafe. What do you specifically pretend? The document, the notice of unsafe. Oh, the document. The only document I have is this. Okay. So if I'm showing you what has been marked the city's specific nine for identification purposes, is this the notice of unsafe that we were discussing? Yes, that is my signature. Okay. And attached to that, you provided, based on reports, all the requirements that need to be made for any type of repairs to include getting any type of required permits. Correct. At this time, it should be in the backup with the magistrate. Let me show it to the property owner. Is that all of it right there? Yes. It's the notice. Is this a copy or is this the original? This is a copy. So proof of service then filled out? This is just a copy. This is for purposes of what was in here. The proof of service is a separate issue. Original. Where's the original, ma'am? This is, we don't have the original, we serve it, but the fully executed one should be in our backup. How do we get a copy of the original? One second. Okay. It's there? No. Okay, for a moment. The market, you can't find any, but the market right now, again, purposes for now. So this is the same one you just gave me? It's the same one. You would have executed and provided to the code enforcement personnel, correct, sir? Yes. Yeah, I have a copy. A testimony from Mr. Williams of the state of that this was served. Just for the record, talk about the choice line. So. Just hold on one second, just so I'm clear. Officer Williams, the letter dated November 19, 2021, to Mr. Nelson, signed by the building official, Mr. Bias, that was served by you? No. It was a previous officer. Correct. And if you can go back, one, to the exhibits, one, two. There's also, Mr. Bias here, this is also the notice that would have been placed actually on the property where you deemed the building unsafe. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And within that time period, there's a certain time period where, you know, if someone wanted to challenge it or apply for permits within the code, I believe it's 60 days, correct? And within this time frame, candidly, the property owner did apply for permits to try to begin the work. Yes. Mr. Nelson applied for a permit. Yes. And today, this property has not been. Property is missing a few finals. It has been almost completed. Just needs some paperwork to give it a CO. So, basically, the property owner just needs to contact the building department and have some inspection done? Correct. I believe the permit may have expired by this point. So, the permit will need to be reinstated? Correct. All right. Thank you. Mr. Williams, can you recall Mr. Williams? If you could just kind of give us a time frame because, as you can see, there has been some time that has passed from the date of the initial posting and the notice until 2026, correct? Yes. So, the property needs finals for building, mechanical, and plumbing. And the timeline was January 21st, 2022. Apply for permit. May 27th, 2022. Permit was issued. March 6th, 2024. Permit renewed. March 18th, 2024. Installation inspection approved. And March 18th, 2024. This was the last inspection on the property. And based on this type of violation, this is an unsafe life safety health or life health safety welfare violation, correct? Yes. And that is the type of violation that we can immediately bring in to try to seek time for it to come into compliance, correct? Yes. Okay. So, I don't know if you want to get testimony. We can just tell you right now, Mr. Special Magistrate Wagner, just so we can see where we're going for it with the testimony. What is the recommendation of city staff at this point? So, the recommendation was 30 days to come into compliance or $100 daily fine. And it's to complete the three final inspections. And reinstate the permit, apparently, right? Yes. Correct. Mr. Nelson, do you have any questions for any of the city's witnesses? You know, I kind of have a statement. Yeah, I have questions. Sure. Sure. If you want, you don't have to ask any or you can just tell me what you want me to know. Okay. So, I get this notice, and it was a special notice, special magistrate hearing notice to appear. And the corrective action, have you seen this, sir? I have. Okay. The corrective action, on Wednesday, November the 17th, 2021, a structure fire occurred, and the structure no longer meets minimum requirements established by the standard building code period. An engineer's report will be required to be submitted to indicate the structural of the structure, which I don't know what that means, along with permits for repairs. Well, permits have been obtained. Okay. I personally handed to Steve Tobias a letter from an engineer saying the structure was okay. Okay. And he says to me, Pete, I'm going to put it in the file. I said, good idea, Steve. Okay. And then I get here today. I have a G. Batista Engineering and Construction. That's correct. All right. I have it. Okay. So, and then if you flip to the next page, it says, due to the nature of the violations and past issues. Well, sir, I'd like to know what are the past issues. Do you have evidence of the past issues on the property? Because you wrote it down here, and it's a little insulting, to be perfectly honest with you. This was an old case to a previous court officer, so everything that stated on them documents is not for me. But you wrote this. I did not write that. I just told you that was issued in 2021. Okay. Well. So, the previous court officer documented all that on them documents, wrote all that down, not me. So, no one's taking any responsibility. I just reissued. I'm going to object to badgering our witness. I think if it's a question regarding the case or the facts or anything, and not insulting the witness. It was asked, and it was answered. He doesn't know. It wasn't him. Okay. Well, in addressing the corrective action, I have done that, sir. And that's what's asked of me right now. And then they came in and asked for more. And if we want to, you know, if they want the final one building on mechanical and plumbing, I need at least 180 days. Have you completed the work? Absolutely. So, why do you need 180 days? The city's saying you just need an inspection, right? That's correct. Yes. Reinstate the permit and have an inspection so it can be closed down. Well, because we're probably going to use an outside engineer for it. Have to retain an outside engineering firm. I was asked yesterday at 4 o'clock to provide an outside engineer's letter today at this hearing by the head of code enforcement, at which time it was almost comical. Like, okay, can you get me a letter for these three disciplines saying that they've met the final on this? And I was like, I don't think I can. This is what I've – and then I received this regarding the structure and the structural, the structure. Hold on one second. The respondent wants 180 days. What's the city's response to that? I mean, I'm not aware of the outside engineering requirement. We're asking for 30. We'll leave it up to your discretion. I need the building official to weigh in here. What's a reasonable amount of time? I mean, let me preface it by saying my job is to make sure that I give him enough time so that he can fairly accomplish what I'm asking him to do. So I need to know from you what would be reasonable here for him to accomplish this. So when you renew a permit or you receive a permit, you have 180 days by Florida Building Code to – for your first inspection to keep the permit active. So this is not unreasonable. 180 days is throughout the code. But, I mean, this is a reinstatement of – Well, I mean, at this point, do we have any reason to believe that this structure is unsafe at this time? No, sir. I don't believe it's unsafe because we received a letter 2021 allowing them to go in to clean it up. So I – but don't believe the rest of the structure was unsafe at that point. I just needed remediation. Mr. Nelson, just to save us all some trouble, I'm going to give you the 180 days. Okay. But I'd ask if it can be done sooner. Please do try to do it. Absolutely. All right. 180 days or $100 per day there. Okay. Thank you. Steve, you're safe. Case number three, code 25-0000 – let me say that again – code 25-0000-38. The property owner is Michael D. and Lisa M. Lichko. The property address is 45 Northwest 8th Avenue. Connor Lee is the code officer on the case, and this is for a status update. Officer Lee. Good afternoon, magistrate. My name is Connor Lee. I'm here for 45 Northwest 8th Ave, code 25-0000-38, and this is a status update. Just wanted to provide a reminder photo. This is the property. They originally came in because they needed to get an arborist report, or this is picture number two, and this is the board order. We brought them in for a hearing on January 27, 2026, and it was ordered that they were to meet with the city for a remediation meeting, and then at our previous hearing there was an extension granted so that they could meet, and then a resolution had been made with the city and the property owner, or a new order. It's a stipulation agreement. It's a stipulation agreement. Stipulation. Yes. It's here for a sign. Yes. So that's basically what we're asking. We've come to an agreement, and we're asking the special magistrate to approve the agreement. I have reviewed the stipulation, and hereby approved as of this date of March 5, 2026. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And if available, if we can sign it, I do want to provide it to the opposing counsel. Thank you. Sign. Okay. Case number four, code 25-000-363. The property owner is Benjamin Enterprise, LLC. The registered agent is Gene C. Benjamin. The property address is 111 Southwest 10th Avenue, and Reggie Williams is the code officer on the case. Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. I am regarding property 111 Southwest 10th Avenue, case code 25-000-363. The property was issued a notice of violation on January 8, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail and posted to City Hall on January 8, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on January 8, 2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing and first affidavit of compliance, noncompliance is attached to the case. I have been in contact with the property owner. This property was cited for property owner removed drywall and installed new drywall without approved issued permits. As of March 5, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached 10 photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city is asking for an additional 60 days for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for a $200 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Exhibit 1 was taken October 17, 2025, and it shows a trailer with debris as well as items under a blue tarp. Exhibit 2 was taken October 17, 2025, and it's a photo zoomed in from the sidewalk of the property where you can see the drywall was removed in the installation. Exhibit 3 was taken October 2, 2025, and it shows the blue tarp removed and the drywall that's sitting on top of a pallet. Exhibit 4 was taken October 22, 2025, and it shows the drywall installation installed inside the building. Exhibit 5 was taken October 24, 2025, and you can see more work was done inside the property. Exhibit 6 was taken February 12, 2026, and it was a re-inspection, so I don't have the doors closed, so I just took a picture of the property. Exhibit 7 is an affidavit of compliance, non-compliance. Exhibit 8 was taken February 23, 2026. This was the notice of violation posted to the property because the previous hearing was canceled, so it was rescheduled for March 5, 2026. Exhibit 9 is the affidavit of posting and mailing, and Exhibit 10 was my re-inspection prior to hearing, taken March 4, 2026. So the property owner initially applied for a permit November 20, 2025, but the permit was voided due to LLC unable to do owner-builder. So February 11, 2026, she hired a contractor that applied for the permit for drywall repair and bathroom remodels, toilets, and vanities. As of today, March 5, 2026, the study is in review. She's been waiting for a required resubmit for administrative, requires a resubmit for electrical, fire is in review, requires resubmit for plumbing, and utilities is in review. So, just quickly before we ask to move the photographs into evidence, for compliance, they had to obtain an approved permit, correct? Okay. Approved, issued permits. Thank you. At this time, the city would like to introduce the 10 exhibits into evidence. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent, Benjamin Enterprises? Seeing no one without objection, I'll accept on the evidence. The photos and documents submitted as Exhibits 1 through 10. What is the recommendation? An additional 60 days to come into compliance or a $200 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Officer Williams, do you believe 60 days is a sufficient time to bring this property into compliance? Yes. In case 25006363, I make the following fines of fact on life. I notice it's sufficient on the property in violation of 2.4.13B, specifically work without required permits, responded as 60 days to bring the property into compliance or a fine of $200 per day mission. Thank you. Case number five, code 26-000488. The property owner is Silver Diamond 1, LLC. The registered agent is Joseph Umbach. The property address is 810 Southwest 5th Avenue. The case will be presented by Reggie Williams. Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. I am here regarding property 810 Southwest 5th Avenue. Case code 26-000488. The property was issued a notice of violation on January 6, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail and posted to City Hall on January 12, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on January 13, 2026. An affidavit of posted and mailing and first affidavit of compliance, noncompliance is attached in the case. I have been in contact with the owner of the property. This property was cited for enclosing two front windows on a property without approved issued permits. As of March 5, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached nine photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into 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 a $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved. So, the property owner applied for a permit January 16, 2026 for window enclosure. As of today, March 5, 2026, the status is in review. We're waiting for a required resubmit to planning and zoning as well as requires resubmit for structural. Exhibit 1 was a photo taken July 29, 2035 from a previous violation, but I just wanted to use this photo to show the two front windows. Yeah, I'm trying to do the flashlight. It's not working. All right, so the two foot. You say, okay. So, exhibit 1 was taken July 29, 2025, and it shows the two front windows. Exhibit 2 was taken August 1, 2025, and it shows the two front windows on the property. Exhibit 3 was taken January 6, 2026, and it shows the two front windows that's enclosed. Exhibit 4 was taken February 9, 2026, and it shows the two front windows enclosed. Exhibit 5 is an affidavit of compliance and uncompliance. Exhibit 6 was taken February 17, 2026, and it shows the two front windows still enclosed. Exhibit 7 was taken February 23, 2026, and it's a posting of the notice of violation because the initial hearing was February 19, 2026, but it was canceled. Exhibit 8 is an affidavit of posting and mailing. Exhibit 9 was my re-inspection prior to hearing, taken March 4, 2026, and it shows that the two front windows are still enclosed. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent in this case? Silver Diamond, LLC? Seeing no one without objection, I'll accept an evidence, the photographs and documents submitted by the city is exhibits 1 through 9. Officer Williams' 30 days, enough time for them to finish these permits? Yes. Have you been in contact with them? The only contact was he told me he applied for the permits, and then the previous contact was to inform him that the hearing was canceled, and it was rescheduled for today. So there's two resubmits they have to do. I'm just worried whether 30 days is enough time for that. It's possible we can get them 60 days, since it's enclosed windows, so I'm not sure how the process works pertaining to that with permits. Neither am I. Me neither. But, I don't know, I guess I'm in a generous mood today. And, 26-0-0-0-4-8-8, I make the following findings of fact-in-law if I notice it's sufficient to find the property in violation of 2.4.13b, specifically the enclosure of windows without permits, responded as 60 days to ring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $150 per day, may I assure you. Thank you. Case number 6, code 26-0-0-0-4-9-7. The property owner is 910 Southwest 15th, LLC. Derek Lewis is the registered agent. The property address is 910 Southwest 15th Avenue. And, the code officer on the case is Reggie Williams. Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. I'm here regarding property 910 Southwest 15th Avenue. Case, code 26-0-0-0-4-9-7. This property received a warning notice on November 26, 2025 for screening of refused areas. The property was given five days to comply with the violation. An inspection was conducted on December 3, 2025, and the property was still not in compliance. A notice of violation was issued on January 7, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail and posted to City Hall on January 12, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on January 13, 2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing and first affidavit of compliance and noncompliance is attached in the case. I have been in contact with the owner of the property. This property was cited for a dumpster not being enclosed on three sides and vision obscuring gates on the fourth side. As of March 5, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached eight photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. So the property owner was informed to contact the City of Dairy Beach Development Services Department on the steps required to have the dumpster enclosed. From what I was told, the steps required were a pre-application meeting, a level one site plan, and then they could process with the permit. Application date for a permit was February 2, 2026. As of now, the status is in review. It requires a resubmit for administrative, requires a resubmit for landscape, requires a resubmit for utilities. Exhibit 1, taken November 26, 2025, was a courtesy notice issued to the property pertaining to the violation. Exhibit 2, November 26, 2025, is a photo of the dumpster that's not enclosed. Exhibit 3, taken December 3, 2025, is a picture of the dumpster not enclosed. Exhibit 4, taken January 13, 2026, is a posting of a notice of violation. Exhibit 5, is an affidavit of posting and mailing. Exhibit 6, was taken February 9, 2026, and is a photo of the dumpster not enclosed. Exhibit 7, is a first affidavit of compliance non-compliance. Exhibit 8, was taken March 2, 2026, ran a special priority hearing, and shows the dumpster still not enclosed. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Derek Lewis. And Mr. Lewis, who do you have with you here? This is Courtney. She does the permitting. Mr. Lewis, do you have any objections to the photographs or documents the city would like to put in evidence? Well, I guess I'm just confused, because if you see in Exhibit 2, we have a cutout in our building where the dumpster goes, behind that van. And so, waste management, they started picking us up at like 7 or 8 o'clock at night. Let me just stop you real quick right there. So, the question I was asking is whether you objected to these coming to evidence. You can certainly argue about what they mean, and you can certainly make your case. I just want to know if you object to these documents. Well, I mean, the picture is clear. The dumpster is outside the fence. I'm not objecting to that. I didn't think you would. Okay. But I have to ask. Yeah. All right. So, without objection, I'm going to accept these documents into evidence. Is there anything further from the city, or can I go to the respondent? No, we just want to make sure that there are two separate violations. The other violation, which is practices garbage and trash, that one is not going to be used, because since the tracking doesn't have wills, so I can't violate them for the time. So, with that proceeding, I just didn't want you to be confused. Okay, so we're just on 4.6.6 C1, which is the screening of refused areas. Yes. Thank you. All right, Mr. Lewis, we're down to your dumpster. Yeah, so Waste Manager, they started picking us up at 7 or 8 o'clock at night, so I guess we're confused. We moved that out there like five years ago, because they wouldn't pick it up on time. So then when we would call them, they'd say, oh, your gate was closed. We kept getting broken into, so we put that gate up and closed it. They kept coming at night, so then they would charge us extra, so we moved it outside like five years ago, and it's been fine. So I guess my question is, I know the city has a contract with them. Is there any way that we could get – we're open from 5 to 5, 12 hours. Is there any way that they could come during that time, and we'll put it back where it originally was? Is there a solution that you would have to get with our Development Services and Waste Management Department here? Yeah, I mean, you know, contrary to – it might seem that I exercise a lot of authority up here, but I really don't. I have a very limited role. My role is to listen to the facts and compare it with the code and see whether or not the facts constitute a violation of the code. If they do, I give you a certain amount of time to correct. Well, we got a permit. We got a fence company, Bulldog. We paid them money, but then they want a special survey. It's like another $5,000, so it's like $10,000 to build what you guys want. So it just seems excessive if Waste Management would just come in a 12-hour period like a normal – I mean, I just – I think it seems kind of excessive to pay $10,000 to build something. I mean, Mr. Lewis, the thing that I can do is I can give you time to come to a resolution, but I certainly can't order the city to accept the resolution that you want. Maybe they'll do it. Maybe they won't. But what I can't do is let you do that because that's clearly a violation of the code. Well, now we know. I just – we didn't know. Like I said, it's been like that for five years, and I can tell Mr. Williams is busy, but we called and emailed a lot of times. It's just hard to get an answer from the city. So it seems like it's been three months, but it's like a lot of that was just inactivity. We couldn't get an answer. We weren't exactly sure what the resolution – what you all wanted. What was the city asking for here? Or they want us to build like a slab and put three walls around that. So I informed the property owner to contact the city of Derby's Development Services Department because there were steps required before they can actually apply for a permit. So, Mr. Williams, I think he's asking – correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Wagner – how much time and what is the fine? Because, you know, compliance would be, however, this is not there. Compliance could be a lot of things, including simply just moving this behind the fence, I'm guessing, to where it was before. But with that said, I need to know what the city is asking me. It was 30 days to come into compliance or $100 data fine until compliance is achieved. I'm going to guess, Mr. Lewis, that you're going to want more time than that. Well, yeah, so where are we with the permit? So we applied for the permit with a fence company, but I know we have to do the site plan amendment. So that's kind of where we ran into like an issue because we have to do the $4,500 survey. We have to do an engineering report thing in order to do – like once we do the meeting with – the meeting you're talking about, like the meeting with them. Yes. So there's a checklist. So we also have to get engineering. So that adds to the $4,500 plus the $2,800. So like he was saying, it ends up being like almost $10,000 ultimately at the end to be able to get the slab with the fencing around it to bring it up to code in order to be able to have waste management pick it up at the time they come. So that's kind of where we're trying to find like – When they bought the building, they came every Wednesday at 8 a.m. It was fine. It was behind the fence. So do I talk to my realtor about that or who do I talk to you? I can't give you advice on that. But you can ask me for time. All right. So I guess we just ask for an extension. I would assume with all that she explained, it's going to be at least six months. Right. It's going to take this time. It doesn't seem like a 30-day situation. It's not a 30-day situation because we have to go have that pre-meeting. And the site plan amendments do take a long time. It's not 30 days. And we don't want to overthink this. No. I mean, if you're so inclined to give them 60 days to find a resolution, I just don't know about six months. Because as you can see, if you go through the photos, it's – some days it's – I mean, the real – another big issue we're having is all the trash that's getting – Well, and sometimes people just put trash there, though. Right. Because it looks like a – Because they've got a – because you've got a giant trash bin out there. Yeah. That's why people think it's a trash spot. So there's a lot of nuisance going on as well, which is, you know – I'll split the difference. I'll give you 90 days, but one way or another, you're either going to have to move it or get it permitted because it can't stay like that. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Case 26-0-0-0-4-9-7. I make the following findings of fact in life. I notice this efficient. I find the property in violation of 4.6.6 C1, which is a non-screen dumpster. The respondent has 90 days to come into compliance for a fine of up to $100 per day, Mish. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 7, code 26-0-0-0-5-5-9. The property owner is Peter M. Nelson. The property address is 332 Southwest 8th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Reggie Williams. So, before I start, for this case, for the erosion sediment control methods and erosion control methods, he came into compliance. He put up the silt fence. So, we're only here for construction and demolition sites and collection of construction and demolition debris. Which code numbers? So, the compliance is 4.6.17, subsection D1, subsection D2, and subsection D3. Those three are in compliance. So, we're just at 5145A? Yes. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. I'm here regarding property 332 Southwest 8th Avenue. Case code 26-0-0-0-5-5-9. The property was issued a notice of violation on February 4th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail and posted to City Hall on February 13th, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on February 12th, 2026. An affidavit of posted and mailing and first affidavit of compliance and noncompliance is attached in the case. I have been in contact with the property owner. The property was cited for property owner did not remove loose debris, building material waste, scrap building material, and other trash produced by those working on site. As of March 5th, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached 12 photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city has asked for an additional 15 days for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for a $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Exhibit 1, taken January 28th, 2026, shows the construction debris that's on the site. Exhibit 2, taken January 28th, 2026, shows large concrete blocks and the pallets and other debris on the property. Exhibit 3, taken January 28th, 2026, shows debris on the property. Exhibit 4, taken February 12th, 2026, is a notice of violation posted to the property. Exhibit 5, is an affidavit of posting and mailing. Exhibit 6, taken February 23rd, 2026, shows debris on the property that remains. Exhibit 7, taken February 23rd, 2026, shows debris on the property that still remains. Exhibit 8, taken February 23rd, 2026, shows debris on the property. Exhibit 9, is an affidavit of compliance and noncompliance. Exhibit 10, taken March 4th, 2026, is re-inspection prior to hearing, shows debris still on the property. Exhibit 11, taken March 4th, 2026, shows the debris that remains on the property. And Exhibit 12, taken March 4th, 2026, shows the debris still that remains on the property. At this time, the city would like to introduce the 12 photographs into evidence. Come back, Mr. Nelson. Thank you. Do you have any objections to these photographs or documents? None whatsoever. Without objection, so admitted. Anything further from the city? No. Mr. Nelson. We just finished the tie beam and those cutoffs and lumber, you know, it's part of a construction site. I can clean lumber up. Some of the concrete I'm going to keep for some decorative stuff around the property. I don't believe that's debris. I can get rid of all the lumber. Yeah, so the code section says it is unlawful for any construction or demolition contractor to fail to provide on-site receptacles. So basically, if I understand the code correctly, it's basically saying you can't leave it out there. Okay. Well, I provided a trash can. This is number three. They stole number one and number two. So we found the stinkiest trash can we could find, so hopefully that they wouldn't steal that trash can. So what you're telling me is people are stealing your containers? Yeah. And here's another trash can, number three. I'd like to present this as evidence. Can you show it to the city attorney? Yeah, I see this, please. Okay. In addition to that, do you want to present that? No, no, no. It can. You have any objection? No, no objection. Okay. I'll accept into evidence the photograph of your trash can. I'm not an expert on construction sites, but I don't think that trash can is going to be big enough. Yeah. If you do the concrete, it's all recycled if you're going to do that. So then that is a special container that comes in, it's recycled, and because the site has a very limited amount of land, the container can only stay for a day, load it up, and then has to leave again. We don't have room on the site, per se, for a container. So we... They don't really have an exception here. It basically says you have to containerize your debris. Yeah, and just to add, it's by the end of each day, and this has been going on, and I mean... Okay, so we can get rid of the wood. I mean, if the city's asking for 15 days, I think that's reasonable to clean up your site. I'm traveling, sir. I'm asking for 45. I have to travel this week. This is a site... I mean, the silt fencing isn't... We get one rainy day in March, and this could be definitely a problem. The silt fence is in compliance, ma'am. No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that I don't know how much that would hold up with the amount of dirt and the debris, especially. That's a lot of debris. In addition to the silt fence, not on my property is a storm drain, okay, that I have covered up to prevent silt from getting into the storm drain. And then the city comes by and takes off my cover. I'd like to present that to you as... Are you sure you want to present that? Because I'm pretty sure the city isn't going to be too happy with you covering a storm drain. We're covering it up so silt doesn't go into it. But what if it floods the street? This is required on building plans. Is that on your land? It's not on my land, but it's required on my building plans. Are you sure you want to submit that into evidence? I don't think it's relevant to this code. Okay. Listen, we'll take that off. You know, let it flow. Let it flow. Mr. Nelson, I'll give you a little more time than the city asks. I'll give you 25 days, but you've got to clean up your property. Case 26-000-559. Find the property in violation of 5145A, which is containerizing the debris. Respondent has 25 days to bring into compliance or a fine of up to $150 per day may issue. Thank you. Case number 8, IR, code 26-000-578, Rosebud George East 1, LLC. The registered agent is CM Rack, Inc. The property address is 404 East Atlantic Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Connor Lee. Whenever you're ready, Officer Lee. Good afternoon, Connor Lee, Clean and Safe Officer for the City of Delray Beach. This property, 404 East Atlantic Avenue, received a warning notice on February 15, 2026 for business solicitation to the general public. The property was given three days to comply with the violations, and an inspection was conducted on February 18, 2026. And the property was still noncompliance. Exhibit 2 and 3 are photos taken from that re-inspection with employees seen talking to people in the general public. This is one of the employees here. And then this woman right here in the sweater is also one of the employees. I believe you guys can attest to that. And a notice of violation was issued on February or created on February 18, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on February 27, 2026. And in addition, both the property and City Hall were posted on February 23, 2026, with the notice of violation being hand-delivered to the business owner and also the property manager. And an affidavit of posting is attached to the case that you can see right here, signed on the 18th of February. And I have been in contact with the owner of the business and the property manager. This is the posting affidavit right here. And the property was cited under an irreparable and irreversible notice of violation under City Code Section 4.6.6, Subsection A, Subsections 1 through 3, commercial and industrial uses within a building. The code states all commercial and industrial uses shall be conducted within a completely enclosed building rather than outside, regardless of the zoning district. The employees were observed persistently and repeatedly approaching individuals passing by to secure business and promote the establishment services. These activities were conducted within the public right-of-way and outside the approved indoor premises of the business. The conduct, as outlined above, constitutes an irreversible and irreparable violation. I have attached seven case documents that I would like to introduce into evidence. And the city is asking for a one-time fine of $2,500 for the irreversible business conduct, as well as the fining of fact for the violation. That is all. Can we go through the exhibits? So this is the original warning notice dated on February 15, 2026. And then I conducted a re-inspection on February 18, 2026. Here is one employee talking to someone on the right-of-way outside the business. And then here is another one taken a couple minutes later, different employee who I observed addressing the woman walking on the right-of-way. So just for clarification, this particular code is pretty much saying that 4.6.6 A1 through 3 is that all activities of the business are to be completed inside, correct? Yes. And there's a list of things within the code that they could possibly do with the proper approval, correct? Yes. And in this particular case, none of that was approved, correct? No, no part of it. In the solicitation that you witnessed, could you please just a little bit elaborate on how they were interacting with customers and whether they were bringing customers inside of the business as well, trying to get them products? I just want to make sure we're clear on the conduct. Yes. So the workers would stand right outside of the doorway and then address people walking on the sidewalk, whether that they're heading east or west, asking them, hey, would you like to try a sample? They actually have sample baskets right at the door entrance. And so they can go after they approach the people. And if they say yes, they would go get the product and give them a sample, creating a conversation, and then potentially getting them to come into the business to solicit and explain more of the services that the establishment offers attempting to get a sale. And would there be times when a person would say, no, I don't want anything, and they would continue to solicit their business or try to attempt to give them products? I have seen multiple instances where they would say no and then go through. And then we've also – I've had people come up to me while patrolling, asking me about the med spas and asking if there's anything that I could do. Also, my partner James has ran into the same situation. So you've received complaints? Yes. Okay. As well as observe the conduct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Brother? No, I just wanted to clarify. Can you tell me your names, please? Hi, my name is Tal Shabbat. Niv Conforti. One more time, both of you, a little slower. Niv Conforti. Can you spell your last name, sir? K-O-N-F-O-R-T-Y. If we can get the address and the – I guess their authorization or position with the owner. Mr. Conforti, what is your position with the property owner? Owner of the store. You're the owner of the store? Yeah. Like on a lease. We're on a lease. Oh, so tenants. Business owner. Yeah, yeah. We're the tenant. Tenants. Sorry. If you need anything, this is the landlord. Oh, so the landlord is here as well. Yeah. Can the landlord come up and give their name? I am Abiraj Ben and I'm the property manager. Ma'am, your name? Mine? Yes. Tal Shabbat. Can you spell your last name, please? S-A-J-B-A-T. What's the name of this business? Ours or – Your business. Oh, it's called NT Partner Group and it's under the DBA, it's Jardin de Lumiere. And what do you do? We are retail, facial store, and we are selling cosmetics. Do you have any objections to the photographs or pictures that the city would like to submit into evidence? I do not, but I received what he said on the 15th of the month. I wasn't there. It was a holiday. And I called one, two, three, four times until the 23rd, which is a few days after that happens. Okay, hold on. I promise I'll let you tell me anything you want to know. But I just – for the record, I'm going to accept in evidence the exhibits – what was it, one through seven? Yes. Does the city have anything further or should I – No, that's all right. I have an objection towards the pictures, like in the first picture, that one, you know, we're working with people. We live in the community. Sometimes we know the people, okay? I was there when she talked to her and I told her, why are you going inside? She told me she knows her, okay? And they're just talking, so they just – you don't see she's handing her a sample or anything. So that's not fair, taking a picture like that and then just say, you know, that we're soliciting people. In the other picture – Are you testifying under oath that your company was not soliciting people? We give samples. We do. But we didn't know that this was an issue until he came. We do it since October, since we got the business license, and we never got anything before that. And I didn't know what is that. I was trying to call – I talked to you, Connor. I was trying to call him a few times. These photos take – during this time that – you can see the number. And they didn't answer, so I would know, like, what's going on. And we talked only on the 23rd, which is – since the day we talked, nobody left the store. They talk to people only from the inside. I understand. That's why those are the only two photos I have. This is not a great thing. She's seen breathing outside, you know. It's not – she's not handing any sample. She's just out there, and you're just taking a picture. While I was conducting my re-inspection, I couldn't have known that she knew her. From my observations, it looked like solicitation. So just – I just want to kind of get to the heart of the issues here. If they're not – if they're done. If not. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, this is an irreparable, irreversible type violation. You know, the code doesn't say that it has to be a certain level of aggressiveness, or it's just whether or not the business was being conducted outside of the business. And even if we were to give them the benefit of the doubt for Exhibit 2, there were other times that Mr. Connor testified to that he received different complaints and also witnessed other behavior and saw the passing of the samples. So we're just – we're saying that it happened. You can't take it back. It's like passing a stop sign, running a stop sign. If I could. Your partner, right? A parent. Did you observe? If you can come to the microphone, please. And then may I just say, we have come to the business and talked to you guys verbally multiple times about that. So only one time. And then – no, never. That's all I have. We have talked to you briefly. Yeah. Tell me what you saw. Good afternoon, James Easley, Code Enforcement Officer, Clean and Safe Division. Witnessed on multiple occasions exactly what has been stated by Code Officer Connor Lee. And so this activity has been going on for months. We have photos and testimonies and complaints from citizens in the city of Delray Beach about the conduct of this establishment. Thank you. Thank you. Officer Easley. So, Officer Connor, walk the timeline for me. So when was the first time that you notified them that this was an issue? Well, verbally, it's been – But you didn't talk to me. You talked to my employees. Nobody told me anything. If we could just – Okay. Hold on. I'll let you talk. I just need him to answer my questions first, and then I'll let you speak again. So when did you first alert them to this, that this was an issue? I could say a few months ago, and I have been back a couple times. But the first written notice was the door hanger left at the property February 18, 2026. That's the 15th. And after the 18th, you observed the behavior was still continuing? On the 18th, I did observe it. And then on daily patrol, I have noticed that you guys have been at the doorway. So for clarification, 15th, the official notice warning was provided to them to give them an opportunity to try to stop. And then you went back a couple days on the 18th. So we're asserting that on the 18th is when this occurred, and this is where the photograph – this is Exhibit 3. As I said, he told my employees, he gave it to them, and they told them that I'm going to call him, and I did. I can show you. And he talked to me only on the 23rd. So those two – Well, I didn't know what's happening. Okay. Let me talk about the – I think it's – to be frank with you, from my perspective here, I think it's pretty clear that your employees were engaging in solicitation out there. I think that's true. But let me talk about the request here. You're asking for $2,500. Tell me why. Because of the persistent nature of the violation. And it's – we've spoken with this business multiple times over the past couple months. It's been consistently going on. We've had people come up to us, complain. I mean, even I've talked with city workers who go on walks, and they mentioned the spa meds who offer them and solicit them products, and little sample products, but still. And it's just so – to basically kind of put a stop to it because we're not sure that if – or I'm personally not sure if a citation were to be given that it wouldn't deter the activity. And so that is one of the reasons why we're going for this as well, just as a deterrence. All right. I'll give you guys the last word. So we're here to listen, and we're a new business here in the community. And the amount of $2,500 is going to damage us. It's going to do a big damage. For us, he keeps on mentioning that some people are giving him complaints about our business. I do want to mention some incidents. We are a Jewish business. We have mezuzah at the front door. And on a weekly basis, we're getting free Palestine and racism towards us. Who says the person that's coming for him is not like, want to damage my business? So I would love it if you can consider to reduce the amount. We learned from the experience. We're not going to do it anymore. As you saw, we do it from the inside. Thank you. And may I just state I didn't know about those problems you guys were having until we spoke. So just a heads up. I mean, if you have issues like that, I mean, it's beyond the scope of my authority. But if you have issues like those, you should definitely alert the city and let the police know. We are. I'm sure there's no tolerance for such behavior in Delaware. Just so you know. All right, I'm going to make the following findings in 2600578 that a violation of 4.6.6 A1 to 3 has occurred. And I make a finding to support the city's ask here that that is irreparable in nature. I'm going to issue a one-time fine in the amount of $1,500. But I will tell you this, if this comes back, they can max fine at $15,000. But whatever they ask me, they're going to get it because you're on warning now not to do this anymore, okay? Thank you. Case number 9. IR. Code 26. 000579. The property owner is 411 Realty Investment, LLC. The registered agent is Jason M. Lazar. And the property address is 411 East Atlantic Avenue, Suite E. The code officer on the case is Connor Lee. Oh, if we could, can you go see, I'm so sorry, can we recall that last case? I think they're still outside. Did I not? They are. We just wanted, I don't want to address it without ex parte. I just wanted to see if they can come in. If we could recall case IR, if you can go, sorry, sir. Sir, can you just have a seat real quick? We'll get to you in a second, I promise. Come on back. I think there's a time to pay a fine. Sorry. There's no time. I think staff was asking about a time to pay a fine, but I just think it's a fine. It's just a fine. Right, that they just pay, and if they don't pay it, there's no time frame to pay a fine. It's just a one-time fine that gets assessed against the property. Yeah, I mean, I'm not sure it's just a one-time fine. Jerry Pryor, I'm the Director of Neighborhood and Community Services. I oversee the Code Enforcement Division. What I'm requesting is a time frame to pay that fine. We know that there's a fine that's been assessed, but we'd like a time limit on when that fine gets paid. I mean, I can put one on there, but I don't know what the consequence of doing something. Right, there would be no consequence. Yeah, I mean, the fine is assessed. I mean, how long do you need? 30 days. 30 days. Thank you. All right, we need to recall the next last one. Case number 9, code, case number 9, IR, code 26-000-579. The property is 411, Realty Investment, LLC. The registered agent is Jason M. Lazar. The property address is 411, East Atlantic Avenue, Suite E. And the code officer on the case is Connor Lee. Good afternoon. Clean and Safe Officer Connor Lee for the City of Delray Beach. This property, 411, East Atlantic Avenue, Suite E, received a warning notice on February 15, 2026 for business solicitation to the general public. The property was given three days to comply with the violations. An inspection was conducted on February 18, 2026, and the property was still not in compliance. A notice of violation was issued on February 18, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on February 27, 2026. And in addition, both the property and City Hall were posted on February 23, 2026, with the notice of violation being hand-delivered to the business owner. An affidavit of posting is attached to the file. I have been in contact with the business owner, and I made a posting with the registered agent, but they did not contact me back. The property was cited under an irreversible and irreparable notice of violation under the City Code Section 4.6.6, subsection A, subsections 1 through 3, commercial and industrial uses within a building. The code states, all commercial and industrial uses shall be conducted within a completely enclosed building, rather than outside, regardless of zoning district. The employees were observed persistently and repeatedly approaching individuals passing by to secure business and to promote the establishment services. These activities were conducted within the public right-of-way and outside the approved indoor premises of the building. The conduct, as outlined above, constitutes an irreversible and irreparable violation. I have attached eight case documents that I would like to introduce into evidence, and the City is asking for a one-time fine of $2,500 for the irreparable and irreversible business conduct to be paid within 30 days. And so right here is Exhibit 1, where the initial warning notice has been scanned, and it's dated February 15, 2026. And then this is the photo taken for the re-inspection of that door hanger. As you can see, there is one of the employees actually actively asking someone if they would like any samples right outside of the spa door. And then Exhibit 3 is a copy of the notice of violation posted to the property. Exhibit 5 is the first affidavit of noncompliance, dated for the 18th of February, 2026. And then this is the affidavit of posting, dated on the 23rd of February, 2026. Here, this photo was taken while I was just conducting my daily patrol. I noticed a little further down at the start of the block that there were some employees standing outside and speaking with people outside of the business within the right-of-way on February 24, 2026. And this was taken, again, on another daily patrol. I noticed an employee actively or standing outside, and as they got closer, they were actively speaking with the woman who were walking up, asking them if they would like samples, or what I assumed to be asking them, offering samples. And this is February 25, 2026 at 5.12 p.m. And also in this picture here at Exhibit, I just wanted to be clear, the gentleman you're referring to, that's the employees on the right in the black t-shirt, correct? Yes. And you see his arm reaching out to hand something, what it looks like he's handing something, correct? Yes. And then to the right of the gentleman, it appears to be some type of podium, white item with items on top, correct? Yes, the sample stand. So when you were there, you observed samples, what looked like samples based on your observations, and you patrol that area, correct? Yes. Okay, thank you. What day did you do the initial posting notice of violation? On the 20th, the notice of violation was the 23rd. And this is two days later? Yes, sir. Thank you. Is there anything further? No, that's all I have. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Maor Pilo. I'm sorry, one more time? Maor, M-A-O-R, last name is Pilo, P-I-L-O. What is your position with the... Business owner? My landlord is not here. Is your landlord aware that you're here on their behalf? Yes. Do you have any objections to the photographs or documents? No, sir. Is that objection so admitted? Tell me what's going on. So I've been on Atlantic Avenue since July of 2021. We haven't had any issues. That's been about five years. We take the city rules very seriously. Just about, I would say, same time of the year, last year, was when a code officer first spoke to me about the issue. I believe she's not working. You know this code officer, right? Yes. No, no. That was Delinda. Yeah. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. And we got to some sort of an agreement where my representatives are allowed to offer some samples in a certain way. I was here several times. I had a conversation with a commissioner. And we got to basically set an agreement where my employees, as you can see, this guy, for example, unexamuted eight. So right where you see the stand with the samples. No, that's fine. Thank you so much. There's a few rocks. Each are basically a part of my zoning. They told me that they're not allowed to pass this line. Maybe on picture number two, you can see it better. No. No. Yeah. But you know what type of rocks, right? So it's a part of my zoning. And that's why they allowed me to also put the stand outside. And as you can see, my employee is not crossing that type of line. Another thing that we have agreed on is if a person says no, my employees are not allowed to basically have a second question. Each, the officer over here, he's been contacting me all the time. You know, I'm not objecting that. I'm sure that you would agree with me that I do everything in my best just to train my people and not to be aggressive. The issue came up when the previous people that were here, case number seven, opened about three months ago. And I understand that once you have two stores, you know, they open the competition. So once there's two stores that are doing the same thing on the street, you're just being more aggressively for the clients. I'm constantly training my employees, trying to follow the rules that we agreed on last year. And I just here to get a better clarification of how I can fix it and be, you know, to make it better. I have a couple of questions. Yeah. Who did you say you made an agreement with for this? Officer Delinda. And were you provided with any approvals from the city's development services department? No, but since then nobody have approached me about the issue again since February 18th. So I assumed everything was fine. Okay. I don't have anything further. What is your, I mean, recommendation here? I think you said $2,500. Yes. Within $30. And a finding fact. In the city's position that this is not some type of formal approval as there are certain things that can possibly be approved within that code section to be allowed outside. And we do not have that here. I just want to confirm with Mr. Lee. Did you have the opportunity to review the city's records regarding this particular property? Yes, I have been. And based on your review of city records, was there any authorization or approval provided from the development services department regarding the outside business practices outside of the threshold of the business? I couldn't find anything in writing or nothing. Thank you. I have to say, I'm a bit troubled by the estoppel argument here. By the what? Estoppel, meaning that the city authorized it through its city representative. Therefore, this isn't a violation. Well, I think you've walked with the previous officer for a little while, and you agree with me that we had this sort of little agreement where there is a certain line that my employees are not allowed to pass, and they're not allowed to do a second question. No? You can answer honestly. Are you aware? I mean, he has to do a question. I hope you always answer honestly. Well, I am aware of a meeting that happened between you and the officer, and Officer Delinda, and I – No, you were in there, yeah. Yeah. So let me ask you this. You said that you're aware. Since that time, and obviously, this is kind of an administrative approval that would have been ideally from the Code Enforcement Department. After that, did you have any follow-up conversations with the property owner to let them know that this was – Yes, he did. Okay. So you were told after that that whatever agreement – Just right now, yeah. Well, not right now, but before, even with the warning, because I believe there was a warning before a formal violation, correct? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So walk me through this. So when you spoke with the respondent about concerns about doing business on the public right-of-way out here, what did you explain? Did you explain what they were allowed to do or not allowed to do? Yeah. Well, I explained to them that they were supposed to be operating within the business, don't leave, right outside from the front, the entrance. And they weren't allowed to solicit anymore. Or we've been getting complaints. And then – Did you submit the formal warning, I believe? Oh, yeah. Well, the warning and – here, if – okay. If I'm being – Well, let's – okay. So let me clarify what I'm trying to establish here. I'm so sorry before my thought – before I lose this thought. I'm not sure if we entered the exhibits. We didn't. Okay. So if you can go back to exhibit one. Okay. Was that the warning? And then Mr. – sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you. No, you're fine. And – okay. If I'm completely transparent, I have actually reached out to Maher. It was on January 25th. I texted him. I said, hey, I literally just watched your guy go up to someone on the sidewalk. Mm-hmm. Um, I have to head to the beach and please take action. I don't want to see it on my way back. And then he responded with, I just called my manager. You won't see it again. And, um – When was that? That was on January 25th. This public record is in my city phone. Um, just to say, like, I have spoken with him before the 18th. Like, we have – we have spoken with him. Right. Before you even issued this warning, correct? Yes. Yes. So, I'm not sure if this estoppel argument, um, if that city employee had the type of authority. But even with that being said, even if she did – So, this – this was done on the 15th. On the 15th, yes. And then you observed behavior occurring after this notice was – Correct. Yes. Which was the 18th, which is the date of the formal – the notice of violation. In addition to it, even after the notice of violation, which presumably could be a separate violation, but we're just – he's just saying that it's still going on, correct? It's still – it was still – So, Kyle, what I'm exploring with the city here is I'm trying to understand your argument that you were given instructions that allowed you to do such things, but – With limited – Yeah, within – but my understanding is – and the city can correct me if I'm misrepresenting what they just testified to – but my understanding from the city is subsequent to that you were given further instruction that this could not continue outside in the right-of-way. From my understanding with the clarification that I've had is that I was not allowed to pass the line of my zoning. Because it's a part of my business. And this is the reason they're allowing me to put the sample stands out there. Because otherwise I would get a violation for that too. So, if – if – if I'm here to get a clarification, if they need to be completely inside the business, that's fine. That's what will happen. But the reason that that kept going is because they stayed in the line that I've agreed with the previous officer on. So, once you got the contact from – from code officer Connor. Yes. You still thought that you could do that? Yes. In – in – inside my property – inside my property. It's – what I understood from the city is there is a certain line just outside of my door that is a part of my property. So, yes. So, if you could see the pink flowers, well, maybe I can find a better picture on my phone if that's fine and I could show you guys the property. That was my understanding from basically the – not this code officer but the previous one that was a part of my property and I was allowed to do that. If my people need to just get inside and I understand, I'm just here to get a clarification of what am I allowed and why am I not. Officer Lee. Yes. Did you have a conversation about there being a line at any point where they can walk up to? I – like I said, I wasn't there for that. He informed me of that agreement but I wasn't there to attest with it. When did he inform you of that agreement? It was during the dead months. I believe that the agreement was only possibly have it out there while your business – like you were trying to get businessers. I can't even – I can't even speak on it. I wasn't there for that conversation. I honestly do not know what to do with this. But to clarify, even though he told you that, you still advised him that he could not do anything on the outside of the business, correct? Yes. Just so that I'm clear, when did you advise him nothing outside the business? That was – well, officially on the 23rd. I had talked to him about the – Can we go back to that exhibit? Aggressive solicitation. Yeah. Which one? Right here? One. Can you read what you wrote there? Well, yes. It says, please stop all solicitation from the employees at your business onto the general public. Aggressive solicitation is not permitted. And so you could actually say on the 15th, I asked to stop all solicitation to the general public. Mr. Pilot, when you read that, you thought that you could still do it, just stay closer to your building? No. I was thinking that – first of all, I wasn't in the country from the 13th through the 22nd. And I was trying to contact my employees. My manager also was out of the country, which I could show proofs of. And I've asked them to stay inside the building. Anything that happened after this is completely – I take responsibility for. I was trying from outside of the country, basically, explaining my employees to stay inside of the business. Obviously, when nobody's there, so it's hard to keep an eye on. All right. This is what I think. All right. Case 2600579, I'm going to make the following findings of Fact and Law. If I notice it's sufficient, I find the property in violation of 4.6.6A123, solicitation that is occurring outside the building. So you're actually doing business outside the building, which is a violation of that particular code. I accept as truthful your assertion that you were given some direction, that it was okay, at least for a while. So I'm not going to penalize you for that. However, as I understand and I read this, I think it's pretty clear that the direction was pretty clear that you should not continue this, and it did continue. So I'm going to assess a one-time fine in the amount of $1,500 payable within 30 days. I'm going to ask, since you want a direction, what the code says is you cannot solicit outside your building. All right? That's my rule. Thank you. Is it possible to finance the fine? You're going to have to talk to the city about that. I just make rulings. Can I get more time? I could give you more time. How much time do you need? 60 days. Thank you. 60 days. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 10. So it's a noncompliance case. The case number is 2022-006-336. Property owner is Betty Ford. The property address is 513 Southwest 3rd Street, and the code officer for the case is Reggie Williams. Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, code enforcement officer for the city of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding property 513 Southwest 3rd Street, case 2022-006-336. This case was originally found to be a building and property maintenance violation on June 17, 2022 for roof repair and maintenance. On January 25, 2024, the ruling was to apply and obtain permits within 30 days or a daily fine of $50 per day. On February 26, 2024, a board order inspection was conducted, and it was observed that the violation still existed. On February 2, 2026, I posted a noncompliance hearing notice at the property. On January 30, 2026, a noncompliance hearing notice was mailed first class, certified mailed, and posted to City Hall. As of today, March 5, 2026, the fine remains outstanding. I have nine new photos to introduce as evidence and seven previously showed photos from the initial hearing. City suggests lien the property in the amount of $27,900 and continued daily fine of $50 per day. So this photo was taken June 2, 2022, and it's showing the structure on the property. The photo was taken June 2, 2022, and it's showing the soffit on the building that needs repair. This was taken June 2, 2022, and it's showing damage to the bottom of the structure. These are just some old follow-ups, some old, you can scroll through them. Yeah, you can just, just to kind of give you a refresher. These are already in evidence, right? Correct. Exhibit 1, taken January 26, 2026, and it's a picture of the front of the property, which shows that the roof maintenance was completed. Exhibit 2 was taken January 26, 2026, and it shows that the soffit was repaired. Exhibit 3, taken January 26, 2026, and it shows the side of the house on the right side where the soffit was repaired. Exhibit 4, it's an affidavit of compliance, non-compliance. Exhibit 5, it's taken February 2, 2026, and it's a notice of violation posted to the property. Exhibit 6, it's an affidavit of posted and mailing. Exhibit 7 was taken March 2, 2026, and it's showing the roof was still repaired. Exhibit 8 was taken March 2, 2026, and it's shown that the soffit was repaired. Exhibit 9 was taken March 2, 2026, and it's just showing the right side of the property where the soffit was repaired. But it did not have approved permits. So, they applied for the permits, they were issued, but they did not complete the certification of occupancy. And the permit was expired, so... Did the inspection occur? Not for the, uh, the CO. Do you have an order? It was not a cert. The order. What does the order say? I just want to be clear, because I think, I don't know if that's where you're going, Mr. Wagner. You anticipate me correctly most of the time. From... Wait, wait, I think he's trying to read. The order. Should be the last page in the section. There we go. Looks like they're going to have to issue the, uh, yeah, I think it's still in violation until the, uh, until the permit is closed. Is that what the order says? It doesn't, but it says completion of the violation of the code section, so it wouldn't have hurt to write this in greater specificity, I suppose. But either way, the, the, the, it expired, right? Without being completed. Correct. The permit expired, so it does not have a valid permit. Can I, um, say something in here? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, um, I did get permits in between time. I don't know why it's not record. No, no, we, we have knowledge of your permits. The question that the officer, what the officer testified to was that the inspection for the certificate of use was never conducted, so the permits expired. No, I got, uh, three different permits. And I, I got two extensions, and the last one I got was, um, I didn't bring them with me. I didn't think I needed to. But I was told that the cleanup or repairs were made, except for paint. And, um, I was, the property wasn't, you know, it was still material from the work in front and store it. They said I have to remove all the stuff, which I did. Are you saying you got a certificate of use? Because the officer is saying you did not. Did I have a what? A CU. So you have a occupancy. Occupancy, sorry. CU. It was never non-occupants. What happened was my parent got sick. And, uh, one died, and one is still sick. And we're saying, by the way, it was never, couldn't be occupied. So I don't know where that even came from. Oh, okay. So let me, let me clarify this. Um, whenever you have open permits, to close, to finally close out the permit, you need to do final inspections, final review by the building department. So they'll come out, they'll inspect, and then they'll say a final stamp of approval would be the certificate of occupancy. That's just what they call it. Not that you couldn't live there, but it's closed out, everything was done. Are you saying that you, you had someone from the building department come and do the final inspections and approve the work that was done? I came down to the office and told them what we were doing. We could apply with what they were doing. All we was left to do was clean up. We, we had a permit just for, uh, a couple of, wherever the walls need repair, as you pointed out, and we repaired all the places. We didn't need to rebuild anything. All we needed was to patch the patches, and then, uh, we told them we wanted to paint it. We, uh, fixed the roof and fixed the sidings. That's what we got the permit for. And we patched the places what they were concerned with, and all we were doing was painting, and it kept raining. But you're still going to need the, the building official to sign off and close the permits, which didn't happen. That's why you're still in violation. Well, they, the last we heard was we have to clean up, and we had a lot of material that was in front from old, you know, old wood that was damaged and whatnot, and we removed a lot of the debris, you know, that was in front. Officer Williams, at this point, they'd have to reinstate the permit? Because I, the last, the last permit I got said was in it. I could bring that in if needed. No, I, I don't, I don't think there's a dispute that you got the permit. The problem is that that's only part of the process. I think the city attorney was trying to explain that you get the permit, you do the work, then you call for an inspection. The city, by the way, if I'm misrepresenting this, somebody from the city, please tell me. But my understanding is you get the permit, you do the work, then somebody, you, you let the city know that it's complete. They come out and they do an inspection. And assuming you pass the inspection, they issue a certificate of occupancy, a CO saying that this is complete and it's closed. What the city is saying here is you got the permit, apparently you did at least some of the work, because we can see that in the pictures, but at no point did you invite the city out to let them know it was completed so they could inspect the work and issue the CO. Do you understand what I'm saying? I understand what you're saying, but on the last permit that I got, it said no inspection needed. If I read it right, and that's how I read it, and I could get that and bring it in. I don't think I've ever seen such a thing. Does such a thing exist? No. I don't know any permit that says no inspection needed. I came in here. But I tell you what, if you can show it to me, I'll look at it. Do you have a document that says no inspection needed? You know, I came in recently. That was the last one I did, which was probably February. I mean, yeah, early February or late thing. I came in and bought that last. I'm sorry, sir. I never asked you for your name. Timothy Ford. I'm Betty Ford's son. Mr. Ford, what I'm going to do is I'm going to lean and continue, but I'm going to strongly suggest that you meet with the code officer so they can walk you through what you need to do to bring the property into compliance. Once you do, there is a process where you can go back and ask for a reduction of lean, but at this point, unless you've got something to show me about how you complied, you're not in compliance. Yeah, I'm going to do it. And I was telling him to clean up maintenance was the main thing that the inspector that I talked to was telling me. And, you know, it started raining and all that kind of stuff and got real cold right at that point when I promised him I was going to do it. But as you see, right now, it looks way different than that right now today. I'm glad it does. I'm going to ask you to meet with Mr. Williams. But in the meantime, in 2022-006336, I'm going to lean and continue. But do meet. And again, I do hope you're able to bring in compliance, and then we'll talk about a reduction. Thank you. Case number 11, code 25-000094. The property owner is Malarkey Investment, LLC. The property address is 638 Southwest 7th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Reggie Williams. Start. Go ahead. All right. Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. I'm here regarding property 638 Southwest 7th Avenue. Case, code 25-000094. This case was originally found to be a work without permit violation on July 18, 2025, for installing new fence. On October 9, 2025, the ruling was to obtain an approved permit within 30 days or a daily fine of $50 per day. On November 12, 2025, a board ordering special was conducted, and it was observed that the violation still existed. On February 23, 2026, I posted a noncompliance hearing notice at the property. On February 23, 2026, noncompliance hearing notice was mailed first class, certified mailed, and posted to City Hall. As of today, March 5, 2026, the fine remains outstanding. I have nine new photos to introduce as evidence and three previously showed photos from the initial hearing. City suggests lien the property in an amount of $3,000 and continued daily fine of $50 per day. It was taken July 18, 2025. The back of the property. Yeah, we can just skip through the old photos unless you have something new. Exhibit 1, taken February 12, 2026, is a picture of the fence in the back alleyway behind the property. Exhibit 2, taken February 12, 2026, is a different angle of the fence in the alleyway behind the property. Exhibit 3, taken February 12, 2026, is the front of the property showing the fence still in the location. Exhibit 4 is a first affidavit of compliance, noncompliance. Exhibit 5 is a posting of the notice of violation on February 23, 2026. Exhibit 6 is an affidavit of posting and mailing. Exhibit 7 is a reading special prior to hearing on March 4, 2026, showing the photo in the alleyway in the back of the property. Exhibit 8 was taken March 4, 2026, showing the picture of the fence in the alleyway behind the property. And Exhibit 9 was taken March 4, 2026, and shows the fence in the front of the property. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Carson Malarkey. Mr. Malarkey, are you the principal for Malarkey Investments, LLC? Yes. Mr. Malarkey, do you have any objections to the photographs or documents the city would like to put in evidence? No. Without objection, so admitted. The floor is yours. So, I don't know if you guys saw the difference between the first pictures and the newer pictures. Last time we talked during about the permit process, basically on the east side of the property after the fence was built. I got it surveyed. The fence on the front side of the property was crossing the boundary by, like, one foot because I tied into the neighbor's fence and his was on his side of the property by, like, over a foot. Whenever they built it, they didn't do it right on the property line. So, I pulled the fence back on the front and on the back. I also added the privacy strips that were required for the permit, which was all, like, the feedback that I got why it wasn't accepted, essentially. And then I got it surveyed again recently, and they messed it up, and they essentially just did the survey as one long fence. And so, I have to contact them and have it surveyed again. That's where I'm at right now. I mean, the fence is, like, at this point, everything that was the reason that it wasn't getting permitted has been resolved. I got it surveyed again. I received the survey back earlier this week, and it was wrong. I highlighted how they did not – they didn't capture the gaps in the fence. They just surveyed it as one long fence. So, on the survey, it still looks like I'm crossing the property line. When do you anticipate completing the stuff you need to do to get the permit? One more month. All right, Mr. Malarkey, this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to lean the $3,000. I'm going to stay the fine for 30 days. Hopefully, in that time, you can bring it into compliance. After you're in compliance, you do have some remedies available. You can come and ask for a reduction if you're so inclined to. No guarantees that you'll get one, but I'll give you 30 days where you're not getting an additional fine so that you can see if you can bring this into compliance. With the lien, so if I get it permitted, does the lien stay? The lien's still there. There is a process you can use. You can talk to the officer coming and asking for a reduction of lien, but that's only available once you're in compliance, which you currently are not. Okay. So, really, the only thing I can do here is stay the fine, which I'm going to do. Okay. To give you 30 days to bring it into compliance. You can avail yourself of whatever remedies you want after you're in compliance, but at this point, you're not in compliance. There's really not much I can do. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, the $3,000 lien, no more fines as of now. 30 days. 30 days, and then we'll have another meeting, or how does it work? You're going to have to – I can't give you legal advice, but you can check with the code officer about what the process is you can do once you're in compliance, okay? So, I would say if it does come into compliance, make sure you contact the code enforcement department so you can let them know at least that it's in compliance, and then you can go from there. They'll advise you. So, I'm not getting fined per day for the 30 days, but then in 30 days, what's going to happen? If you're not in compliance in 30 days, then the fine will resume. Okay. Okay. Thank you, guys. All right. Code 25000094. Make the following findings a fact in life. Find notice is sufficient. Find the property continues to be in violation. I hereby halt the fine for 30 days for resolution, and I lien the property $3,000. Thank you. Seeing no further business before us, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. I have your order if you want it. So, stipulation. Yes.